The Irresponsible Generation

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Jd <ZionsFire.DeleteThis@att.net> wrote:
>You are dismayed because despite everything you throw at Ken, he keeps
>coming back in an overwhelming, unstoppable manner.

Change overwhelming to underwhelming and dismayed to entertained, and
you come close.

>Bob, forget that ego stuff and you'll be much happier and far more productive.

You would be an expert on the ego stuff. But I don't go on Usenet to
be productive. I go on Usenet to find interesting things to research,
and ignorant idiots to make fun of.

>Lesson to everyone: "There is but 1 God and you ain't Him."

The Bible ain't Him either, idol worshipper.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

On Nov 29, 8:47 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 29, 11:35 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj... DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >Later, they had no money to retire on...whose fault is it...their kids?
>
> >> The people who made the laws - social security was created the way it
> >> is back in the 1930s, long before the Boomers were born.
>
> >Ahhh, so none of the current Republicans can be to blame.
>
> For what?
>
> The Reagan and Bush administrations are to blame for creating
> monstrous deficits through "tax cut and spend", thereby not only
> reducing the flexibility in solving problems. They are also to blame
> for racheting up the level of rabid ideological partisanship to the
> point where little cooperation is possible to get things done. That
> this is causing some noted Republican leaders to decide that the game
> is no longer any fun, now that they aren't on top, such as Trent Lott,
> is surely justice.
>
> >> You wanna claim someone is irresponsible. "Let he who is without sin
> >> cast the first stone".
>
> >I thought
>
> No you didn't. You never think.
>
> >you said it was the Baby Boomer's parents that were to blame.
>
> Nope. Read the above:
> "The people who made the laws - social security was created the way it
> is back in the 1930s, long before the Boomers were born."
>
> My parents, who were "parents of a Baby Boomer" had nothing to do with
> creation of Social Security; They weren't yet a teenager. My
> grandparents nominally had a vote, but in fact Social Security was not
> a big issue in the elections of the time, and they probably did not
> have sufficient education to understand the issue even if it had been
> brought to the public. And *their* parents were neither citizens nor
> alive at that point (hmm, maybe one of my great grandparents was still
> alive, but barely - I'd have to check exact dates - and I don't know
> if she ever was naturalized).
>
> >Now, you add their children as well.
>
> I don't "add anyone". I don't really care who is "to blame" for
> problems. I care about the idiots who are making it difficult to
> solve the problem.
>
> >You're right, Bob.
> >EVERYONE is to blame except YOUR generation who will be taxing their
> >kids to pay for their negligence.
>
> I won't be taxing anyone to pay for anything. Nor will "my
> generation". Generally the US and state and local governments do the
> taxing, and the word "generation" does not apply to governments.
>
> lojbab

You MUST be right, Bob. No one is to blame for not fixing something
broken for (according to you) over 70 years.

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

On Nov 29, 9:23 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 29, 12:21 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >I recall Hillary touting abortion as a means to control the
> >> >> >"population explosion"
>
> >> >> Cite please.
>
> ...
>
> >> And where's the cite for your claim about Hillary?
>
> >Ahh, so Hillary's not a liberal or doesn't hold to the population
> >explosion idea?
>
> I see no cite. I see irrelevant innuendo.
>
> Where's the cite for your SPECIFIC claim about Hillary "touting
> abortion as a means to control the "population explosion"?
>
> To that, I will add the requirement based on your innuendo, for cites
> proving that all liberals are "touting abortion as a means to control
> the "population explosion" or that all who "hold to the population
> explosion idea" are "touting abortion as a means to control the
> "population explosion"
>
> I'll even be satisfied with a half dozen examples of each. Or the
> admission that your innuendo was nonresponsive.

http://www.nwmissouri.edu/library/COURSES/english2/termindex.htm

A college page touting abortion and birth control as a means of
controlling population growth (see Population Explosion). Is this a
conservative suggestion?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3D81E30F93BA2575BC...6295826

A New York Times article about a UN conferance suggesting abortion and
birth control to avoid a "population explosion." You're going to tell
me that the New York times and the UN are not liberal?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5DC123AF93AA15752C...6595826

A New York Times article about the Clinton administration supporting
birth control (and abortion) as a means of avoiding a population
growth problem.

I'll tell you what...Bob. If this isn't a liberal position, the UN,
the New York Times, and Clinton appear to be a part of the
conservative extremists.

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

On Nov 30, 8:17 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj... DeleteThis @lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >No one is to blame for not fixing something broken for (according to you) over 70 years.
>
> Correct (even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, so you have a
> ways to go to equal an inert object). Blame is not a useful concept
> in such matters.

So...what was this response of yours, if no one is to blame...

My comment: "Later, they had no money to retire on...whose fault is
it...their kids?"

Your reply:
"The people who made the laws - social security was created the way it
is back in the 1930s, long before the Boomers were born. And then
social security benefits were massively expanded (without sufficient
change on the income side of the balance sheet) at the instigation of
one Richard Milhous Nixon, while I was still in college (I actually
was barely old enough to vote by then, but >I< certainly didn't vote
for Nixon.

"Now one could argue that we've had more than 30 years to fix the
problem, but in point of fact, Congress and the President have been
from the generation *before* the baby boom, until the current turkey.
And large as it is, the Baby Boom has never been and will never be a
majority of the electorate, so it isn't even legit to blame any single
generation for not doing something about social security. Even today,
the main reason social security isn't getting reformed is that the
pre-boomers who are close to retirement or actually retired have too
much voting power to allow us to elect people willing to cut benefits
as part of the solution.

"Of course, brats like you who like to blame others rather than taking
your own share of the responsibility are also partly to blame. You are
as responsible for fixing social security as I am, and you should be
more concerned, since given most projections, I would have to survive
until age 90 before social security runs out of money.

"You wanna claim someone is irresponsible. "Let he who is without sin
cast the first stone". "

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>No one is to blame for not fixing something broken for (according to you) over 70 years.

Correct (even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, so you have a
ways to go to equal an inert object). Blame is not a useful concept
in such matters.
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 29, 8:52 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote:
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> No I don't. Kids don't remain kids forever. And adolescence is a
>> >> period when many kids go to the opposite extreme and believe the exact
>> >> opposite of whatever their parents believe.
>>
>> >So, we should not fear teaching religion to adolescent children, since
>> >they reject what adults tell them.
>>
>> I don't "fear teaching religion" to anyone.
>>
>> The constitution is opposed to involving the government in doing so.
>>
>> I support the constitution.
>
>So much for free exercise of the students or teachers...right?

Free exercise is not prohibited. But like all rights, it has limits.

>The
>Presidents (both parties) can speak religion in official speeches and
>documents but teachers cannot?

Presidents can be stopped by impeachment, if Congress had the will to
do so. Otherwise presidential powers are set forth in the
Constitution. Teachers are not mentioned in the Constitution.

Very few presidential speeches are "official", BTW.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I don't know where to begin.

You don't know anything.

>I'm not sure there is a single statement you just made, there, that is correct.

That is because you are ignorant.

>An impeachment would follow the statement, not stop it.

Duh. Firing the teacher would follow the statement too. There is
nothing other than the threat of losing job or going to court to stop
a teacher.

>Presidential powers are not only in the Constitution.

Any power that is not granted in the Constitution is obviously NOT
Constitutional.

>Teachers are part of the general welfare of the people

Not according to any court case I know of.

>(thus ...why we have schools).

Schools are state functions, and not Federal ones. They are thus
validated under state constitutions and not Federal ones.

>And, Presidents are Executives of the state 24/7.

No more than any CEO or salaryman is. They are not always acting in
their official capacity. Georgie humping Laura does not have to be
authorized by the Constitution or by Congress.

>why their words (all of them) are saved up in archives

Oh, please - point me to the archive which will let all of us citizens
see what Georgie tells Laura in bed.

Tell us why some of Nixon's tapes in the oval office were redacted.
Not even in the Oval Office, is the President always acting
"official".

>and used in foreign policy negotiations and more.

I'm sure Putin or Musharref is simply drooling to hear what Georgie
says to Laura while they are gettin it on.

http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1974-act.html
<The law also states that the National Archives must segregate and
< return to the estate of former President Nixon those materials
< identified as purely "personal-private" or "personal-political" and
< unrelated to the President's constitutional and statutory duties.

By your unreasoning, NONE of Nixons='s conversations were "purely
"personal-private" or "personal-political" and unrelated to the
President's constitutional and statutory duties", and the law would
have thus made no sense.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 29, 9:23 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote:
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 29, 12:21 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj... RemoveThis @lojban.org> wrote:
>> >> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >I recall Hillary touting abortion as a means to control the
>> >> >> >"population explosion"
>>
>> >> >> Cite please.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> And where's the cite for your claim about Hillary?
>>
>> >Ahh, so Hillary's not a liberal or doesn't hold to the population
>> >explosion idea?
>>
>> I see no cite. I see irrelevant innuendo.
>>
>> Where's the cite for your SPECIFIC claim about Hillary "touting
>> abortion as a means to control the "population explosion"?
>>
>> To that, I will add the requirement based on your innuendo, for cites
>> proving that all liberals are "touting abortion as a means to control
>> the "population explosion" or that all who "hold to the population
>> explosion idea" are "touting abortion as a means to control the
>> "population explosion"
>>
>> I'll even be satisfied with a half dozen examples of each. Or the
>> admission that your innuendo was nonresponsive.
>
>http://www.nwmissouri.edu/library/COURSES/english2/termindex.htm
>
>A college page touting abortion and birth control as a means of
>controlling population growth (see Population Explosion). Is this a
>conservative suggestion?

In answer to your question, you are trying to prove that it is a
liberal suggestion. Therefore, merely assuming that if someone
suggests it that they are a liberal is assuming your conclusion.
Something you do regularly, but not a valid argument.

The cited page is a college library page listing possible topics for
student papers. It "touts" no position. It does list "funding
abortion as a form of birth control in third world countries?" as a
possible topic under population control. It also lists "suicide"
under youth problems. Does that mean that the page is "touting
suicide". It lists "children who kill abusive parents". Is it
"touting" such an idea? Is it "touting" Mad Cow disease? Is it
"touting Al Qaeda"?

The list of topics is neither a "conservative" list nor a "liberal"
list. We have no idea what the political leanings are of the person
who created the list.

>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3D81E30F93BA2575BC0A962958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/U/United%20Nations
>
>A New York Times article about a UN conferance suggesting abortion and
>birth control to avoid a "population explosion." You're going to tell
>me that the New York times and the UN are not liberal?

The NYT is reporting a news story. It is not "touting" anything. The
UN report according to the article specifically does NOT "endorse
abortion as a method of birth control". The primary spokesperson
quoted was a Pakistani, and thus irrelevant to the US political
spectrum. The UN likewise is not part of the US and is neither
"liberal" nor "conservative" on the US political spectrum.

>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5DC123AF93AA15752C1A965958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/U/United%20Nations
>
>A New York Times article about the Clinton administration supporting
>birth control (and abortion) as a means of avoiding a population
>growth problem.

No that is not what it is about. And the Clinton administration was
simply not restricting funds from going to an organization that
considers abortion to be a woman's choice. The article specifically
notes that American law actually forbids that such funds go to any
abortion activities. The article does NOT mention anyone supporting
abortion as a means to avoid a population growth problem.

But the article does contain this relatively juicy quote:
<Mr. Reagan's advisers had a blithe, and unnervingly sexist, answer.
< Population growth, they said, was a "natural phenomenon" that could
< stimulate economic growth, in that more people meant more ideas, more
< productivity and more consumers.

Thus it appears to have been a REAGAN position that increasing
population fuels positive economic growth, which is another argument
you attributed to "liberals" as a method of fixing social security.
Reagan the liberal?

>I'll tell you what...Bob. If this isn't a liberal position, the UN,
>the New York Times, and Clinton appear to be a part of the
>conservative extremists.

http://fathersforlife.org/ToC_abortion_pop_control.htm
Fathers for Life contains about 115 web pages or articles that address
"abortion" or "population control".

Ooh - Fathers for Life must be touting abortion as a means of
population control!!! They must be a liberal organization!!!.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life031.html
<This is not to say that the human race may not reach a time in its
< history at which overpopulation becomes a problem so severe that it
< must significantly curtail its birthrate. At such a time it would be
< wise to try to persuade people either to willingly use contraceptive
< devices or to practice sexual discipline. If such a tactic does not
< work, then forced sterilization may be a viable -- albeit desperate
< -- option, since it does not entail the death of the unborn. In any
< event, if the unborn are fully human, abortion is not a solution to
< population problems even in the most dire of circumstances. Hence,
< the real question is whether or not the unborn are fully human.

Of dear - here is a Christian group promoting contraception and forced
sterilization as possible options against overpopulation, and its
argument against abortion is merely conditional on "if the unborn are
fully human". Must be a liberal group!!!

(I should note that Malthus, who indirectly referred to abortions as a
means of population control was a minister)

http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/2005/03/neo-nazi-advises-invest-in-...tto.htm
quoting Neo-Nazi Tom Metzger, a noted "liberal":
<Even if they do speak about this issue, they do not address the
<obvious logic, which is that abortion and birth control among
< non-Whites, should be a major project.
<...
<The logic is perfect. Very little abortion should be tolerated, among
< our White race, while at the same time, abortion and birth control
< should be promoted as a powerful weapon, in the limitation of
< non-White birth. Overt support of both non-White population control
< and non-support of abortion for Whites, has the same desired effect.

You consider Planned Parenthood to be a liberal group because it
supports abortion, but the same blog describes the founder of Planned
Parenthood:
<Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger,
< was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to
< sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables
< of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people
< are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."

Is racial genocide suddenly a "liberal" position?

And then you have to address liberals that specifically decry
promoting abortion as a means of population control as opposed to a
means of personal choice for women.
http://zmag.org/ZSustainers/ZDaily/1999-09/23hartman.htm

Or is she suddenly NOT a liberal because she opposes that as a reason
for supporting abortion rights?

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 29, 9:27 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote:
>> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 29, 1:03 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 28, 10:53 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....DeleteThis@lojban.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >> That the tax rate needs to be higher in order to maintain the
>> >> >> >> government services that "we the people" want is patently obvious to
>> >> >> >> anyone but a "tax cut and spend" Republican. The irresponsibility is
>> >> >> >> to cut taxes anyway. And the whole generation is not to be held
>> >> >> >> responsible for the idiocy of people like YOU.
>>
>> >> >> >The Social Security system was known to be deficient before Reagan
>> >> >> >came to power, but that is irrelevant, since I said BOTH parties of
>> >> >> >this generation failed their kids and neither did anything to fix it.
>> >> >> >Further, since they knew it was coming, why didn't the Irresponsible
>> >> >> >Generation save money up in a saving account or investments for their
>> >> >> >expenses.
>>
>> >> >> Why should they?
>>
>> >> >> >You can keep spinning this all you want, but..in the end...it used to
>> >> >> >be that parents saved up an inheritance for their kids,
>>
>> >> >> Myth. SOME parents did, and some still do. But far more often than
>> >> >> today, parents died before the kids reached adulthood, parents had so
>> >> >> many kids that their inheritance was split so many ways that it wasn't
>> >> >> worth much, and most of the time the savings lost ground against
>> >> >> inflation because it wasn't invested in anything that would gain in
>> >> >> value. And since there was no social security, when the parents lived
>> >> >> into old age, they drained their savings down to zippo rapidly,
>> >> >> whereupon the kids had to support them.
>>
>> >> >You DO understand that AVERAGE life span is an AVERAGE...right,
>> >> >factoring in all the children and others that died from disease?
>>
>> >> Duh.
>>
>> >> You did see the word "SOME" that I used in that paragraph, and even
>> >> capitalized, didn't you?
>>
>> >DUH. What's your point, then, considering that SOME individuals die
>> >at any age of the lifespan?
>>
>> My point, as usual, is that you are an idiot who can't read properly
>> and who doesn't know what he is talking about, but you'll keep
>> blathering anyway.
>>
>> YOU made the claim "it used to be that parents saved up an inheritance
>> for their kids" and that was no more true THEN than it is NOW. Indeed
>> it is probably less true.
>
>I guess I misunderstood

That isn't a guess; that is a certainty.

>your claim that the shorter lifespan of earlier generations excused them from an inheritance

I made no such claim, especially since the sentence makes no sense.
How does one "excuse [someone] from an inheritance"?

>to be a claim that there was a shorter lifespan in earlier generations (I guess
>foundations need not be true).

There WAS a shorter average lifespan in earlier generations.
1) there was a VERY high infant mortality
2) diseases that we now control like smallpox, took a constant toll
throughout life
3) a significant percentage of women died in or as a result of
childbirth.
Despite this, there were still a goodly number who were not felled
along the way and who therefore lived into their 70s, 80s or even
beyond. My brother in law has a number of centenarians in his
ancestry (though he'll be very lucky to live to age 60 himself).

What I said, for those who choose not to read all the quote above:
>> Myth. SOME parents did, and some still do [save up an inheritance for their kids]. But far more often than
>> today, parents died before the kids reached adulthood, parents had so
>> many kids that their inheritance was split so many ways that it wasn't
>> worth much, and most of the time the savings lost ground against
>> inflation because it wasn't invested in anything that would gain in
>> value. And since there was no social security, when the parents lived
>> into old age, they drained their savings down to zippo rapidly,
>> whereupon the kids had to support them.

In other words, there is no reason to believe that people back then
saved money or provided inheritances to their kids more than they do
today.

lojbab
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org>
>
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 29, 9:23 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Nov 29, 12:21 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> >I recall Hillary touting abortion as a means to control the
> >> >> >> >"population explosion"
> >>
> >> >> >> Cite please.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> >> And where's the cite for your claim about Hillary?
> >>
> >> >Ahh, so Hillary's not a liberal or doesn't hold to the population
> >> >explosion idea?
> >>
> >> I see no cite. I see irrelevant innuendo.
> >>
> >> Where's the cite for your SPECIFIC claim about Hillary "touting
> >> abortion as a means to control the "population explosion"?
> >>
> >> To that, I will add the requirement based on your innuendo, for cites
> >> proving that all liberals are "touting abortion as a means to control
> >> the "population explosion" or that all who "hold to the population
> >> explosion idea" are "touting abortion as a means to control the
> >> "population explosion"
> >>
> >> I'll even be satisfied with a half dozen examples of each. Or the
> >> admission that your innuendo was nonresponsive.
> >
> >http://www.nwmissouri.edu/library/COURSES/english2/termindex.htm
> >
> >A college page touting abortion and birth control as a means of
> >controlling population growth (see Population Explosion). Is this a
> >conservative suggestion?
>
> In answer to your question, you are trying to prove that it is a
> liberal suggestion. Therefore, merely assuming that if someone
> suggests it that they are a liberal is assuming your conclusion.
> Something you do regularly, but not a valid argument.
>
> The cited page is a college library page listing possible topics for
> student papers. It "touts" no position. It does list "funding
> abortion as a form of birth control in third world countries?" as a
> possible topic under population control. It also lists "suicide"
> under youth problems. Does that mean that the page is "touting
> suicide". It lists "children who kill abusive parents". Is it
> "touting" such an idea? Is it "touting" Mad Cow disease? Is it
> "touting Al Qaeda"?
>
> The list of topics is neither a "conservative" list nor a "liberal"
> list. We have no idea what the political leanings are of the person
> who created the list.
>
> >http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3D81E30F93BA2575BC0A962958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/U/United%20Nations
> >
> >A New York Times article about a UN conferance suggesting abortion and
> >birth control to avoid a "population explosion." You're going to tell
> >me that the New York times and the UN are not liberal?
>
> The NYT is reporting a news story. It is not "touting" anything. The
> UN report according to the article specifically does NOT "endorse
> abortion as a method of birth control". The primary spokesperson
> quoted was a Pakistani, and thus irrelevant to the US political
> spectrum. The UN likewise is not part of the US and is neither
> "liberal" nor "conservative" on the US political spectrum.
>
> >http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5DC123AF93AA15752C1A965958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/U/United%20Nations
> >
> >A New York Times article about the Clinton administration supporting
> >birth control (and abortion) as a means of avoiding a population
> >growth problem.
>
> No that is not what it is about. And the Clinton administration was
> simply not restricting funds from going to an organization that
> considers abortion to be a woman's choice. The article specifically
> notes that American law actually forbids that such funds go to any
> abortion activities. The article does NOT mention anyone supporting
> abortion as a means to avoid a population growth problem.
>
> But the article does contain this relatively juicy quote:
> <Mr. Reagan's advisers had a blithe, and unnervingly sexist, answer.
> < Population growth, they said, was a "natural phenomenon" that could
> < stimulate economic growth, in that more people meant more ideas, more
> < productivity and more consumers.
>
> Thus it appears to have been a REAGAN position that increasing
> population fuels positive economic growth, which is another argument
> you attributed to "liberals" as a method of fixing social security.
> Reagan the liberal?
>
> >I'll tell you what...Bob. If this isn't a liberal position, the UN,
> >the New York Times, and Clinton appear to be a part of the
> >conservative extremists.
>
> http://fathersforlife.org/ToC_abortion_pop_control.htm
> Fathers for Life contains about 115 web pages or articles that address
> "abortion" or "population control".
>
> Ooh - Fathers for Life must be touting abortion as a means of
> population control!!! They must be a liberal organization!!!.
>
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life031.html
> <This is not to say that the human race may not reach a time in its
> < history at which overpopulation becomes a problem so severe that it
> < must significantly curtail its birthrate. At such a time it would be
> < wise to try to persuade people either to willingly use contraceptive
> < devices or to practice sexual discipline. If such a tactic does not
> < work, then forced sterilization may be a viable -- albeit desperate
> < -- option, since it does not entail the death of the unborn. In any
> < event, if the unborn are fully human, abortion is not a solution to
> < population problems even in the most dire of circumstances. Hence,
> < the real question is whether or not the unborn are fully human.
>
> Of dear - here is a Christian group promoting contraception and forced
> sterilization as possible options against overpopulation, and its
> argument against abortion is merely conditional on "if the unborn are
> fully human". Must be a liberal group!!!
>
> (I should note that Malthus, who indirectly referred to abortions as a
> means of population control was a minister)
>
> http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/2005/03/neo-nazi-advises-invest-in-...tto.htm
> quoting Neo-Nazi Tom Metzger, a noted "liberal":
> <Even if they do speak about this issue, they do not address the
> <obvious logic, which is that abortion and birth control among
> < non-Whites, should be a major project.
> <...
> <The logic is perfect. Very little abortion should be tolerated, among
> < our White race, while at the same time, abortion and birth control
> < should be promoted as a powerful weapon, in the limitation of
> < non-White birth. Overt support of both non-White population control
> < and non-support of abortion for Whites, has the same desired effect.
>
> You consider Planned Parenthood to be a liberal group because it
> supports abortion, but the same blog describes the founder of Planned
> Parenthood:
> <Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger,
> < was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to
> < sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables
> < of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people
> < are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."
>
> Is racial genocide suddenly a "liberal" position?
>
> And then you have to address liberals that specifically decry
> promoting abortion as a means of population control as opposed to a
> means of personal choice for women.
> http://zmag.org/ZSustainers/ZDaily/1999-09/23hartman.htm
>
> Or is she suddenly NOT a liberal because she opposes that as a reason
> for supporting abortion rights?
>
> lojbab

Well, THAT was longer than some Master's theses.

And more thorough, to boot. Good show.


-- cary
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

On Nov 30, 7:30 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 29, 9:27 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 29, 1:03 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Nov 28, 10:53 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> That the tax rate needs to be higher in order to maintain the
> >> >> >> >> government services that "we the people" want is patently obvious to
> >> >> >> >> anyone but a "tax cut and spend" Republican. The irresponsibility is
> >> >> >> >> to cut taxes anyway. And the whole generation is not to be held
> >> >> >> >> responsible for the idiocy of people like YOU.
>
> >> >> >> >The Social Security system was known to be deficient before Reagan
> >> >> >> >came to power, but that is irrelevant, since I said BOTH parties of
> >> >> >> >this generation failed their kids and neither did anything to fix it.
> >> >> >> >Further, since they knew it was coming, why didn't the Irresponsible
> >> >> >> >Generation save money up in a saving account or investments for their
> >> >> >> >expenses.
>
> >> >> >> Why should they?
>
> >> >> >> >You can keep spinning this all you want, but..in the end...it used to
> >> >> >> >be that parents saved up an inheritance for their kids,
>
> >> >> >> Myth. SOME parents did, and some still do. But far more often than
> >> >> >> today, parents died before the kids reached adulthood, parents had so
> >> >> >> many kids that their inheritance was split so many ways that it wasn't
> >> >> >> worth much, and most of the time the savings lost ground against
> >> >> >> inflation because it wasn't invested in anything that would gain in
> >> >> >> value. And since there was no social security, when the parents lived
> >> >> >> into old age, they drained their savings down to zippo rapidly,
> >> >> >> whereupon the kids had to support them.
>
> >> >> >You DO understand that AVERAGE life span is an AVERAGE...right,
> >> >> >factoring in all the children and others that died from disease?
>
> >> >> Duh.
>
> >> >> You did see the word "SOME" that I used in that paragraph, and even
> >> >> capitalized, didn't you?
>
> >> >DUH. What's your point, then, considering that SOME individuals die
> >> >at any age of the lifespan?
>
> >> My point, as usual, is that you are an idiot who can't read properly
> >> and who doesn't know what he is talking about, but you'll keep
> >> blathering anyway.
>
> >> YOU made the claim "it used to be that parents saved up an inheritance
> >> for their kids" and that was no more true THEN than it is NOW. Indeed
> >> it is probably less true.
>
> >I guess I misunderstood
>
> That isn't a guess; that is a certainty.
>
> >your claim that the shorter lifespan of earlier generations excused them from an inheritance
>
> I made no such claim, especially since the sentence makes no sense.
> How does one "excuse [someone] from an inheritance"?
>
> >to be a claim that there was a shorter lifespan in earlier generations (I guess
> >foundations need not be true).
>
> There WAS a shorter average lifespan in earlier generations.
> 1) there was a VERY high infant mortality
> 2) diseases that we now control like smallpox, took a constant toll
> throughout life
> 3) a significant percentage of women died in or as a result of
> childbirth.
> Despite this, there were still a goodly number who were not felled
> along the way and who therefore lived into their 70s, 80s or even
> beyond. My brother in law has a number of centenarians in his
> ancestry (though he'll be very lucky to live to age 60 himself).
>
> What I said, for those who choose not to read all the quote above:
>
> >> Myth. SOME parents did, and some still do [save up an inheritance for their kids]. But far more often than
> >> today, parents died before the kids reached adulthood, parents had so
> >> many kids that their inheritance was split so many ways that it wasn't
> >> worth much, and most of the time the savings lost ground against
> >> inflation because it wasn't invested in anything that would gain in
> >> value. And since there was no social security, when the parents lived
> >> into old age, they drained their savings down to zippo rapidly,
> >> whereupon the kids had to support them.
>
> In other words, there is no reason to believe that people back then
> saved money or provided inheritances to their kids more than they do
> today.
>
> lojbab

You MUST be right, Bob. People are just as likely to horde their
money for their kids, today, as they used to be (refusing to pay taxes
to help the government out of their wealth). Right? (I'll tell you
what....those capital gains and retirement income taxes on George
Washington must have been a real pain.)

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation 

On Nov 30, 8:58 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 8:17 am, Bob LeChevalier <loj....TakeThisOut@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> > Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >No one is to blame for not fixing something broken for (according to you) over 70 years.
>
> > Correct (even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, so you have a
> > ways to go to equal an inert object). Blame is not a useful concept
> > in such matters.
>
> So...what was this response of yours, if no one is to blame...
>
> My comment: "Later, they had no money to retire on...whose fault is
> it...their kids?"
>
> Your reply:
> "The people who made the laws - social security was created the way it
> is back in the 1930s, long before the Boomers were born. And then
> social security benefits were massively expanded (without sufficient
> change on the income side of the balance sheet) at the instigation of
> one Richard Milhous Nixon, while I was still in college (I actually
> was barely old enough to vote by then, but >I< certainly didn't vote
> for Nixon.
>
> "Now one could argue that we've had more than 30 years to fix the
> problem, but in point of fact, Congress and the President have been
> from the generation *before* the baby boom, until the current turkey.
> And large as it is, the Baby Boom has never been and will never be a
> majority of the electorate, so it isn't even legit to blame any single
> generation for not doing something about social security. Even today,
> the main reason social security isn't getting reformed is that the
> pre-boomers who are close to retirement or actually retired have too
> much voting power to allow us to elect people willing to cut benefits
> as part of the solution.
>
> "Of course, brats like you who like to blame others rather than taking
> your own share of the responsibility are also partly to blame. You are
> as responsible for fixing social security as I am, and you should be
> more concerned, since given most projections, I would have to survive
> until age 90 before social security runs out of money.
>
> "You wanna claim someone is irresponsible. "Let he who is without sin
> cast the first stone". "
>
> Kenneth Clifton
> christiansuperhero.com

well?

Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
 >> Stay informed about: The Irresponsible Generation