And now it's time for some Santorum...

[killarney_sailor]

Wish I could remember who said it/wrote it, but it was about the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. According to this statement, Republicans feel that America's greatest days were in the past and that society should be trying to recover them; while Democrats feel that America's greatest days lie in the future and that society should be trying to work toward them. Like all grand statements, there are lots of specific counter-arguments that can be made, but in general I think it is a very accurate statement. Much of the discussion here would tend to prove it.

The names 'Republican' and 'Democratic' are really not very helpful since the Rs are certainly democratic and vice-versa. Perhaps the parties should be renamed something like 'Reactionaries' and 'Progressives' (or 'Futurists').

[PBzeer]

Statistics trump anecdotal data. You might have felt your car was safer, but there is numerica proof it wasn't.

Well, yeah, geography does make a difference. In the midwest, we left stuff laying in the yard or on the open front porch, never worried about anyone taking it. Didn't lock the cars. When we'd go to the Big Apple, you locked up everything, always. I remember quite distinctly when we went to the Worlds Fair, on the way out, we saw someone breakdown on the expressway. On the way back, all that was left of the car was the shell. That kind of stuff didn't happen in "fly over country", just in the Big Cities. You can pretend that where a car was didn't matter to the probability of it being stolen, but that's just quoting blind statistics.

For instance, you're more likely to have your car stolen in California, than any other state. Like any other crime, location is a factor in frequency. That was part of the reason for the suburban migration.

Doesn't change the point that you might have been able to leave your car unlocked, but that there was more chance of it being stolen back then than you do now.

Between 1998 and 2008 there were 74 deaths by lightening in Florida, 28 in Texas and 27 in Colorado. 8 states had no deaths and another 5 had only one ( Lightning Deaths 1998-2008 — Infoplease.com ). Now why is that, because certain areas are more prone to lightening, just as certain areas are more prone to theft. So yeah, geography does matter, at least in reality.

... dramatically shifting the balance of power between states and the national government and making equal access to education a civil right.

Thank you for confirming what I said: "The major involvement of government, prior to '79, was with segregation and cultural issues, not educational ones." I was in school back then, planning on being a teacher, I paid attention to what was happening in education. And it wasn't until the sixties that the feds started getting involved in curriculum.

It has to do with your nifty little rhetorical trick of comparing welfare today to the plantation slavery of times past.

That's commonly called drawing an analogy. Unless you're going to posit that welfare was a direct and intended outcome of desegregation, you're just blowing smoke, as there's no analogy to draw.

McCarthyism

If you want to assert that the actions of one censured Senator was emblematic of political life, than there's nothing I can say.

Yeah BS, I have my experiences, you have books and numbers. I lived for more than a year in 5 different states, and been in all but a handful, but I'm suppose to ignore all that and bow to the great god of numbers. That takes no consideration of where I'm at having anything to do with my likelihood of becoming one of those numbers. You can put all your faith in numbers, I'll just move back to Anchorage if I'm worried about lightening, because whatever the numbers say, I know from being there 22 years, there is no lightening there.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by WouldaShoulda

Excellent point.

There were far more Commies in the State Dept and DOD then, than there are now!!

The Executive and Hollywood is about even, however!!

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Well, yeah, geography does make a difference.

Didn't say otherwise. In fact, I pointed out that it still does. We are, however, talking about the Fifties here. In case you haven't quite realised it yet, that was everywhere at the same time

(snip anecdotal "When I was your age..." recollection)

Well, that's a great story. My grandfather had a few of them too. Couldn't believe everything he said though, his recollection was hazy in parts. Came with being born a long time ago

Got some numbers to back you up on that or do I file it amongst the "walking ten miles to school, uphill, both ways" recollections?

Thank you for confirming what I said: "The major involvement of government, prior to '79, was with segregation and cultural issues, not educational ones." I was in school back then, planning on being a teacher, I paid attention to what was happening in education. And it wasn't until the sixties that the feds started getting involved in curriculum.

Oh, so when you stated that government hadn't started improving education, you meant that desegregation wasn't an improvement? That making education a cabinet level responsibility meant the government was staying out of education. That the shifting responsibility, funding, and control of schools from local boards to government that started in the Fifties is not amongst the improvements you disagree with?

I don't personally have a problem with any of the above, but the government was getting involved according to historians.

That's commonly called drawing an analogy. Unless you're going to posit that welfare was a direct and intended outcome of desegregation, you're just blowing smoke, as there's no analogy to draw.

I'm well aware of it being an analogy. An analogy that you applied to, and only makes sense about, black people. An analogy made when comparing blakc people in the the Fifties to black people in the present. An analogy that ignores the white people on welfare then and now.

I'm aware it was an analogy, PB. It was just a very poor one that allowed (hell, it invited) the comparison of black people today & in the Fifties. It makes no sense to bring up black people in a comparison between then & now, only to tell me we're not supposed to be doing that.

If you want to assert that the actions of one censured Senator was emblematic of political life, than there's nothing I can say.

Yup, the man was censured, after being given free reign to terrorise people that disagreed with his politics. A man so ignored by politics, that Eisenhower toured Wisconsin with the man while campaigning for president. A man so sidelined by conservatives that Eisenhower had to change his speeches so as not to upset the man and his conservative supporters (well recorded incident, I'm sure you can remember it ). A man whose activities were so heinous to the government's eye that they continued them well after his death.

Yeah, I suppose there isn't much to say about that is there.

Yeah BS, I have my experiences, you have books and numbers. I lived for more than a year in 5 different states, and been in all but a handful, but I'm suppose to ignore all that and bow to the great god of numbers. That takes no consideration of where I'm at having anything to do with my likelihood of becoming one of those numbers. You can put all your faith in numbers, I'll just move back to Anchorage if I'm worried about lightening, because whatever the numbers say, I know from being there 22 years, there is no lightening there.

There you have it folks. PB has his recollections, he don't need no stinkin' facts and numbers. At least the man is honest about it.

[LandLocked66c]

[WouldaShoulda]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Not only does the government not have any business forcing people to purchase anything, they have no business making anything "more affordable". Unless Obamacare is either repealed or invalidated though, then it will have been established that the state can do what ever it wants to do. But don't worry, you know they'll only do what is "best" for you.

BC Pills already cost only 15-50/mo. according to PP;

Birth Control Pills - Birth Control Pill - The Pill

Sandra Fluke Testimony;

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

Who's lying??

[PBzeer]

Aside from that, the HHS mandate won't get her coverage. It applies to employees, not students. Not to mention why does someone go to a Catholic school and is then surprised they don't offer free contraception? And this person wants to be a lawyer?

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by WouldaShoulda

Sandra Fluke Testimony;

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice

How about making the guy buy and use a rubber? If the onus was shifted to the guys, I doubt cost would ever enter into it.

[Alibaba]

Originally Posted by WouldaShoulda

Excellent point.

There were far more Commies in the State Dept and DOD then, than there are now!!

The Executive and Hollywood is about even, however!!

McCarthy hearing.

Senate leader .. Mr. McCarthy, you have been making a lot of charges, we need you to give us a lisst of the Communists in the State Dept. now

JOE Mccarthy (burp) I cannot devulge those names at this time...(burp)

Facts were McCarthy had no proof, only falslse beleifs and Paranoia.


Just because some people dont agree with your Right Wing Fanatical Politics, and feel the the Sermon on the Mount sermon is more important than the book of Revalations, doesn`t make them a communist..

[WouldaShoulda]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Aside from that, the HHS mandate won't get her coverage. It applies to employees, not students. Not to mention why does someone go to a Catholic school and is then surprised they don't offer free contraception? And this person wants to be a lawyer?

She probably interns or works at some capacity for G-Town.

I think I spent more money on beer in one semster than this poor, deprived G-Town Law student did on BC in three years!!