(V): Get with reality. It doesn't make it harder. Most people have ID anyway. ID's ar necessary for so many other things already. And I'll NEVER understand why it isn't logical that it should be guaranteed that only people who legally can vote, do vote. Nothing will EVER explain why that isn't logical. NOTHING.
Maybe OVER THERE people don't need ID's. But over, here, yes. This is not OVER THERE.
*cough*

Plus, most of those unregistered voters probably already have ID's. Sadly, many people just don't get involved because they don't think their vote matters. I went like that many years. (and have had an ID since 16 like MOST people)

rod03801: Well, you're not black or poor or both. You see, black people have trouble getting ID's (except for those blacks that know how to make fake IDs - but real ones, not so much). And the poor can't possibly get IDs (except if they drink, then they can get IDs easily cuz they love to use their government checks to drink).

Now most white people, even if they are poor, know how to get IDs (unless they are from heavily populated Democratic areas. Then those whites are as stupid as the liberal blacks.

Oddly enough, those blacks who are conservatives have absolutely NO problem getting an ID. But that's because they are conservatives. If they were liberal blacks, they wouldn't understand how to get a TOTALLY FREE government issued ID.

And finally, it helps to be dead. It seems that blacks and poor folk can't get easily attainable IDs but dead people manage to vote in each election. And many of these dead people were/are black! or poor! or both!

But what do I know? I'm just a white guy with an ID (since I was 16). And here I thought I was stupid back then!

Artful Dodger: "I'm just a white guy with an ID (since I was 16). And here I thought I was stupid back then!"

I was a 16 year old white guy too! We really do have a lot in common, I mean, what are the odds? I'm not 16 anymore, but I'm still white... and still a guy. I suppose that isn't going to change anytime soon. Actually, the liver spots on my hands say otherwise... if I was a horse I'd be a palomino.

At 16 you're not really stupid, just naive. Even smart people are naive at 16. Though after 30 not being any brighter than you were at 16 is... well, it's no longer naivety. Then it really can be called stupid. And the older someone gets after that (without gaining any wisdom) the stupider they become... until one day it can be said "There's no fool like an old fool."

Iamon lyme: and what's even more surprising is that I got myself to the polling place my first time to vote-all by myself! I mean, I was even poor back then! I defied the odds. I was poor, white, a liberal, but knew how to take care of myself!

Artful Dodger: You were a liberal? When did you change your mind, and what changed your mind?

Iamon lyme: If you're not a liberal when you're young you have no heart and if you're not a conservative when you're older, you have no brains.

I grew up and got brains.

rod03801: I agree as it seems the majority do. But, a significant proportion of people don't.

"And I'll NEVER understand why it isn't logical that it should be guaranteed that only people who legally can vote, do vote."

We have an electoral roll register system. Everyone has to register... no ID though, just a statement on who is living at a property of who can vote. Voting time... a card is sent out that must be presented before being able to vote.

So we have a very high registered voter base.. over 90%.

"Plus, most of those unregistered voters probably already have ID's. Sadly, many people just don't get involved because they don't think their vote matters."

A percentage, yes. But not all.

(V): "4 more years?? Either way, the GOP is facing having to appeal to a more wider voting base."

The GOP is already appealing to a wider base, including Independents and many people who voted for Obama 4 years ago. And there also are more people who have decided class envy and raising taxes on the rich does nothing to free up money for growth and investment. More people are out of work, and have stopped drinking the koolaid because now they'd rather know (instead of being told) how our economy actually works. They've seen first hand what can happen when someone starts playing around and screwing with the economy, adding obstacles to free market growth rather than removing them. This so called "taxing the rich" ploy ends up raises taxes on all businesses and costs are passed along to consumers... because inevitably that is what happens when "only the rich" are taxed.

There is plenty of money right now just sitting on the sidelines, ready to be pumped in as soon as investors know they will not be simply throwing their money down an endless tax and spend rat hole. 4 more years of Obama means the choices are to continue sitting on their money, or watch it go away in higher taxes and more restrictions on how they are allowed to run their business. So tell me, does your government over there tell you how to spend your monthly stipend? If not, why? Why should you enjoy MORE freedom in deciding what to do with YOUR money than someone who works long hours hoping to stratch out a living?

It's Obama's base that has been dwindling, but he is still trying to appeal to them hoping there are more of them than anyone else can see. Who knows, maybe he really is the magical man. Maybe he can see things the rest of us can't see.

Iamon lyme: Yeah right.. that's what they do all the time. They don't pay any shareholders, or use various ways to escape paying taxes. Legal one... that's the joke. It's legal to avoid paying taxes if you are rich.. something a ordinary man does not have the ability to do.

"More people are out of work, and have stopped drinking the koolaid because now they'd rather know (instead of being told) how our economy actually works."

....??? a tasteless reference to the Jones town massacre??

"They've seen first hand what can happen when someone starts playing around and screwing with the economy, adding obstacles to free market growth rather than removing them."

Yes.. the banking system worldwide nearly collapsed. Trillions is pension funds screwed through people taking risks with normal peoples money they ought not to be doing... actually there was regulation but they choose to ignore it.

"There is plenty of money right now just sitting on the sidelines, ready to be pumped in as soon as investors know they will not be simply throwing their money down an endless tax and spend rat hole."

There was before hand.. in tax havens.

"or watch it go away in higher taxes and more restrictions on how they are allowed to run their business."

If people can't be trusted to be honourable and they are by trade supposed to be honourable.. we are supposed to just let them be cads and get away with it?

"So tell me, does your government over there tell you how to spend your monthly stipend?"

Cos I'm not clergy.. no.

"Why should you enjoy MORE freedom in deciding what to do with YOUR money than someone who works long hours hoping to stratch out a living"

We all enjoy the same rights. But businesses are bound by health and safety.. as I am to a degree. They pay VAT.. so do I. Certain contract rules apply to all.. unless you claim sovereignty... but that is a complicated. Everyone is expected to pay local taxes, and or any corporation tax.. unless you are a multinational cheating every country out of it's fair due by lying... Or like revealed today avoiding paying NI through shell corporations and because of the law... putting various schools, colleges and universities at risk of having to pay what they already thought they had paid.

But please tell me how this free enterprise with no rules works? What safeties are there to protect us from fraud, lies, death in your world?

(V): Have you ever asked yourself why any big business would contribute heavily to a candidate who vows to raise taxes on big business? How can any business benefit from supporting higher taxes on their own business? Are they drunk on the koolaid and now believe giving it all away is the key to more profits? Actually, IMO if you look past the surface it appears to be a smart move and strictly a business calculation... it's not really a sacrafice if it gains you more profits in the long run.

It's because big business knows that in spite of the rhetoric leading peons like you and me to believe ONLY big business will be impacted, in reality all businesses are impacted by higher taxes. Bigger business can absorb the impact while smaller competitors are severly hamstrung or forced out of business, and can be bought out by their larger competitors. The key word here is "competitors". Raising taxes on the rich in effect causes less competition from rivals, which in turn allows prices to remain fixed (not go down). Competition is what leads to greater efficiency, which in turn allows for lower prices... prices become lower because you have various businesses competing in the same markets. Consumers usually don't have a problem with paying lower prices for the same things... only a moron would choose to pay more, but fortunately reasonable people still outnumber the morons. (I hope so)

In the long run a big business can benefit by elimation of competition, but everyone knows (or should) that competition is what causes prices to go down over time. A free market benefits everyone, especially the consumer.

This is basic economics that anyone can understand. Places like your London School of Economics is a great place to go if you want to become proficient in the esoteric art of forcasting, but for gubbers like me (and most other people) it's unnecessary overkill.

I have to say though, when the government can legally take over a business and force it to make bad investments, that is not good for anyone. Our housing crises can be blamed on large part because Democrats in congress put pressure on our banks to make bad loans. The idea was that anyone should be able to own their own home, even if they couldn't afford a down payment or the risk of default was high. Politicians who "feel our pain" and get what they want because of appeals to emotion end up being the biggest pains in our butts. They are long on promises and short on delivery.

By the way, since your knickers seem to permantly be in a twist over off shore accounts and people trying to avoid getting screwed by unfair tax laws, then maybe the government should step in and take over any and all businesses. That would go a long way to solving the unfairness problem. What do you think?

Iamon lyme: Oh no.. they might pay an extra few %... far less though than they use to pay. But it's ok.. cause businesses are people The country's balance sheet can goto pot. Schools, healthcare, infrastructure. Meaningless.

That since Raygun cut taxes dramatically the US has gotten deeper and deeper into debt is in no way relevant. One wonders if the cuts (ordered by the puppet masters) were to high.

"A free market benefits everyone, especially the consumer."

Really. When price fixing is part of your free market scenerio.

"since your knickers seem to permantly be in a twist over off shore accounts and people trying to avoid getting screwed by unfair tax laws..."

They are unfair? ....... how?

(V): "...various ways to escape paying taxes. Legal one... that's the joke. It's legal to avoid paying taxes if you are rich.. something a ordinary man does not have the ability to do."

The ordinary man isn't required to pay 40% to 70% of his income in taxes. The ordinary man can escape paying this higher tax rate by simply not being wealthy. So one way to look at this is that NOT being wealthy is in effect a tax break for the ordinary man, because he is soaked at a lower rate than his wealthy counterpart.

"But please tell me how this free enterprise with no rules works?"

Other than yourself, no one said anything about free enterprise with no rules.

"What safeties are there to protect us from fraud, lies, death in your world?"

What safeties did you have in mind, or are you asking because you don't know? As far as safeties to protect you from death... well, don't be a klutz and watch where you are going, avoid fatty foods and don't drink too much alcohol or smoke too much weed or watch too much porno or tell ANY woman those pants make your butt look fat. Also, you should occasionally look up and watch out for falling anvils and pianos, drink plenty of fluids before going to bed at night and throw salt over your shoulder if you spill any and try not to break any mirrors (that one actually falls under the heading of don't be a klutz) and take two aspirin but don't call me in the morning... there are many other precautions you should take, but you are going to die someday anyway, and your chances of being raptured away grow slimmer by the day, so seeing as how I weary of my own ramblings I'll see you tomorrow if you live long enough to get there...

(V): [ "More people are out of work, and have stopped drinking the koolaid because now they'd rather know (instead of being told) how our economy actually works."

....??? a tasteless reference to the Jones town massacre?? ]


That response of yours was such a good example of what we "right wing extremists" have been trying to tell people, that I've been waiting for the right time to respond to it.

It's only "...a tasteless reference to the Jones town massacre" if you learn nothing from it. The trend in US politics from the liberal side has been to promote a "cult (or culture) of personality"... taking the focus off policies and placing it squarely on the personality of a leader. In the Jones town example, the reason so many people followed a cult leader and were willing to do anything he said is precisely because he was able to influence them through manipulating their emotions... and by discouraging any rational or independent thinking of their own.

Obama has successfully tapped into our national obsession with personality. As a nation we have gradually lost the ability to resist the cult like loyalty and devotion to persons (or political parties) rather than to an ideology. And by "ideology" I mean core beliefs that enable people to resist what cults do best, appealing primarily to our emotions and making us "feel good". I like feeling good too, I don't know who doesn't, but not at the expense of what can happen if I only follow my feelings.

I've made huge mistakes believing people who don't really say anything substantive, and falling for their pitches. But that was a long time ago, and I no longer worry about resisting questionable sales pitches. If I hear a message that appears tailored only to making me feel good, then I immediately become suspicious. This has worked very well for me... the last time I got conned it only cost me a dollar or two, but I can live with that. But even when you become "cult proofed" or "con proofed" it doesn't stop them from trying... I'm always amused when someone works hard to talk me into something, but doesn't realize he is actually talking me out of it.

Iamon lyme: Hmmmm, V doesn't know that it's not actually tasteless to say "drink the koolaid." Koolaid comes in many flavors and it's anything but tasteless. Unless it's the lemon koolaid. That stuff is crap.

Artful Dodger: All right, so maybe the lemon flavored stuff isn't so great... have you tried the lemon lime?

They say once you've had the lemon lime there is no going back... and by "they" I mean me.

Iamon lyme: I'll have to try that. Maybe I'll change my view about the lemon if they add the lime. I knew that you could put the lime in the coconut and drink them both up. Once I put the lime in the coconut, and called my doctor, woke him up and askd, " 'Doctor, ain't there nothing I can take,
I say, Doctor, to relieve this belly ache?
I say, Doctor, doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take,
I say, Doctor, dooooctor, to relieve this belly ache?'
Put the lime in the coconut, drink them both together,
Put the lime in the coconut, then you feel better,
Put the lime in the coconut, drink them both up,"

He told me to, "Put the lime in the coconut, and call me in the morning"

Under Obamacare he'd tell me to call him in a month.

Iamon lyme: Leader.. ideology.. religious persuasion, there is no difference... pot calling kettle black. Every major group plays on some 'herd' instinct.. No moral high ground for you there.

"appealing primarily to our emotions and making us "feel good". I like feeling good too, I don't know who doesn't, but not at the expense of what can happen if I only follow my feelings."

... again a pot n' kettle case.

"and I no longer worry about resisting questionable sales pitches. If I hear a message that appears tailored only to making me feel good, then I immediately become suspicious."

Just the ones that try and make you feel good? What about the ones designed to make you feel insecure or afraid... seems you've got some listening to learn

(V): [ pot calling kettle black ]

Are you aware of the origins of that expression? Most people are aware of what it means, but not the racist overtones it once meant to convey. I'll give you a hint, it's like saying "A person of color calling another person of color a person of color."

Iamon lyme: it's about hypocrisy, not racist bud, look it up, everywhere you look it will dismiss it as being racist

The Col: He knows.. he just didn't like my reply.

(V): re "he just didn't like my reply"

shocking

The Col: You can please some of the people... etc.

The Col: You missed the point, but then go on to explain the point I was making... to me?

I'll have to mull that one over, because I'm not really sure what kind of turn around you are trying to pull here. Or maybe you're not trying to do anything like that, maybe you really don't get it.

The meaning of pot calling the kettle black is to illustrate hypocrisy. I didn't say the meaning of the statement is racist, I was merely pointing out how an original subtext of that statement no longer applies or is even relevant anymore. And I'm not surprised by your knee jerk reaction, I've come to expect it... in fact I have yet to see either you or V understand or respond to anything I've actually been saying. But maybe that's been my fault, because unless I spell everything out for you guys you just don't seem to get it.

Anyway, here's another one of those kind of statements, and you are free to disagree with me about this as well... "one got in over the fence." The literal meaning is, a dog gets in over the fence and impregnates someone elses dog. But one of the originally underlying (flies below the radar) meanings of that has also been been nulified by time and changes in attitudes.

I grew up in a small community where racist attitudes were the norm. I learned what some of those sayings actually meant back then from listening to the old timers. I didn't understand until I was older that these guy were actually transplants from a different time and a different place. They were kind of like the aging hippies we have today, who still get off on "free sex" and drugs and rock and roll and spouting off that all Republicans are warmongers. But don't tell the old hippies that, because they still think this is the 60's and you shouldn't trust anyone over 30...

Maybe it's time grandpa hippy pants should take a long look in the mirror at himself, and realise he passed the age of 30 about 40 years ago.

Iamon lyme: Frankly, life is too short to weed through your often rambling statements, and I usually nod off by the first paragraph.I did research your insinuation that pot calling kettle black" is(or was) a racist statement.It dates back to the 1600's apparently, and it NEVER did, not then, not now. NO original subtext, nadda,zich.If you would like more info regarding the origons of "pot calling kettle black" I will send you the links

The Col: And I'm sure you took a quick flight down the map to look up the old timers from my home town, to ask them about it as well. I probably should have told you they are all dead now, and saved you the trip. I was a boy at the time and they were old enough to be my grandparents. But I am having fun reading your insightful comments, so please... do continue.

The Col: FYI I generally like to keep my messages limited to one two posts per idea. Three if needed.

I COULD make very short and concise statements for your benefit, so you are able to digest it all without too much trouble. But frankly, if I need to walk you through every little detail with one short message after another this could easliy take up an entire page doing nothing more than that. I can do this, and have done this for my children when they were young because of their limited knowledge and attention spans, but I will not be doing this for you.

The Col: It dates back older in various forms... Yet the phrase as I know it (and you know it) it dates back to a time of open fires..

As generally understood, the person accusing (the "pot") is understood to share some quality with the target of their accusation (the "kettle"). The pot is mocking the kettle for a little soot when the pot itself is thoroughly covered in the same. An alternative interpretation, recognised by some,[1][2] but not all,[3] sources is that the pot is sooty (being placed on a fire), while the kettle is clean and shiny (being placed on coals only), and hence when the pot accuses the kettle of being black, it is the pot’s own sooty reflection that it sees: the pot accuses the kettle of a fault that only the pot has, rather than one that they share.

The following poem is found in the school book "Maxwell's Elementary Grammar", copyright 1904.

"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you're given a crack."

"Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot;
"'Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –
That your blackness is mirrored in me."


>>>>>>>>>> I think it's just where lamon was raised, it got made racist by the old timers he refers to from his 'childhood'.

(V): [ I think it's just where lamon was raised, it got made racist by the old timers he refers to from his 'childhood'. ]

Bingo, you figured it out! I'm impressed.

Language is always changing... new words are always being coined and old words gain different shades of meaning, as do phrases. When I said the old timers were transplants, I meant that literally. Many were old south racists who were influenced from their youth by the clan, and some were probably former clan members. I didn't understand why they held such deep hatred and resentments, but as a kid living in the time and area I lived in you were expected to respect your elders no matter what.

To this day I still don't know what prejudices my parents may have had, because they were smart enough not to poison their own children with that kind of thinking. My dad was a fiscal Republican, and was a law and order kind of guy. Other than that his personal views leaned more toward the liberal side. My mother was the go along to get along type, a Democrat who never questioned what her party did. She would complain about high taxes, but never made the connection between that and the fact it was her party who was mostly responsible for the high tax rate. And I'm talking about the tax rate back then... If she was still alive and working, she would be furious about todays taxation, but I suspect she would still be a party loyalist.

Iamon lyme: V): [ ...he refers to from his 'childhood'. ]

What's up with the parenthetical reference to my 'childhood'?

Are you suggesting I might be lying? Granted it was a long time ago, but I do have papers showing where and when I was born. And just to be clear, my birth record and SS# are perfectly valid. In fact, I have more of a right to occupy the White house as the executive leader of my country than our current president does... I don't need to conjure up poorly faked documents because I really WAS born in this country.

Iamon lyme: Ages ago..

"What's up with the parenthetical reference to my 'childhood'?"

Nothing...

"I have more of a right to occupy the White house as the executive leader of my country than our current president does.I don't need to conjure up poorly faked documents because I really WAS born in this country.

No you don't. He was born in America, just for some reason you hate liberals.. or at least your definition of what they are.

"If she was still alive and working, she would be furious about todays taxation"

If everyone in the US .. ok, the 99% got together and closed all the tax loopholes.. I think it'd be quite feasible to permanently lower tax rates for the rich.

(V): [ "I have more of a right to occupy the White house as the executive leader of my country than our current president does. I don't need to conjure up poorly faked documents because I really WAS born in this country." ] ~ [ "No you don't. He was born in America, just for some reason you hate liberals.. or at least your definition of what they are." ]

And you know he was born on US soil because he showed faked documents to prove it? Come on V, you can do better than that.


By the way, I WAS careless and did use the wrong word when talking about older subtexts to an original saying... I didn't mean to give the impression those subtexts started with the original saying, but apparently I did. And you were not lax in jumping on that mistake.

One of the things I like about this site is people will point out mistakes in meaning, but I've never been jumped on for making a spelling mistake. A few years ago I was at different site and it was like talking to third graders... it was more important to the people there to catch spelling mistakes than to make any attempt at dealing with issues. As crazy as it can get here I have say it's a step up from some of the crazier craziness I've seen. And the moderation here isn't bad either, but I confess to occasionallyl trying to slip by the censors by burying my insults in a lot of innocuous sounding words...



(((aww crap, I did it again... why do I always tell on myself like that?)))

Iamon lyme: Seriously.. stop thinking for a second and empty your mind...

.... Do you really think that the entire establishment (as we are talking about both parties here as well as 'civil servants' could hide such a fraud? ...

"prove it?"

You don't think it's a fake 100% then!!

"And you were not lax in jumping on that mistake."

Not that it was a mistake, but I can see obviously that different areas will have learnt things differently. The old timers you grew up with, would by nature of the own thinking re-invented certain terms to fit their needs.

"but I confess to occasionallyl trying to slip by the censors by burying my insults in a lot of innocuous sounding words"

.... Yeah well... remember this is a PG site.

"If the tax code had been simplified and constructed to be truly "fair" a long time ago, there would have been no need for tax loopholes to come afterward. After excessively taxing the wealthiest, legislators needed to go back and create ways for them to be able to keep more of their money... why? So they might have something left over to invest in growth, that's why. If this sounds crazy it's because it IS crazy... take it away with one hand and give it back with the other. Sound familiar?"

I agree, it is crazy.. and it's being abused. A simplification and recognition that multi-nationals can hide money thanks to that complexity needs to be worked on.

"why?" I think basically to keep the stock markets buoyant. Much of the money in there is 'imaginary'.

(V): [ Seriously.. stop thinking for a second and empty your mind... .... Do you really think that the entire establishment (as we are talking about both parties here as well as 'civil servants' could hide such a fraud? ... ]


Seriously, START thinking (for more than a second) and ask yourself this question... if it ISN'T a fraud, then why did the president show FRAUDULENT papers in an attempt to settle the question? He could have settled the question once and for all by simply showing true documentation.

I am older than Obama, and record keeping has improved since I was born... I can get replacement papers at any time, so no one can convince me that anyone born in the US is somehow unable to get his hands on true documentation.

Showing faked documentation to prove legitimacy is worse than showing nothing at all... so why would he do that?

You don't need phony ID to buy beer if you are old enough to buy beer. Does it make sense for someone who is old enough to buy liquor to get phony ID to prove they are old enough?

No, it makes no sense at all. You could be turned away for using phony ID, when all you had to do was to show your true ID.



Okay, I've made my point now so you can turn your brain off... sorry for the inconvenience.

(V): [ If everyone in the US .. ok, the 99% got together and closed all the tax loopholes.. I think it'd be quite feasible to permanently lower tax rates for the rich. ]

If the tax code had been simplified and constructed to be truly "fair" a long time ago, there would have been no need for tax loopholes to come afterward. After excessively taxing the wealthiest, legislators needed to go back and create ways for them to be able to keep more of their money... why? So they might have something left over to invest in growth, that's why. If this sounds crazy it's because it IS crazy... take it away with one hand and give it back with the other. Sound familiar?

Investment means growth of business (that means more jobs) and fewer people out of work, and that means more taxable income is being generated for the government!!! So why does government invariably try to discourage the goose that lays the golden eggs from laying the golden eggs? The government doesn't benefit from a distressed economy, so what are they trying to do?

If potentional investors are discouraged from investing it doesn't mean they are shoving their money into off shore accounts. It means they are shy about investing their money. So it's really not my business or yours what they do with that money, because it belongs to them. And if they decide NOT to invest, because of governmental rules and restrictions and charging fees for doing this than and the other (taxable) thing, what can the government do about that? Make it illegal to NOT make investments? Okay, maybe (I wouldn't put it passed them) but until that happens there's nothing to stop potential investors from pulling out of doing any future business and simply retire on what they have.

Because of how poorly the economy is doing and because of what Obamacare will do to business starting in 2014, we will continue to see more and more people retire before they had planned to... that's already happening, people are already starting to jump ship, and why not? The damn thing is sinking fast, and Obama is up there on the deck drilling more holes in it so the water will (hopefully) drain out. Well, good luck with that Mr President... you insufferable moron!!

(V): So many phrases, so little time

The Col: Interesting to see how many modern phrases date back in some form thousands of years.

Iamon lyme: So you do understand I find you moaning about what you call "liberals" is hypocritical considering elements within the GOP camp have used such tactics.

... fyi most politically concious people in the UK consider the democrats as being conservative, republicans as being very conservative... and the tea party being so right, that like Derek Zoolander (see film).... they cannot turn left.

.. the likes of the BNP being the exception. The party that was taken to court over only allowing white members.. preferably with a family tree dating back to the last ice age.

(V): [ Just the ones that try and make you feel good? What about the ones designed to make you feel insecure or afraid... seems you've got some listening to learn ]

Good point. I'm surprised you caught that one, but not so surprised you miss the connection between fear mongering and phony warnings over things like global warming or "Oh, no... the earth is running out of resources so we need to stop drilling for oil!" Or, we need to get as many contraceptives for women as we can, because... uh, because we men respect them and, and... because we don't want to have to spend the rest of our lives paying for some brat just because we can't keep our pants zipped up... because we respect them!

My favorite attempt at fear mongering is when someone claims we are "hurting the earth". But maybe they too have a point, and should encourage everyone to have a pet rock to care for, so they may learn the value of caring for inanimate objects. And just to make it clear so there is no hint of inconsistency with this liberal line of thinking, babies in the womb are NOT inanimate objects... so caring for them, let alone caring anything about them, is simply not an issue.

I wanted to be a liberal at one time, but I never could follow the herd all the way down the path to Insanity Meadows. By the way, that would be a good name for a nursing home for elderly hippies and radicals from the 60's... only one problem with that though, they are not inanimate objects either.
Well, not yet.

Iamon lyme: It's called having a basic knowledge of chemistry, physics and geography.

Plus several years of reporting on various news channels here in the UK showing the effects of acid rain on forests.

"Or, we need to get as many contraceptives for women as we can, because... uh, because we men respect them and, and... because we don't want to have to spend the rest of our lives paying for some brat just because we can't keep our pants zipped up... because we respect them!"

You'll find a comparable text in the Bible... in the OT.

"so they may learn the value of caring for inanimate objects."

But the Earth moves, it is animated.

"babies in the womb are NOT inanimate objects... so caring for them, let alone caring anything about them, is simply not an issue."

If that's what you think people that are not thinking like you think.. then your thinking need rethinking.

"Well, not yet."

You have a real grudge??