PDA

View Full Version : President Obama endorses gay marriage.



Tobias
May 9th, 2012, 03:47 PM
while I doubt this changes anything from a policy perspective because he has been pretty good for the LGBT already, but this marks the first time a sitting U.S. president has publicly endorsed gay marriage.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11621156-obama-i-think-same-sex-couples-should-be-able-to-get-married?lite

seems like a fairly significant moment in civil rights. not just that he does, but is willing to say so in an election year implies that the country is far enough along that a fight over gay rights is something he feels comfortable with.

SeiKeo
May 9th, 2012, 03:48 PM
Time to sit back and watch the fireworks.

Rockxas
May 9th, 2012, 03:52 PM
Time to sit back and watch the fireworks.
Fireworks in all the colors of the rainbow~
Anyways, isn't this a really bad move for him? As far as I know USA isn't all that accepting of gay people in general.

SeiKeo
May 9th, 2012, 03:54 PM
Fireworks in all the colors of the rainbow~
Anyways, isn't this a really bad move for him? As far as I know USA isn't all that accepting of gay people in general.

A large amount of the people who disapprove of gay marriage are the people who won't vote for him anyways, so the question is is this softening on social issues going to 1: draw enough swing voters who like that kind of thing, 2: is it going to get the right fired up and raise money?

Tobias
May 9th, 2012, 03:55 PM
last time I checked the polls said about 53% of people were generally supportive of the idea. considering that number has been on an upward swing for decades, tits probably at least that much if it hasnt ticked up one or two more points since then.

Misheard
May 9th, 2012, 04:11 PM
/throws a party

0SilverHawk0
May 9th, 2012, 04:22 PM
I don't find this *that* significant, but it is a step. Really, the real revolution is more of a waiting game. Support for gays has been on the rise for quite awhile, this is just like an affirmation that it's come pretty far.

Fingolfin
May 9th, 2012, 04:37 PM
I was hoping this would happen. I heard that Obama was considering it but I wasn't sure if he would actually say it outright. He's obviously going to get new allies and enemies with this decision. I just hope he does a good job of it and makes some significant changes.

I3uster
May 9th, 2012, 04:48 PM
"Gay marriage" or lolregistration?
Because I don't think he'd have any success with the former, lol.

Kotonoha
May 9th, 2012, 04:52 PM
:)

Dark Pulse
May 9th, 2012, 04:56 PM
Sad to say, I just learned today of another state that shut down on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/amendment-one-north-carolina_n_1501308.html?ref=mostpopular

Something like 70-30. Made it the 30th state to have a constitutional ban on it.

Really, how the fuck are we going to explain this to our future generations, who are going to look at us and say "How was denying the right of people to be happy justified?" All I can think of is telling them they came from an earlier, more primitive time, and they couldn't understand that for these people, that's what it was about, not on having them stand in lavender vests and nodding leeringly as the local boy/girl scout troop passes by.

"Protect the children," they say. How do you protect the children? You teach them that society is fucked up and to question and decide shit for themselves, not to follow the flock blindly.

Fingolfin
May 9th, 2012, 05:00 PM
"Gay marriage" or lolregistration?
Because I don't think he'd have any success with the former, lol.

The gay marriage bit. Oh, come on, he's Barack Obama. He can do anything.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

I know this is a satire but I love it. And, I'm just using this as an excuse to post this. It never gets old.

Honestly though, I'm not sure if he will succeed or not. I can hope though.

Caster
May 9th, 2012, 06:27 PM
I hope he does. I know none of the other potential candidates will support this, so he's who I'm hoping for. Came at a good time, as I was a bit upset over North Carolina doing it. It's slowly starting to turn around, but plenty are still against it, which doesn't help the isolation feeling i have at times. I just hope this changes sooner rather than later for the country as a whole.

Ivan The Mouse
May 9th, 2012, 06:30 PM
Just remember folks, everything's going to get better for same-sex marriage.

Kotonoha
May 9th, 2012, 06:58 PM
http://i46.tinypic.com/au8ly1.jpg


(They later changed the headline, the bastards.)

Caster
May 9th, 2012, 07:02 PM
I really hate Fox news. Thankfully I'm not exposed to it too often, but it's so... bad. Probably one of the few things that could easily send me into a rant. Doesn't help it's likely to push most of my buttons in one go.

I3uster
May 9th, 2012, 07:16 PM
http://i46.tinypic.com/au8ly1.jpg


(They later changed the headline, the bastards.)
Lol, what the fuck.
Even our tabloids aren't that bad.

Mike1984
May 9th, 2012, 07:32 PM
"Protect the children," they say. How do you protect the children? You teach them that society is fucked up and to question and decide shit for themselves, not to follow the flock blindly.

Yeah, but if they think for themselves, then they might go to hell for daring to question the all-loving God that they worship....

SeiKeo
May 9th, 2012, 07:44 PM
Lol, what the fuck.
Even our tabloids aren't that bad.

Murdoch for ya.

Mike1984
May 9th, 2012, 07:56 PM
Murdoch for ya.

Well, he seems to be getting a kicking over here, at least, although the Tories on the Parliamentary Committee investigating him seem determined to let him off the hook as far as they possibly can....

Fingolfin
May 9th, 2012, 08:16 PM
http://i46.tinypic.com/au8ly1.jpg


(They later changed the headline, the bastards.)

It's official. Fox News is headed by Hitler and Skeletor.

Also, breaking news, they are all dongs.

EDIT: Dong is a synonym for dick right? Because that's what the people at Fox News are. Also, they feed off the souls of orphan children and their suffering.

KENTA
May 9th, 2012, 08:32 PM
Good for Obama. Not his biggest fan, but the more people in power who realize how utterly ridiculous denying the right to a legal marriage is to anyone, regardless of sexual preference, the better.

Chaos Greyblood
May 9th, 2012, 08:56 PM
It's official. Fox News is headed by Hitler and Skeletor.

Also, breaking news, they are all dongs.

EDIT: Dong is a synonym for dick right? Because that's what the people at Fox News are. Also, they feed off the souls of orphan children and their suffering.

Skeletor isn't that bad, he's just very silly. :3

And dong is actually a synonym for crap. As in, actual poop. :P This reminded me about how Obama eventually broke the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy concerning gay soldiers in the U.S. Army. That was a step into the right direction, for certain.

KENTA
May 9th, 2012, 08:57 PM
No, Dong is a synonym for penis. You're thinking of dung.

Five_X
May 9th, 2012, 09:52 PM
Yep. Like dongtacular, referring to something incredible but within reason, unlike something referred to as being ricockulous.

Kotonoha
May 9th, 2012, 09:56 PM
loldongs

KENTA
May 9th, 2012, 09:59 PM
Listen to the thong song. Now replace every "thong" with "dong" and laugh because you have the maturity of a 5 year old. I know I will.

Ivan The Mouse
May 9th, 2012, 10:02 PM
The dongs need to be circumcised.

KooriRenchuu
May 9th, 2012, 10:05 PM
FUCK NO, THAT'S GENITAL MUTILATION!

Kotonoha
May 9th, 2012, 10:06 PM
Yeah, that shit's gross, don't do that.

RadiantBeam
May 9th, 2012, 10:09 PM
Well, it's a step in the right direction, at least.

Ivan The Mouse
May 9th, 2012, 10:15 PM
FUCK NO, THAT'S GENITAL MUTILATION!


Yeah, that shit's gross, don't do that.

Two things. Number one, if we are talking about the literal circumcision of literal dongs, it's the norm here. Besides, the uncut ones are unsanitary. So there, if you don't want to see how cut dongs look like, don't marry a native Filipino.

Number two, about the metaphorical sense, we need to circumcise them, because cutting them off completely will hurt public perception of the libruls and then the conservatards will use that as a fuel to call gay marriage supporters as "anti-life".

Kotonoha
May 9th, 2012, 10:35 PM
Besides, the uncut ones are unsanitary
This is actually a myth IIRC.


Number two, about the metaphorical sense, we need to circumcise them, because cutting them off completely will hurt public perception of the libruls and then the conservatards will use that as a fuel to call gay marriage supporters as "anti-life".
I don't even understand this sentence, lol

Vigilantia
May 9th, 2012, 10:38 PM
Lol, Ogodaka, that video is awesome as always. I hope he wins this election (not that there's anything this Canadian can do about it), the US can ill afford another Republican.

@Fox news: Its the republican news net. What more do you expect? I place it in the same place as the Onion nowadays. Except Fox tries to be serious.

SeiKeo
May 9th, 2012, 10:38 PM
This is actually a myth IIRC.

IIRC, it used to be true a while (centuries) back, but we're in the 21st century, you can keep it clean. I do remember a study with it and AIDS transmission, though I can't remember the conclusion...

KENTA
May 9th, 2012, 10:41 PM
From gay marriage to the cleanliness of an uncut penis.

I love you BL.

Kotonoha
May 9th, 2012, 10:42 PM
Clean penises are the key to a happy gay marriage.

Unless you are lesbians.

Theocrass
May 9th, 2012, 10:48 PM
Calling circumcision (of male OR female genitalia) mutilation is, pardon my bluntness, a bit ... intolerant.

I mean, there are plenty of Masai women who would be offended if you told them they were mutilating themselves instead of making an important transition into adulthood.

I believe the Masai men also get circumcised, but even if they don't, male circumcision is still an important ritual in many cultures.

SeiKeo
May 9th, 2012, 10:51 PM
Hahaha what the fuck. I'm sorry, just because your culture likes it does not mean that you are not physically removing a part of the body that is very important for feeling pleasure.

KENTA
May 9th, 2012, 10:53 PM
Well I know with male circumcision at least, you're not. You're just removing what basically amounts to a protective layering of skin.

RacingeR
May 9th, 2012, 10:54 PM
Hahaha what the fuck. I'm sorry, just because your culture likes it does not mean that you are not physically removing a part of the body that is very important for feeling pleasure.

It is... not?

I myself haven't feel my pleasure hampered for taking that thing of, and a friend of mine that had to get the thing cut due to an infection also assured me that it feels better now.

So yeah, that is a complete myth too xP.

Theocrass
May 9th, 2012, 10:54 PM
Hahaha what the fuck. I'm sorry, just because your culture likes it does not mean that you are not physically removing a part of the body that is very important for feeling pleasure.

They don't remove the entire thing, it's only partial.

Who are you to decide if they are mutilating themselves, anyways?

They don't see it like that, is my point.

They see it as a necessary and proper part of becoming a woman. So what's wrong with that, exactly?

Who are you to tell that they are wrong, that it's mutilation or depraved or disgusting or terrible or whatever?

SeiKeo
May 9th, 2012, 10:56 PM
It is... not?

I myself haven't feel my pleasure hampered for taking that thing of, and a friend of mine that had to get the thing cut due to an infection also assured me that it feels better now.

So yeah, that is a complete myth too xP.

For women, for women.

Five_X
May 9th, 2012, 10:59 PM
For women, for women.

I can personally attest that going bare down there doesn't dull pleasure in the least, for a guy. :3

KENTA
May 9th, 2012, 11:00 PM
He's saying female circumcision, aka the removal of the clitoris, greatly dampens sexual enjoyment for them.

Theocrass
May 9th, 2012, 11:04 PM
Usually, when it's part of a cultural ritual and not some American girl being rebellious or some shit, they only partially remove the clitoris.

Total removal is unusual, but some groups might do it.

And there is NOTHING wrong with that.

KENTA
May 9th, 2012, 11:05 PM
I don't think I've ever heard of anyone "rebelling" by cutting off their clitoris.

Theocrass
May 9th, 2012, 11:06 PM
I just know that some girls do it in America for some reason.

Don't remember what, it wasn't a terribly important part of the discussion.

Five_X
May 9th, 2012, 11:07 PM
I don't think I've ever heard of anyone "rebelling" by cutting off their clitoris.

"I hate you dad I'm gonna go cut off my cli-OH GOD OH MY GOD AAAAGGGHHHH-"

Kotonoha
May 9th, 2012, 11:07 PM
Usually, when it's part of a cultural ritual and not some American girl being rebellious or some shit, they only partially remove the clitoris.

Total removal is unusual, but some groups might do it.

And there is NOTHING wrong with that.
There is something wrong with that. There are several things extremely wrong with that.

Theocrass
May 9th, 2012, 11:08 PM
There is something wrong with that. There are several things extremely wrong with that.

:(

SeiKeo
May 9th, 2012, 11:09 PM
Usually, when it's part of a cultural ritual and not some American girl being rebellious or some shit, they only partially remove the clitoris.

Total removal is unusual, but some groups might do it.

And there is NOTHING wrong with that.

Theo, there is something deeply wrong with a culture telling a young girl that the need to mutilate themselves and in all possibility never be able to properly experience pleasure from sex in order to be accepted.

Kotonoha
May 9th, 2012, 11:12 PM
:(
I ":(" that you think there's nothing wrong with cutting off the main centre of pleasure in a girl's body so she can't enjoy sex. The fuck are you thinking, boy.

That's not even comparable to male circumcision where it's unnecessary but not entirely horrible; it's more like straight up chopping off dicks.

RacingeR
May 9th, 2012, 11:13 PM
Theo, there is something deeply wrong with a culture telling a young girl that the need to mutilate themselves and in all possibility never be able to properly experience pleasure from sex in order to be accepted.

...

You know what, I am totally agreeing with Leo and Koto on this.

First time I've heard of all this, really o.o

Theocrass
May 9th, 2012, 11:17 PM
Theo, there is something deeply wrong with a culture telling a young girl that the need to mutilate themselves and in all possibility never be able to properly experience pleasure from sex in order to be accepted.

It's not like you're pressured into it or anything. It's a part of becoming an adult. In that way, there is literally nothing wrong with it. It's not even a thing for them.

They're not like: "Oh my God, they're going to make me cut it off?!"

It's a part of growing up.

And Masai women enjoy plenty of sex, so properly experiencing pleasure seems like a silly thing to say. They certainly don't have any complaints. Besides, sex isn't exactly the most important thing in the world. :P

Jeezus Christ people, it's not like I'm telling you they eat their first born babies or something and are taught that they have to do that to be loved or something.

If anything, I'd find fault with you guys who would try to tell Masai women that they're doing something wrong, something terrible when it's an important part of growing up for them.

Sure, it may not be your thing. It may not be something you'd ever do.

That doesn't make it wrong.

Edit: Again, I'm telling you they only perform a partial removal.

Jeezus Christ. Sex is just the center of everything with you people, isn't it?

Chaos Greyblood
May 9th, 2012, 11:20 PM
From gay marriage to the cleanliness of an uncut penis.

I love you BL.

Quoth Bill Simmons, "Yup, these are our forumites."

SeiKeo
May 9th, 2012, 11:20 PM
“Circumcision makes women clean, promotes virginity and chastity and guards young girls from sexualfrustration by deadening their sexual appetite.”

Mrs Njeri, a defender of female genital mutilation in Kenya


Preventing women from indulging in “illegitimate” sex, and protecting them from unwilling sexual relations, are vital because the honour of the whole family is seen to be dependent on it.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT77/006/1997/en/373c3381-e984-11dd-8224-a709898295f2/act770061997en.pdf

Theo. You are defending this. You are defending intentionally destroying parts of a woman's psyche. This is not a cultural issue, this is not telling someone that it's wrong to eat dogs. This is a human rights issue.

Kotonoha
May 9th, 2012, 11:25 PM
Here's one of those totally satisfied Masaai women of yours Theo.
http://www.orato.com/world-affairs/maasai-ritual-of-female-circumcision (http://www.orato.com/world-affairs/maasai-ritual-of-female-circumcision)
http://www.orato.com/world-affairs/agnes-pareyio-fights-female-circumcision


The initiation ceremony started the same night I announced I would get circumcised. A pot full of cold water was placed outside the "manyatta" (Maasai farmhouse) with an iron axe inside the pot. The pot had to stay outside overnight for the water to get as cold as it can get in Kenya.My sister and I slept in the same hut where the bloody rite would take place. The circumciser joined us. At the crack of dawn, the doors were opened up and the ice-cold water from the pot was poured on our bodies to prevent excessive bleeding. I sat down with one woman holding me from the back, her arms pinning my hands to my body while two other women tightly stretched out and pinned my legs to the ground.
My peers milled around waiting with bated breathe to see whether the coward was going to scream and wince in pain. I was determined to disappoint them and prove them wrong.
The circumciser approached me menacingly waving the blade in front of my face. She gorged out my clitoris and the labia majora and minora as I almost fainted. She then inserted two fingers into the fresh wound to make sure that the work was complete and that was nothing left.

Of the three forms of female genital mutilation (FGM), the one my sister and I were subjected to is the most painful, severe and horrendous. It is known as "Infibulation."
The other two biggest types of FGM, "Clitoridectomy" and "Clitoridotomy" are less painful and savage. The first one, also called "Sunna," involves clipping the tip of the clitoris, while the second one implies the partial or total removal of the external part of the clitoris.
The one I had consists in replacing the vulva with a wall of flesh from the pubis to the anus, except for a pencil-size opening to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through. I bled uncontrollably for hours. I was in severe pain, but I did not make a face. I slipped in and out of consciousness due to the huge loss of blood. My legs had to remain apart while milk, butter and salt were applied on the wounds to prevent them from becoming septic.
I came to the realization that this cruelty was something I would not want my daughter or any other girl to undergo. It is a violation of human rights and should be condemned. I was married at 18 years of age. It was not my wish, because I wanted to proceed with my studies, but they pulled me out of school and married me off to a village elder. It is this tradition that keeps our girls out of school. I grew up resenting the childish decision to accept the cutting just to prove to my peers I was not a coward, but I saw there was a need to educate my people and create awareness among the girls and women. At first, I faced the opposition of village elders who threatened me so I'd stop making noise about this issue. I thought of giving up, but my sister encouraged me to keep fighting.

Tell me again how it's totally okay to do this, Theo.

SeiKeo
May 9th, 2012, 11:26 PM
It's not like you're pressured into it or anything.

This needs to be doubleposted. (damn, Koto ninja)


However, personal accounts by women who have had a ritual genital procedure recount anxiety before the event, terror at being seized and forcibly held during the event, great difficulty during childbirth, and lack of sexual pleasure during intercourse.

In addition, the WHO disagrees with your contention that it's only partially removed.


Type I: Also known as clitoridectomy, this type consists of partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or its prepuce.

Type II: Also known as excision, the clitoris and labia minora are partially or totally removed, with or without excision of the labia majora.


Type III: The most severe form, it is also known as infibulation or pharaonic type. The procedure consists of narrowing the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or labia majora, with or without removal of the clitoris. The appositioning of the wound edges consists of stitching or holding the cut areas together for a certain period of time (for example, girls’ legs are bound together), to create the covering seal. A small opening is left for urine and menstrual blood to escape. An infibulation must be opened either through penetrative sexual intercourse or surgery.


Type IV: This type consists of all other procedures to the genitalia of women for non-medical purposes, such as pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.

The fact that there are types for complete removal should indicate something.

Theocrass
May 9th, 2012, 11:28 PM
AFAIK, and to be fair the Masai are the only group I know well, this is just a growing up thing.

If promoting chastity was the idea, then I haven't heard anything about it.

Because, well, most Masai women take warriors as lovers. Like, voluntarily. Did I mention that women who are already married are the ones who take these lovers?

I don't know how this article got it's data, or if it applies to the Masai.

SeiKeo
May 9th, 2012, 11:29 PM
AFAIK, and to be fair the Masai are the only group I know well, this is just a growing up thing.

...

I'm left speechless.

Removing a part of someone's body is not a fucking growing up thing.


If promoting chastity was the idea, then I haven't heard anything about it.

And here's your problem.

e: oh fun.


Typically a local village practitioner, lay person, or midwife is engaged for a fee to perform the procedure, which is done without anesthesia using a variety of instruments, such as knives, razor blades, broken glass, or scissors.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/102/1/153.full

Kotonoha
May 9th, 2012, 11:30 PM
Edit: Again, I'm telling you they only perform a partial removal.
It's the most sensitive part of the body. "Partial removals" without anaesthesia are not a small thing.


Jeezus Christ. Sex is just the center of everything with you people, isn't it?
what the fuuuuuuuuuck


I don't know how this article got it's data, or if it applies to the Masai.
Did you read the article I linked? The woman interviewed is Masaai, she is an activist against the practise after she actually went through it.

Theocrass
May 9th, 2012, 11:31 PM
Alright, alright! I get it!

I guess I just didn't know much about this.

I'm willing to admit that, but the documentaries on the Masai I saw didn't really cover this stuff in depth.

I knew that Masai women were circumcised to become adults and that they frequently took young men as lovers.

I mean, there certainly didn't seem to be any big problems there.

Chaos Greyblood
May 9th, 2012, 11:31 PM
Theo, with all due respect, you don't know how much you need to shut up right now. :/ You'll be digging yourself a hole on this topic.

EDIT: Uh oh, sniped!

Kotonoha
May 9th, 2012, 11:37 PM
Alright, alright! I get it!

I guess I just didn't know much about this.

I'm willing to admit that, but the documentaries on the Masai I saw didn't really cover this stuff in depth.

I knew that Masai women were circumcised to become adults and that they frequently took young men as lovers.

I mean, there certainly didn't seem to be any big problems there.
I can see why they wouldn't want to linger on that too long. "And then they cut off the young girls' genit... OKAY MOVING ON"

You might want to look it up sometime though, it's seen as a huge human rights violation so it's pretty shocking to see someone say there's nothing wrong with it.




SO THEN, ABOUT THAT OBAMA!

SeiKeo
May 9th, 2012, 11:38 PM
SO THEN, ABOUT THAT OBAMA!

Is Obama circumcised? Inquiring minds want to know.

Chaos Greyblood
May 9th, 2012, 11:39 PM
Obama? A guy with a name like that carries a spear!

Theocrass
May 9th, 2012, 11:39 PM
Well, they showed a video of it happening.

The girl just looked a little uncomfortable while it was happening. She was even singing and dancing in the middle of it.

Which was part of why I wasn't really thinking it was such a big thing.

Chaos Greyblood
May 9th, 2012, 11:40 PM
Welll, crap. I don't know what to say with that.

Cultures and customs are different. That's all to it.

SeiKeo
May 9th, 2012, 11:41 PM
The girl just looked a little uncomfortable while it was happening. She was even singing and dancing in the middle of it.

http://fi.somethingawful.com/safs/smilies/4/6/staredog.001.gif


without anesthesia ... knives, razor blades, broken glass, or scissors.
.

Theocrass
May 9th, 2012, 11:42 PM
http://fi.somethingawful.com/safs/smilies/4/6/staredog.001.gif


.[/I]

*Shrugs.*

Maybe she just had brass balls?

Kotonoha
May 9th, 2012, 11:42 PM
Is Obama circumcised? Inquiring minds want to know.
OBAMA, THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO SEE PICS OF YOUR DICK.

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING FROM AMERICA​?

Five_X
May 9th, 2012, 11:43 PM
Well, they showed a video of it happening.

The girl just looked a little uncomfortable while it was happening. She was even singing and dancing in the middle of it.

Which was part of why I wasn't really thinking it was such a big thing.

Theo, you should know this! It's just simple media distortion, lol. Even documentaries and the like are very guilty of such.

Vigilantia
May 9th, 2012, 11:45 PM
OBAMA, THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO SEE PICS OF YOUR DICK.

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING FROM AMERICA​?

The last time he stalled on something it was because he was too busy killing Osama Bin Laden. This time? Probably too busy fighting off an alien communist Nazi Muslim invasion.

Theocrass
May 9th, 2012, 11:46 PM
I wonder if he's going to get reelected.

Oh yeah, my ... thing came in the mail today.

I forgot this was my first year as a registered voter.

KENTA
May 9th, 2012, 11:51 PM
Oh shit, I'm a registered voter now!

Not going to vote though, because I don't want any of the people running in office.

Theocrass
May 9th, 2012, 11:52 PM
Yeah, I don't care for any of the candidates either.

John Hunstman is the only one I liked.

Kotonoha
May 9th, 2012, 11:52 PM
Yeah well... screw you guys with your votes for Obama or whoever, I get to vote for my local NDP representative who never wins, and that's way more important >:(

Theocrass
May 9th, 2012, 11:53 PM
What is NDP?

KENTA
May 9th, 2012, 11:55 PM
Non Denominational Party?

Vigilantia
May 9th, 2012, 11:56 PM
New Democratic Party. It's a Canadian Party that hasn't won for the last... 12 years now? (Damn Harper...)

Kotonoha
May 10th, 2012, 12:00 AM
Well at least they're the official opposition at the moment! Due to QUEBECOIS RUSH KEKEKEKEKEKE

Theocrass
May 10th, 2012, 12:02 AM
Wait, so what's the other Canadian party (the one that wins) called?

KENTA
May 10th, 2012, 12:04 AM
The Tories, I think.

Kotonoha
May 10th, 2012, 12:05 AM
The Conservatives, at the moment.


Headed by this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-P08sAY1P4
(Look it's funny because his bad French makes it sound like he's talking about boners, okay)

Theocrass
May 10th, 2012, 12:06 AM
And ... uh ... are the two parties markedly different from our own?

Vigilantia
May 10th, 2012, 12:11 AM
Well, I know if you brought up gay marriage in Canada everyone would laugh at you. So the Republican Party wouldn't work as well in Canada. Our parties are also considerably more liberal/moderate.

KENTA
May 10th, 2012, 12:11 AM
From the half assed research I've just done, seems like the conservative party in Canada focuses a lot less on religion.

So basically, they're US conservatives if they didn't have their heads up their collective asses.

In-N-Out Double-Double & Animal Fries
May 10th, 2012, 12:20 AM
AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF JESUS CHRIST, AYN RAND, FULLY AUTOMATIC FIREARMS, AND WHITE POWER

On a slightly more serious note... I have nothing to say

Kotonoha
May 10th, 2012, 12:21 AM
From the half assed research I've just done, seems like the conservative party in Canada focuses a lot less on religion.

So basically, they're US conservatives if they didn't have their heads up their collective asses.
Oh, I wouldn't go that far. :P

KENTA
May 10th, 2012, 12:23 AM
I did say half assed research.

Five_X
May 10th, 2012, 12:45 AM
Breakdown of Canadian politics:
-----------------------------

Liberals: The middle ground. They're supposed to be the good guys, but ever since grandpa Paul and Jean Chretien left, they haven't been the same. They tend to be financially smart, unlike the...

Conservatives: their motto is, "tax cuts, tax cuts everywhere." And at the same time, they get basically nothing done and are pretty right-wing, but without any religious connotations to them. At best, they stop motions that would be pretty decent and propose rather stupid ones. Due to Stephen Harper abusing voter apathy and the first-past-the-post system of Canadian voting, the Tories now have a majority, and they've been in power now for longer than I can remember.

NDP: New Democratic Party, the left. They're the current "good guys" though they rarely win. They got to be official opposition to the Tories, though, dislodging the Liberals in the first time in forever, but... then their super awesome charismatic cool leader died. Now, Stevie H. is literally the last recognizable politician in Canada running for Prime Minister in the elections.

Bloc Quebecois: Wait, people care about these guys still?

SeiKeo
May 10th, 2012, 12:46 AM
I sense a NDP voter.

Kotonoha
May 10th, 2012, 12:52 AM
Bloc Quebecois: Wait, people care about these guys still?
Nope, if their result in the last election is any indication.

Theocrass
May 10th, 2012, 12:55 AM
You know what Mexico needs?

Someone advocating a return to traditional, Aztec values!

KENTA
May 10th, 2012, 12:57 AM
Yes.


Yes.

Five_X
May 10th, 2012, 12:57 AM
I sense a NDP voter.

I don't vote. Don't agree with democratic system, ergo I shun it in favour of preparing my own dictatorial regime.

Theocrass
May 10th, 2012, 12:59 AM
All we need to do is sacrifice all the cartel lords to appease the gods! @[email protected]

Hymn of Ragnarok
May 10th, 2012, 01:22 AM
I think I once made a lego model of the Aztec's sacrificing someone and throwing their body down the temple steps. I even added a pit for a few lego bodies to be tossed in!

This was for a fourth grade project. Fun times.

Theocrass
May 10th, 2012, 01:24 AM
Did you win an award? :D

Hymn of Ragnarok
May 10th, 2012, 01:26 AM
Did you win an award? :D

I wish. All I got was a good grade

Although it amazes me that this project didn't make my teacher sit down and have a parent-teacher conference, because I had waaaaaay too much fun designing it.

Vigilantia
May 10th, 2012, 01:45 AM
Psh that's just good old fashion learning fun. You should see what kids do in RTS game. Mwahaha, yes... my Chinese Redguard, storm the Capitalist pig's base. Not one step back! I don't care if they have tanks! Your corpses will block their treads and clog their gears!

Of course, this doesn't even cover what people do in The Sims. In other news, have you guys seen Chaos or Tyranid players?

Chaos Greyblood
May 10th, 2012, 01:50 AM
I once read a History comic made by a friend from High School which included a few characters from DBZ. They were Mr. Satan, who was used to represent the Spanish conquistadors and they had Saiyan armor, Dr. Gero was a witch doctor (And kept his hat) and Cell was Quetzalcoatl!! XDDDDD

mewarmo990
May 10th, 2012, 02:20 AM
Gay marriage has been outlawed in every state where it's been introduced as a ballot issue.

Anyway, this was interesting but not that unexpected given VP Joe Biden's comments earlier (testing the waters, most likely). It sounds like he's taking a gamble but I'm sure the decision was weighed carefully before this all happened. Plus he was guaranteed to bring it up before November.

The most obvious risk would be the alienation of African-American and Latino voters, who have historically opposed gay marriage (AA groups spearheaded Prop. 8 in California, banning gay marriage). However, even that is changing and the split is more likely generational than racial/religious. Younger voters in all demographics tend to be more supportive of gay rights issues than older voters. Also, Obama needs to energize his liberal Democrat base (which he has been afraid of losing because the economy was tanking) and young voters (who he stirred to unusual turnout in 2008), two major voting blocks. So in the end, they probably calculated that he would gain more than he loses.

However, while a major talking point, this will not be the issue that makes or breaks Obama's campaign in November. That will be the state of the economy. If he can't convince middle voters by then that it's improved enough under his administration, then the Republican candidate will win. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing -- if there's one thing Congress needs to do, it's curb the debt and a moderate Democrat president with a useless Congress are not going to get much done in this climate.

SeiKeo
May 10th, 2012, 02:23 AM
Republican candidate

Mitt http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-ssh.gif

KENTA
May 10th, 2012, 02:24 AM
I would absolutely loathe to see what happens if Mitt fucking Romney wins. In my mind he is the worst candidate for the job right now, and possibly of my lifetime.

Vigilantia
May 10th, 2012, 02:25 AM
Maybe if the candidate was McCain I'ed agree with you. I'm not so confident about Romney who looks like another business as usual republican candidate.

Theocrass
May 10th, 2012, 02:27 AM
Robin Williams for President.

SeiKeo
May 10th, 2012, 02:27 AM
I would absolutely loathe to see what happens if Mitt fucking Romney wins. In my mind he is the worst candidate for the job right now, and possibly of my lifetime.

Sarah Palin.

Theocrass
May 10th, 2012, 02:30 AM
LB has you there.

KENTA
May 10th, 2012, 02:30 AM
Sarah Palin.

Nah, I think Mitt Romeny would be much more active than Sarah Palin and do much more harm than Palin could ever hope to accomplish.

SeiKeo
May 10th, 2012, 02:31 AM
Nah, I think Mitt Romeny would be much more active than Sarah Palin and do much more harm than Palin could ever hope to accomplish.

Eh, it seems to me that they'd be equally active, but Mitt has a lick of credentials.

mewarmo990
May 10th, 2012, 02:33 AM
I know it's Romney, but the fact that he is Mitt Romney is irrelevant.

Personally, I'm on the fence because I don't think Obama performed well enough to deserve a second term (not entirely his fault but he screwed up when it counted), but don't really see anything appealing about Romney, either. But I would rather have a moderate Republican administration when it comes to the fiscal trouble we're in right now.


I would absolutely loathe to see what happens if Mitt fucking Romney wins. In my mind he is the worst candidate for the job right now, and possibly of my lifetime.
Worst? Nahhhhhh. Would you rather have seen Michelle Bachmann?

He's just meh, says whatever the party has him say (Obama is the same right now). You could replace him with anyone and it wouldn't matter.

The fact that most of his appeal comes from the fact he isn't Obama should tell you enough about his leadership qualities.

Vigilantia
May 10th, 2012, 02:45 AM
I still find it odd people have forgotten about Bush. For all of Obama's faults at least he didn't get us into another quagmire of a war and sink the surplus by a scary amount. People look at Romney and say "he's not Obama." I look at Obama and say "thank (deity) he isn't a Bush."

I can't say the same for Romney.

KENTA
May 10th, 2012, 02:46 AM
I learned a long time ago to not talk about George Bush. Period. Because good bad or otherwise, the average person has literally no fucking clue what they're talking about when his name gets brought up. People just turn into frothing at the mouth animals spewing either anti or pro Bush rhetoric until the subject is changed.

Theocrass
May 10th, 2012, 02:49 AM
Aren't there presidential action figures?

In-N-Out Double-Double & Animal Fries
May 10th, 2012, 02:51 AM
Wasn't Mitt Romney the only presidential candidate ever to come out of the primaries with a negative approval rating?

mewarmo990
May 10th, 2012, 02:52 AM
People always say shit/kiss the feet of whoever is in office. It would be the same if McCain had won instead of Obama, or Kerry instead of Dubya.

For better or worse, Bush Jr. was, well, a straightforward guy. To his credit, though, he assembled an extremely competent staff.

KENTA
May 10th, 2012, 02:56 AM
Even now, try bringing up W to the average person. It's fucking scary the transformation an otherwise rational human being goes through to become....that.

mewarmo990
May 10th, 2012, 02:58 AM
Even now, try bringing up W to the average person. It's fucking scary the transformation an otherwise rational human being goes through to become....that.
Obama is turning into the same kind of figure...

The War on Terror and its associated campaigns were highly polarizing. But the economy tanked under Obama, and that personally affected a lot of people. (never mind the fact that the crash has little to do with the President)

Vigilantia
May 10th, 2012, 03:09 AM
Yah, the crash mostly has to do with the shit Wall St. pulled. From my very limited understanding coming from documentaries... The problem still isn't fixed and its still equally possible for another heavy hitting recession to hit the world. (Though I believe the situation has "stabilized" but has yet to recover to pre-hit levels).

The balances and checks for the system just aren't there still even after all this time.

SeiKeo
May 10th, 2012, 03:14 AM
The base problem is still there, yeah: it's a crisis of over-leveraging, and the economy hasn't properly de-leveraged. Bloody system isn't clearing.

mewarmo990
May 10th, 2012, 03:25 AM
The situation is somewhat stable now -- foreclosures are down, interest rates are being kept low by the Fed, and unemployment is going down very slowly. Especially compared to Europe, which could actually go in the American economy's favor if the euro fails (because then the dollar will become the 'safe' currency for everyone to buy again, at least until the yuan gets rolling since it only started trading this past month). But that's just speculation for now.

To put it very simply, the main problem here is that banks have overreacted to the whole thing by making it extremely difficult to get loans, making it difficult for businesses to grow. This is in spite of billions and billions of gov't dollars spent to keep interest rates low (for lending) and tax credits to help businesses out. Basically, the market is still scared, even though the time to buy and borrow is ripe.

Another looming issue is our ballooning public debt. Right now the government is struggling just to pay interest on its loans, and if the world economy takes a big dip, creditors will call in those favors and we risk another fiscal crisis. If the US defaults on its debt, its credit rating will drop, and scared investors will pull their money out, devaluing the dollar and hurting everything. By standard estimates, we need to stabilize the debt at 60% of our GDP by 2021 to safely begin to pay it off from there. It's why during the last furor over raising the debt ceiling, Tea Partiers saying we should just default were suggesting the stupidest thing possible. Cut spending, raise taxes, do anything but NOT THAT, idiots.

Don't expect anything big to happen on Washington's part during the election year. Obama doesn't want to alienate the far left by being business-friendly, and Republicans don't want to him to accomplish anything else he can use in the election.

Tobias
May 10th, 2012, 12:01 PM
what the hell did you guys do to this thread?!

SeiKeo
May 10th, 2012, 12:03 PM
we need to stabilize the debt at 60% of our GDP by 2021 .

http://fi.somethingawful.com/safs/smilies/4/6/staredog.001.gif

Holy shit, I'm even a deficit hawk and I think this is impossible, good god who came up with that number.

Tobias
May 10th, 2012, 12:04 PM
http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

mewarmo990
May 14th, 2012, 12:06 PM
http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

^^

It's what we should ideally do, not what we'll end up doing.

Mcjon01
May 14th, 2012, 12:15 PM
http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/

What I learned from that simulation is that if we make focused efforts to systematically screw over every single person and thing in the country with the budget, we can afford to go to the moon again and build a colony. Worth it!

Tobias
May 14th, 2012, 12:27 PM
incidentally if you like that game, try playing the version capitol hill plays, where the absolute best you can do is allow some of the bush tax cuts to expire, maybe only add 2.5 trillion to the deficit, as opposed to the more likely scenario where they are all renewed.

mewarmo990
May 14th, 2012, 11:43 PM
What I learned from that simulation is that if we make focused efforts to systematically screw over every single person and thing in the country with the budget, we can afford to go to the moon again and build a colony. Worth it!
They obviously included that one as a poke at Newt Gingrich, LOL


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or1Mb1Vje1Q

Nicktendonick
May 15th, 2012, 03:05 PM
Just to say, people did call President Kennedy (it was him, right?) crazy for saying we could go to be moon. And then he did.

While, I do feel it's not the same here, I really do hope that we do. Lots of our technology was created through NASA and the like, as long as NASA stays alive and actually works on the technology to acheive that goal, I really see it being completely possible.

For the Debt, I do think it will destroy the US if we don't deal with it and keep on pushing it off (And personally, I blame Harry Reid for it for blocking any budget execpt the one he wants in the senate, but that's another story). I think if the government does sit down, do the hard work, spend a week figuring out what's needed and what's not and then do those painful cuts (and screw the complaining unions and special interests), we'll be ok in the end.

No amout of tax increases (to take more money from those paying taxes), or tax decreases (to bring in more people to bring in more tax money) can ever compensate for cancerous, ballooning, incompent spending.

On a personal level, I think the Senate and the congress should have term limits as well. two terms as senate (12 years) and 5 as congressmen (10 years) I think is good. I'd quote Robin Williams in Man of the Year, but most of us know the quote already. The concept of a Career Politican should flat out not exist.

-----------

On the actual subject,

And well, honestly my opinion is "different" then most I think. I do beleive that when to people love eachother, reguardless of gender, they should be able to have rights. But I do not beleive in gay marriage.

Granted, my reasons are different then most. It's due to population and filling status. Population is just barely substaining itself (for ever two parents, the average is 2 children) and we need to promote the pairing that produces more children.

I think being able to make Civil unions of something of the sort that enables gay couples to have those rights i think would be able to satisfy most people's claims. Gay couples can have the rights while straight couples keep Marriage exclusive to them. I think that's a good give and take there.

---------

(EDIT: This post isn't finished, sorry for saying one thing and not actually explaining. if you make a statement you need to actually explain it.)

Kotonoha
May 15th, 2012, 03:10 PM
Granted, my reasons are different then most. It's due to population and filling status. Population is just barely substaining itself (for ever two parents, the average is 2 children) and we need to promote the pairing that produces more children.
Not being able to marry isn't going to make gay people have children.


Gay couples can have the rights while straight couples keep Marriage exclusive to them. I think that's a good give and take there.
But... straight couples already have "the rights". That's not a fair trade.

Mcjon01
May 15th, 2012, 03:14 PM
Oh, good, somebody in a reasonable time zone can take this up, then. I'm just gonna go cry myself to sleep that those words happened.

I mean, Jesus, no gay marriage = more babies, wtf am I reading.

Kotonoha
May 15th, 2012, 03:15 PM
"I can't marry my partner? Guess I'll go impregnate a woman then."

?????

KENTA
May 15th, 2012, 03:18 PM
Yeah, regardless of whether it's legal to marry someone of the same gender, if you're gay you're gay. You're not gonna pop a kid out any time soon one way or the other.

RacingeR
May 15th, 2012, 03:21 PM
Furthermore, I'd say that the inverse is (somewhat) more truer.

Gay marriage opens the possibility of gay couples adopting children, and so on. Though that is another heavily debated issue.

Seika
May 15th, 2012, 04:19 PM
But... straight couples already have "the rights". That's not a fair trade.

Yeah, this.

Also, I'd like a quick summary of your views on why more children is a necessary/good thing. They can range from acceptable to absolutely insane, and I want to know how violently I ought to dismiss your opinion.

(Hint: Anything implying xenophobia or religious intolerance and a pidgeon-holing of people into cultural systems as soon as they're born will result in rage. Just a warning).

Kotonoha
May 15th, 2012, 04:21 PM
Does the US actually have under-population issues?

SeiKeo
May 15th, 2012, 04:22 PM
We don't, only because we're the only first world country with pretty large scale immigration.

Lycodrake
May 15th, 2012, 04:39 PM
Meh, Obama got the money he wanted out of it. Just shows they're desperate and decided to use another of their "cards".

In-N-Out Double-Double & Animal Fries
May 15th, 2012, 04:48 PM
In regards to marriage, here's the way I look at it. They should either:

A) Make marriage religious but then give civil unions all the benefits marriage currently give
B) Marriage for everyone and no longer a religious thing.

Five_X
May 15th, 2012, 04:54 PM
In a technical sense, a large number of births is a good thing... as long as you're willing to wait out a couple decades. The current problem is that the classic population pyramid, instead of being the good pyramidal shape, is actually flipping upside down: the baby boomer generation is aging, moving out of the workforce and becoming dependents, and there aren't enough young people of working age - or even people being born in the country - to pay for this rapid increase in the number of senior citizens.

http://tfw.cachefly.net/snm/images/nm/pyramids/ja-2010.png
Fig. 1, a population pyramid showing modern Japanese population distribution

As can be seen from the above figure, Japan has already reached the point just past this; the country has a massive number of people 65 years of age and older, and not nearly enough young people to make up for that. The population pyramid is actually upside down, and this is exactly what will happen to the United States and similar Western countries in the Global North in a decade or less.

http://tfw.cachefly.net/snm/images/nm/pyramids/us-2000.png
Fig. 2, a population pyramid showing the population distribution of the United States, ca. 2008

Figure 2 is four years out of date, remember, and yet it still shows a common trend: the bigger generations are getting older, and will soon leave the workforce. Very soon, this population pyramid will closely resemble that of Japan, as birth rates and death rates plummet equally. People are now living longer and having less children, and immigration isn't solving that at all when it comes to domestic working sectors.

As birth rates continue to fall along with death rates, a dilemma occurs: how can modern countries in the Global North deal with the pressures of a rapidly increasing sector of dependents who are by definition not paying for themselves, while at the same time the answer - increasing birth rates and offering related incentives - would only shift the focus from the aging to the growing half of the dependent sectors. Some Eurozone countries are currently deciding on whether or not to increase the retirement age from 65, but even that isn't a perfect solution.

The problem, in effect, isn't under-population or over-population: instead, the population is skewed in the wrong way, with the elderly being overpopulated and the young being underpopulated. There's no one situation, unless you get extreme and start killing off old people or those who don't work. Gay marriage isn't going to create more births, nor will it stop old people from getting old. It is, simply enough, not a part of the problem, a problem to which there is no clear solution.

Small note: right-click on the pictures to see more detailed info. They turned out black, for some reason.

SeiKeo
May 15th, 2012, 04:58 PM
Thank you Five, for spending more words on that than I was willing to. Note that one of the solutions to that problem is to bring in more young people, AKA immigrants, and have them work and support your native aging population. In the long term, you have to figure out whether to let them stay or throw them back out, and it brings in a lot of thorny culture and nationalism, but it's one of the ways.

Five_X
May 15th, 2012, 05:02 PM
Thank you Five, for spending more words on that than I was willing to. Note that one of the solutions to that problem is to bring in more young people, AKA immigrants, and have them work and support your native aging population. In the long term, you have to figure out whether to let them stay or throw them back out, and it brings in a lot of thorny culture and nationalism, but it's one of the ways.

Hey, I just wanted to use skills from Geography classes, lol. Fuck yeah, careers.

Technically, bringing in immigrant labour is only part of the solution; it still removes jobs (unless you make a lot more in the skilled sectors (including retirement care!) which is actually kind of a sound idea, to a degree) from citizen workers. You have to also support increased birth rates, as well as getting people back into jobs. Immigrant labour is basically modern slavery, lol. And, of course, slavery historically was the cause of numerous economic collapses due to poor distribution of the citizen workforce, and citizen workers being displaced by slaves.

SeiKeo
May 15th, 2012, 05:04 PM
Hey, I just wanted to use skills from Geography classes, lol. Fuck yeah, careers.

Technically, bringing in immigrant labour is only part of the solution; it still removes jobs (unless you make a lot more in the skilled sectors (including retirement care!) which is actually kind of a sound idea, to a degree) from citizen workers.

Only to some degree: most immigrants are on the low end of the value chain, acting as labor that often isn't done by citizens anyways, which frees citizens to move to the higher value chain, like retirement care. If we managed to have some good job training, of course, but that's policy, not theory.

Five_X
May 15th, 2012, 05:14 PM
Only to some degree: most immigrants are on the low end of the value chain, acting as labor that often isn't done by citizens anyways, which frees citizens to move to the higher value chain, like retirement care. If we managed to have some good job training, of course, but that's policy, not theory.

The value chain is shifting up lately, though: you can now find immigrant workers in unskilled trades and seasonal jobs that would normally be occupied by citizens. Without those entry-level jobs available, it can be extremely difficult for citizen workers to get qualifications.

It's what I call the "waiter fallacy:" a restaurant is in need of waiters, so they open for hiring. However, in order to be a waiter, a person needs a simple certificate after some training in a restaurant. So, they don't hire people without the certificate, deciding not to train people for it unless they work at the restaurant. However, since this restaurant is a usual modern establishment, they have local immigrant workers as dishwashers, busboys and box lifters, hiring them on as static workers with no expectations in terms of pay improvement or situational advancement. Thus, those low-value jobs are occupied by people who aren't going to be promoted or trained in any other way, instead of being entry-level jobs for citizen workers. As a result of this happening for too long, there would be no citizen workers in entry level jobs, and as a result all too few people with higher qualifications - many busboys, no waiters.

Nicktendonick
May 16th, 2012, 03:32 AM
*sigh* and I reget not being able to finish my earlier post. I shoulda known what to expect without actually saying why I think those things. Sadly, it's three am right now and I have no chance of that. If I say something, I actually need to say why I beleive that. I'll edit it in time.

Anyway, thank you Mr Five for those stats. I've read them, just never known the actual links to them. Consider a internet cookie on route to you.


As for the population problem, I'm not sure what a good answer to solve it is without a doubt, but my best assumption would be to increase the birthrate and tinker with the way those dependants get their money. I remember hearing of a Social security strategy of instead of each person going into a pot, and everyone takes from that pot, each person gets their own pot and the money they and they alone put into their pot is returned to them through SSpayments. It won't be a endless pot like before but it'll be at least stable (And also, you'll actually have to have a retirement plan instead of depending 100% off the government to just surivive)

That and raising the retirement age. I also remember hearing that when Social Security was first implmented, by the time you got it you only had a couple of years to live (what was the average life span back then?). Now, it's closer to 15, 30,or more years (depending on how well you take care of yourself.)

Five_X
May 16th, 2012, 06:13 PM
I remember hearing of a Social security strategy of instead of each person going into a pot, and everyone takes from that pot, each person gets their own pot and the money they and they alone put into their pot is returned to them through SSpayments. It won't be a endless pot like before but it'll be at least stable (And also, you'll actually have to have a retirement plan instead of depending 100% off the government to just surivive)

That's what we Canadians call Employment Insurance.

mewarmo990
May 16th, 2012, 11:14 PM
I remember hearing of a Social security strategy of instead of each person going into a pot, and everyone takes from that pot, each person gets their own pot and the money they and they alone put into their pot is returned to them through SSpayments. It won't be a endless pot like before but it'll be at least stable (And also, you'll actually have to have a retirement plan instead of depending 100% off the government to just surivive)


That's called a private retirement plan. You can already do that. In fact, you should, since Social Security is a joke these days, not even enough to live in poverty.

Seriously though, best time to open an IRA is while you're young.


In regards to marriage, here's the way I look at it. They should either:

A) Make marriage religious but then give civil unions all the benefits marriage currently give
B) Marriage for everyone and no longer a religious thing.
Actually, I prefer this:

Completely remove government involvement from 'marriage', and replace it with a "domestic partnership" legal status that any two people can apply for. It would be identical to what "marriage" is now, without any cultural connotations.

Leave "marriage" to society to define as it pleases. If you want legal status as a couple, apply for a domestic partnership.

I know it sounds very libertarian of me, but I think it's practical.

jwang
May 17th, 2012, 06:41 PM
Birth promotion is easy, give plenty of tax incentives to people with large families. Hell, take it a step further and subsidize them for extra children. Pay them just to give birth, even if it's just to put them up for adoption. The problem though is that sooner or later you're going to have to figure out how you are going to feed these extra mouths, and how you're supposed to control the population that's now nearly impossible to manage. This is one of the major issues in China right now, and the reason for their draconian One Child policy. Sure, you can argue that it's inhumane and such, but which is more inhumane? Stopping the parents from putting unnecessary burdens on the national food supply, or allow them to continue to pump out children that would end up starving? Right now the US doesn't have to worry about it since it has quite a bit of land to develop into to provide living spaces and food production centers. How about a country like Japan? If Japan suddenly had a population explosion to generate the ideal population age spread, how many more residences would they have to build in order to house them all? Where would the food to feed these people come from? Would Japan now have to import more food in order to meet the demands of its population? Will they be able to compromise with urban development and preservation of farmlands and nature preserves? Is current land reclamation techniques good enough that they can feasibly reclaim enough land from the sea to support this new population and future population growths?

Bolfotha
May 19th, 2012, 12:02 AM
Only to some degree: most immigrants are on the low end of the value chain, acting as labor that often isn't done by citizens anyways, which frees citizens to move to the higher value chain, like retirement care. If we managed to have some good job training, of course, but that's policy, not theory.

Your typical immigrant comes from a country that is willing to do more for less

and that's not just the low waged jobs

And that's why all the jobs are going overseas. They get job done faster, better, and often times without the hassle of dealing with a union.

SeiKeo
May 19th, 2012, 12:05 AM
Hmmm, so, in your opinion, what's the solution to that problem?

Bolfotha
May 19th, 2012, 12:17 AM
It's a complex issue.

There are nations who content with a lower wage standard, and the US can do nothing from their side to change that position.

My personal word of advice is step up your game and learn how to compete globally. But that itself is a dangerous statement.
Obviously you can't just yell at your workers for being slackers in comparison to foreign workers. Maybe appealing to their sense of patriotism could work? Remind them that if they can't compete globally more jobs are going overseas?

I suppose giving more tax breaks to companies that favor domestic workers would help, but that still doesn't solve the productivity issue.

It's not just the workforce either.

American education has fallen compared to other 1st world countries, and I don't think throwing money at it will solve the solution.

terraablaze
May 19th, 2012, 09:56 AM
Does patriotism even exist in this generation? I thought we had tossed that out with optimism, sincerity, and all those other myths of the bygone era of the 20th century.

Tobias
May 19th, 2012, 10:01 AM
actually FWIW there is a difference between doing work cheaper then there is better. the American worker produces something like 4 times what a Chinese laborer produces, just the wage of said Chinese laborer is less then 25% of the aforementioned worker, so companies can hire more to make up the difference.

mewarmo990
May 19th, 2012, 05:40 PM
actually FWIW there is a difference between doing work cheaper then there is better. the American worker produces something like 4 times what a Chinese laborer produces, just the wage of said Chinese laborer is less then 25% of the aforementioned worker, so companies can hire more to make up the difference.
It's a matte of management and direction as well.

Chinese manufacturing ranges from, I think as you or someone else here put it, spaceworthy to not even fit for animals. Apple's products, for instance.

Apple is a pretty good example of how a corporation can cut those huge costs of domestic manufacturing without sacrificing quality. Although there are starting to get some pushback on this, mostly because they are making so much more goddamn money than everyone else.

Tobias
May 19th, 2012, 06:28 PM
actually the pushback is because the chinese wage per worker rate is rising faster the the production per worker and, combined with transportation cost, that number is edging closer to the price to just give up and produce with American workers.

mewarmo990
May 19th, 2012, 06:37 PM
actually the pushback is because the chinese wage per worker rate is rising faster the the production per worker and, combined with transportation cost, that number is edging closer to the price to just give up and produce with American workers.
That's a recent trend. Hardly the biggest reason.

Historically, most pushback against outsourcing comes from:
1) Politicians who know it makes a hot talking point
2) Companies losing to the pragmatic ones that outsource
3) Politicians being lobbied by said companies
4) People who lost their jobs
5) Economists/policymakers who understand that our export/import ratio is really, really bad.

You're not wrong, though. But I think it's a long way off until that actually comes to pass. The manufacturers Apple is using are finally wising up to the fact that they are seeing almost none of the profits, and are trying to charge Apple more. In the least unscrupulous cases.