David:
This week, China unexpectedly changed its 30 year old policy of only allowing one child per family. They can now have two.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/11/15/china-one-child-policy/3570593/
Since a major driver of climate change is purported to be overpopulation, I'm curious how you feel about this policy change, and do you think their former policy (The Federal Government regulating how many children you can have) is an idea that liberals here in the States might find engaging?
Doug:
Do I think that liberals would like having the government involved in planning pregnancies? That sounds like something Republicrats might like to get involved in. Isn't that their area of expertise?
David:
Republicrat? A subliminal slip indicating that Democrats are whom you are speaking of?
Doug:
Nope.
David:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicrat
And, to coin a phrase from Inigo Montoya, from my favorite movie, "The Princess Bride":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
No, I'm talking about the left's ideal of eliminating babies for the greater good of……well, I don't really know what your argument for eliminating babies actually is. You have argued that eliminating a baby because it's inconvenient is somehow a noble cause. Here, the argument is eliminating babies saves the environment. That sounds like something the left could latch onto.
Doug:
That sounds like something that your cartoon imagination of the left could latch onto. In reality, the Left seems to be much more consistent about where they want (and don't want) government. I think it is pretty clear that Democrats don't want government in our pants. The environmental problems are real, but we won't solve them through such government actions of a single nation.
On the other hand, Republicrats have passed many such laws: restrictions on abortions, forced ultrasounds, waiting periods, etc. Republicans like to make laws involving reproductive issues; Republicans want to force you into having babies. Why is it that you want government to go away in all areas except this? Isn't that completely inconsistent?
David:
You might want to check yourself in the mirror.
You don't want the government in your pants, just everyone else's.
Doug:
Democrats do not want the government in anyone's pants! No government regulations on anything related to sex or anyone's bodies. You can choose to have 1,000 kids, or none. No forced ultrasound in your uterus. No forced anything related to your body.
David:
So, you're against childhood vaccinations. You, and Jenny McCarthy. That seems about right.
Doug:
Jenny McCarthy is a crazy person. But forcing people to have vaccinations doesn't seem to be the right answer. Isn't education a better alternative?
David:
You're advocating for a return of polio and smallpox, you realize? There are some vaccines that should be optional, but common, life-threatening illnesses like measles and rubella should not be. We still see outbreaks of these illnesses, usually in well-educated, liberal enclaves. And they are still deadly diseases.
Doug:
I can never predict you! You want to force people to have vaccinations to protect the public, but don't want to control handguns, which kill many more people than polio or smallpox? I'd rather ban guns and educate people on vaccinations.
However, if it gets really bad, and polio/smallpox starts killing as many people as handguns do... I'd be in favor of forced vaccinations. I am not advocating a return of smallpox or polio.
David:
Infectious diseases kill people, and people kill people. Guns don't kill people.
Doug:
People with infectious diseases kill people! And you, rightly, are willing to stop them. There is a pretty clear analogy in mind between people with diseases and people with guns (who, you argue, also have a mental disorder). I would have predicted that you'd have opposite beliefs: "The Lord works in Mysterious Ways (say, smallpox) and we should let Him work His magic. On the other hand, Man has created the evil Gun and we should place limits on its spread."
David:
But back to our discussion, you'd like to redistribute the money that some people have, to give to someone else.
Doug:
Yes, you have that right. I want to redistribute the wealth that the top 0.01% have and spread that to 80% of the rest.
David:
Sure, punish people who work hard and are successful, just because they are hard-working and successful. Democrats are looking to raise taxes on the middle class, not just the ultra-wealthy.
Doug:
I don't think restricting the uber wealthy to only have 4 yachts rather than 40 will "punish" them too much. As I just said, I'd like to make sure that the wealth is not concentrated in the 0.01%. That is not the "middle class."
David:
Again, you assume that if I earn a dollar, that's a dollar someone else can't have. That is faulty logic. How much money Mary makes has no bearing on how much money Joe makes. Spread the wealth! It worked great for Stalin and Mao. It will work just as well for you and Hillary.
Doug:
Can't you work Hitler in there, somehow?
David:
And while were at it, let's take money from small businesses to fund wealthy solar panel companies. Let's tell a small farmer that he can't build a pond on his own land. Let's take the homes of poor people and give the land to wealthy developers so we can bring in even more tax revenue.
Doug:
Nope.
David:
Good. You're saying the Democrats were wrong to have done these things. Glad to see you coming around.
Republicans, for the most part, are about protecting those who cannot protect themselves. In this discussion, that means unborn babies. The left has largely been about having unprotected sex whenever and wherever you want...
Doug:
Yeah, baby! That is a party platform plank!
David:
...but refusing to take responsibility for the life you create with a pregnancy. You can frame abortion in the euphemism of "reproductive issues", but what we're really talking about is what we've now seen, and continue to see, in the Planned Parenthood videos: selling baby parts for cash, and putting unborn babies down the garbage disposal.
Doug:
That is ridiculous hyperbole. But I will frame this as a "reproductive issue" because "that is what it is."
David:
Unfortunately, the ridiculous hyperbole is all on tape.
Doug:
I'd like to see that tape! Putting babies down the garbage disposal? I don't remember that in the party platform... but if you say so. Or, it is ridiculous hyperbole.
David:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/28/banned-abortion-video-leaked-appears-to-show-clinic-owner-advocating-burning/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU
Doug:
Where's the part about putting babies in the garbage disposal? Oh, you mean that part where they were disposing of biological material in a legal/proper/approved way, didn't want to actually have to say it, and joked that they wished it could be used for heating homes so it wouldn't be wasted? And they were charging money for proper disposal? That doesn't sound so bad, unless you say "selling baby parts for cash and putting babies in the garbage disposal." Then it sounds like the ridiculous hyperbole that it is. It ain't a baby, and no one carries cash these days anyway.
David:
Actually, you're somewhat correct. The P.P. staff discussing disposal of baby parts in the garbage disposal was leaked from the Congressional committees investigating Planned Parenthood. The (reported) text is available, but I do not believe the actual tapes are available for viewing yet, by a judge's order. You'll write that off as a Republican witch hunt. We'll have to wait to see how it turns out.
Doug:
Somewhat correct? I think "exactly correct." How about we call it "ridiculous hyperbole" until it is proven otherwise? "We'll have to see how it turns out" translates to: "We killed Planned Parenthood with non-existent videos and carefully edited tapes! What's next?"
David:
I am very glad to hear that when it comes to global warming, you don't think that our government should take any action that would only involve our single nation. On this we can certainly agree. Unless every nation on the planet follows the exact same rules, we should not get involved. Let the poor, third world countries burn their coal so that their people can have affordable energy and electricity. Great idea!
Doug:
I am glad that you support getting all of the nations of the world to work on the climate change crisis.
David:
I'd be in favor of getting all of the nations of the world to work together on just about anything. Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change, it appears "redistribution of wealth" on a global scale is the goal. I'm not in favor of that.
Doug:
It is hard to be in favor of anything when everything keeps getting reduced to either killing babies or punishing those hard-working rich people.
David:
The proposed "fixes" to address global warming punish poor people with higher prices for basic energy, especially in developing countries, not the wealthy.
However, we both agree that the government has no business dictating how many children you can or can't have. If you don't want children, then don't get pregnant. If you feel that having children is going to ruin your life, you may want to exercise a little self-control and avoid sexual encounters in general, just to be absolutely sure.
Doug:
If you don't want children, don't have them. And there are lots of ways to not have them. Sexual encounters are not the enemy. Read our party platform: a chicken in every pot, if you know what I mean.
This week, China unexpectedly changed its 30 year old policy of only allowing one child per family. They can now have two.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/11/15/china-one-child-policy/3570593/
Since a major driver of climate change is purported to be overpopulation, I'm curious how you feel about this policy change, and do you think their former policy (The Federal Government regulating how many children you can have) is an idea that liberals here in the States might find engaging?
Doug:
Do I think that liberals would like having the government involved in planning pregnancies? That sounds like something Republicrats might like to get involved in. Isn't that their area of expertise?
David:
Republicrat? A subliminal slip indicating that Democrats are whom you are speaking of?
Doug:
Nope.
David:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicrat
And, to coin a phrase from Inigo Montoya, from my favorite movie, "The Princess Bride":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
No, I'm talking about the left's ideal of eliminating babies for the greater good of……well, I don't really know what your argument for eliminating babies actually is. You have argued that eliminating a baby because it's inconvenient is somehow a noble cause. Here, the argument is eliminating babies saves the environment. That sounds like something the left could latch onto.
Doug:
That sounds like something that your cartoon imagination of the left could latch onto. In reality, the Left seems to be much more consistent about where they want (and don't want) government. I think it is pretty clear that Democrats don't want government in our pants. The environmental problems are real, but we won't solve them through such government actions of a single nation.
On the other hand, Republicrats have passed many such laws: restrictions on abortions, forced ultrasounds, waiting periods, etc. Republicans like to make laws involving reproductive issues; Republicans want to force you into having babies. Why is it that you want government to go away in all areas except this? Isn't that completely inconsistent?
David:
You might want to check yourself in the mirror.
You don't want the government in your pants, just everyone else's.
Doug:
Democrats do not want the government in anyone's pants! No government regulations on anything related to sex or anyone's bodies. You can choose to have 1,000 kids, or none. No forced ultrasound in your uterus. No forced anything related to your body.
David:
So, you're against childhood vaccinations. You, and Jenny McCarthy. That seems about right.
Doug:
Jenny McCarthy is a crazy person. But forcing people to have vaccinations doesn't seem to be the right answer. Isn't education a better alternative?
David:
You're advocating for a return of polio and smallpox, you realize? There are some vaccines that should be optional, but common, life-threatening illnesses like measles and rubella should not be. We still see outbreaks of these illnesses, usually in well-educated, liberal enclaves. And they are still deadly diseases.
Doug:
I can never predict you! You want to force people to have vaccinations to protect the public, but don't want to control handguns, which kill many more people than polio or smallpox? I'd rather ban guns and educate people on vaccinations.
However, if it gets really bad, and polio/smallpox starts killing as many people as handguns do... I'd be in favor of forced vaccinations. I am not advocating a return of smallpox or polio.
David:
Infectious diseases kill people, and people kill people. Guns don't kill people.
Doug:
People with infectious diseases kill people! And you, rightly, are willing to stop them. There is a pretty clear analogy in mind between people with diseases and people with guns (who, you argue, also have a mental disorder). I would have predicted that you'd have opposite beliefs: "The Lord works in Mysterious Ways (say, smallpox) and we should let Him work His magic. On the other hand, Man has created the evil Gun and we should place limits on its spread."
David:
But back to our discussion, you'd like to redistribute the money that some people have, to give to someone else.
Doug:
Yes, you have that right. I want to redistribute the wealth that the top 0.01% have and spread that to 80% of the rest.
David:
Sure, punish people who work hard and are successful, just because they are hard-working and successful. Democrats are looking to raise taxes on the middle class, not just the ultra-wealthy.
Doug:
I don't think restricting the uber wealthy to only have 4 yachts rather than 40 will "punish" them too much. As I just said, I'd like to make sure that the wealth is not concentrated in the 0.01%. That is not the "middle class."
David:
Again, you assume that if I earn a dollar, that's a dollar someone else can't have. That is faulty logic. How much money Mary makes has no bearing on how much money Joe makes. Spread the wealth! It worked great for Stalin and Mao. It will work just as well for you and Hillary.
Doug:
Can't you work Hitler in there, somehow?
David:
And while were at it, let's take money from small businesses to fund wealthy solar panel companies. Let's tell a small farmer that he can't build a pond on his own land. Let's take the homes of poor people and give the land to wealthy developers so we can bring in even more tax revenue.
Doug:
Nope.
David:
Good. You're saying the Democrats were wrong to have done these things. Glad to see you coming around.
Republicans, for the most part, are about protecting those who cannot protect themselves. In this discussion, that means unborn babies. The left has largely been about having unprotected sex whenever and wherever you want...
Doug:
Yeah, baby! That is a party platform plank!
David:
...but refusing to take responsibility for the life you create with a pregnancy. You can frame abortion in the euphemism of "reproductive issues", but what we're really talking about is what we've now seen, and continue to see, in the Planned Parenthood videos: selling baby parts for cash, and putting unborn babies down the garbage disposal.
Doug:
That is ridiculous hyperbole. But I will frame this as a "reproductive issue" because "that is what it is."
David:
Unfortunately, the ridiculous hyperbole is all on tape.
Doug:
I'd like to see that tape! Putting babies down the garbage disposal? I don't remember that in the party platform... but if you say so. Or, it is ridiculous hyperbole.
David:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/28/banned-abortion-video-leaked-appears-to-show-clinic-owner-advocating-burning/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU
Doug:
Where's the part about putting babies in the garbage disposal? Oh, you mean that part where they were disposing of biological material in a legal/proper/approved way, didn't want to actually have to say it, and joked that they wished it could be used for heating homes so it wouldn't be wasted? And they were charging money for proper disposal? That doesn't sound so bad, unless you say "selling baby parts for cash and putting babies in the garbage disposal." Then it sounds like the ridiculous hyperbole that it is. It ain't a baby, and no one carries cash these days anyway.
David:
Actually, you're somewhat correct. The P.P. staff discussing disposal of baby parts in the garbage disposal was leaked from the Congressional committees investigating Planned Parenthood. The (reported) text is available, but I do not believe the actual tapes are available for viewing yet, by a judge's order. You'll write that off as a Republican witch hunt. We'll have to wait to see how it turns out.
Doug:
Somewhat correct? I think "exactly correct." How about we call it "ridiculous hyperbole" until it is proven otherwise? "We'll have to see how it turns out" translates to: "We killed Planned Parenthood with non-existent videos and carefully edited tapes! What's next?"
David:
I am very glad to hear that when it comes to global warming, you don't think that our government should take any action that would only involve our single nation. On this we can certainly agree. Unless every nation on the planet follows the exact same rules, we should not get involved. Let the poor, third world countries burn their coal so that their people can have affordable energy and electricity. Great idea!
Doug:
I am glad that you support getting all of the nations of the world to work on the climate change crisis.
David:
I'd be in favor of getting all of the nations of the world to work together on just about anything. Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change, it appears "redistribution of wealth" on a global scale is the goal. I'm not in favor of that.
Doug:
It is hard to be in favor of anything when everything keeps getting reduced to either killing babies or punishing those hard-working rich people.
David:
The proposed "fixes" to address global warming punish poor people with higher prices for basic energy, especially in developing countries, not the wealthy.
However, we both agree that the government has no business dictating how many children you can or can't have. If you don't want children, then don't get pregnant. If you feel that having children is going to ruin your life, you may want to exercise a little self-control and avoid sexual encounters in general, just to be absolutely sure.
Doug:
If you don't want children, don't have them. And there are lots of ways to not have them. Sexual encounters are not the enemy. Read our party platform: a chicken in every pot, if you know what I mean.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!