View Full Forums : Sexually Repressed Christian Lawmakers Outdo Even Themselves This Time


Tudamorf
03-27-2009, 02:26 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090327/ap_on_re_us/teen_child_****NJ girl, 14, arrested after posting nude pics

TRENTON, N.J. – A 14-year-old New Jersey girl has been accused of child pörnography after posting nearly 30 explicit nude pictures of herself on MySpace.com — charges that could force her to register as a sex offender if convicted.

The case comes as prosecutors nationwide pursue child pörnography cases resulting from kids sending nude photos to one another over cell phones and e-mail. Legal experts, though, could not recall another case of a child pörn charge resulting from a teen's posting to a social networking site.

The office investigated and discovered the Clifton resident had posted the "very explicit" photos of herself, sheriff's spokesman Bill Maer said Thursday.

"We consider this case a wake-up call to parents," Maer said. The girl posted the photos because "she wanted her boyfriend to see them," he said.

Investigators are looking at individuals who "knowingly" committed a crime, he said, declining to comment further because the case is still being investigated.

The teen, whose name has not been released because of her age, was arrested and charged with possession of child pörnography and distribution of child pörnography. She was released to her mother's custody.

If convicted of the distribution charge, she would be forced to register with the state as a sex offender under Megan's Law, said state Attorney General Anne Milgram. She also could face up to 17 years in jail, though such a stiff sentence is unlikely.Everyone who even THOUGHT of charging this girl with any sort of crime for engaging in a perfectly normal behavior should be shamed, ridiculed, and ostracized from our society.

This "sex offender" business is getting out of control, and the sexually repressed Christians who keep conning the public into supporting these laws belong in prison, not in power.

Palarran
03-27-2009, 11:11 PM
I wouldn't say it's "perfectly normal behavior", but otherwise I agree.

Sorrian
03-28-2009, 01:56 AM
I agree with Palarran. This is NOT normal behavior for a 14 year old child. When I was that age we had a name for girls like that and the majority of the ones I knew would avoid that label like the plague. I don't know about the people you grew up with Tudamorf, but here on Earth we do our best to stifle these actions.

I do agree that she shouldn't be charged like an adult, though the threat of serious penalties should be made real for her. I believe that is what is happening here. That should deter future acts like this. Regardless, trafficking in nude photos of minors is illegal for good reason. Why should we just look the other way just because the person who did it is a minor? It is still against the law, albeit the penalty should be far less severe in this case.

At some point people need to adhere to a moral standard. I don't care if you label it Christian, Hindu, Islamic, or whatever. A lack of morality is fatal for a society and even atheists have to admit that. To me, and likely 4 billion other people, this was clearly immoral. No, I am not a Christian. I know how some have grown to love blaming everything on Christians lately, but that isn't going to work here. She knew it wasn't the appropriate thing to do, but chose to do it anyway. Anyone over the age of stupid, who doesn't think this was immoral needs to quit smoking pot or think about how they would feel if it were their daughter or sister.

Wrong is wrong and just because you live in a part of the world where Christianity is the prominent religion doesn't give cause to abandon your moral compass. It doesn't mean Christians are out to get you. It doesn't mean there is a man behind the curtain purposely trying to fool you into believing a lie regardless of how much truth there is behind the religion. This is a product of counter-culture paranoia. It's the same hippie mentality that led to an explosion of drug abuse and STD's in the 60's and 70's. Are there people who carry the religion thing too far? Sure, but that doesn't invalidate the basic rules for viable lifestyles that all religions share. You'd think we would have learned our lesson from the Romans....

While I agree that there may be a few people that are carrying the "sex offender" label unjustly. The overwhelming majority deserve that title. That is not something I would say was "out of control". I hate to say it, but there are alot of perverts out there. So, exactly what "sex offender" law should we not have supported?

palamin
03-28-2009, 02:55 AM
They call it sexting..... the teeny boppers who do such things as well as the adults. Believe it or not that is fairly normal teenaged behavior nowdays. Teenagers and their webcam shows as well.

There was a florida D.A. for incidents close to this pushing up to 5 years per picture or video per offense and registry of sexual offender status. But, ya, that would also be an adult charge as well. That is the part that could get really tricky for a precidence, if, you charge her as an adult, then, it wasn't exactly child ****ography was it, amongst other ramifications?

But, ya, I get it, she is a young kid coming into her own sexuality as she is maturing, looking to express herself as well, no big deal. I don't see them charging her for it, but, I do see her parents taking away her cell phone, digital cameras, webcam, internet, scanner or whatever else she may attempt to use. The sex offender status is unnecessary. She is probably more scared now about the threat of those punishments that they can just retire that case unless she really screws up in the next 3-4 years until she hits 18.

Tudamorf
03-28-2009, 04:12 AM
I agree with Palarran. This is NOT normal behavior for a 14 year old child.Of course it is. She's sexually mature and wants to arouse her boyfriend. That has been happening since the dawn of our species, it's just that technology has changed the method slightly.

Anyone who doesn't understand this is sexually repressed (probably on account of severe sexual insecurity or latent perversion), or is simply so brainwashed by the Christian propaganda that they can't think for themselves.

You might as well criminalize eating breakfast or taking a piss. Totally absurd.

In case you haven't learned yet, NEVER vote for any law that's named after a little girl. That goes double for a blue eyed, blond haired girl.

Palarran
03-28-2009, 11:47 AM
It's not the desire but the method. Posting pictures to a MySpace page is very different from posing (or whatever) in person.

Klath
03-28-2009, 12:11 PM
A lack of morality is fatal for a society and even atheists have to admit that. To me, and likely 4 billion other people, this was clearly immoral. No, I am not a Christian. I know how some have grown to love blaming everything on Christians lately, but that isn't going to work here. She knew it wasn't the appropriate thing to do, but chose to do it anyway. Anyone over the age of stupid, who doesn't think this was immoral needs to quit smoking pot or think about how they would feel if it were their daughter or sister.
I don't think it's immoral. If I had kids I certainly wouldn't want them sexting but not for reasons of morality. The problem I see with it is that there's a decent chance the images would be seen by someone other than their intended viewer. At the very least that could be embarrassing and at the worst it could bring them to the attention of a sexual predator.

Tudamorf
03-28-2009, 12:59 PM
It's not the desire but the method. Posting pictures to a MySpace page is very different from posing (or whatever) in person.It doesn't matter. There should be no governmental interference when you post pictures of yourself on your own private web page for the enjoyment of your own friends (even if other people can access it, if they choose to).

Calling that child pörn is the most egregious abuse of those laws that I've ever seen, a violation of freedom of speech and expression, and an unlawful establishment of religion.

The level of sexual repression in this country is probably astonishing to other European cultures.

Tudamorf
03-28-2009, 01:21 PM
At some point people need to adhere to a moral standard.My morality tells me that it is wrong to limit a person's freedom of expression, where it doesn't harm, or even annoy, others who don't want to see it.

My morality tells me that it is wrong to force others to adhere to a particular religious or aesthetic standard in the privacy of their homes, or web sites.

My morality tells me that it is wrong to try to subtly preach Christianity under the guise of "morality," and use governmental force to do so.

Then again, on the whole Christians are the most immoral people I have ever met.

Sorrian
03-28-2009, 03:10 PM
So we get cell phones with cameras and all of a sudden it is socially acceptable for children to post nude pictures of themselves? In what backwards universe should this happen? We have cars. Is it socially acceptable for me to spin my tires at a red light? I mean kids want to do it so we should just allow it. Adults do it on TV. It's completely harmless. Only a small chance that someone can get hurt. It's a natural urge. No big deal, right? This is the problem with the liberal mind-set. You stick your head in the sand and let the world go by until something comes by to poke holes in that distorted reality. Then you try to portray it in a negative light as brainwashing by the big bad organization with all the power. Get over it. There is no massive 2000 year old world-wide conspiracy to subdue you. That is what is totally absurd. Aren't you guilty of the exact same thing you are whining about? You are making blanket assumptions about people you've never met or talked to and labeling them as "sexually-repressed" just because you don't agree with them. That is no different then those "evil christians" labeling perverts as sex offenders. The sexual repression title you've heaped upon total strangers is a vain and ill-advised attempt at invalidating through a cloaked childish action. Name-calling. You are wrong and irrelevant because you are a poopy face. Sounds about right.

Nobody is claiming that 14 year old kids aren't sexually active or that it is unnatural. Everyone knows it. I was at that age. Just don't say that it's ok to pose for nude (and likely sexually graphic) pictures because "everyone is doing it" or "adults do it, why can teens?". The problem comes about when you start posting pictures of FREAKING MINORS where sexual deviants can get their nasty sperm-coated paws on them. What would we be saying if the boyfriend's cellphone was stolen or lost and the pictures wound up on the internet? What would we be saying if the boyfriend decided to sell those pictures? What would happen if he showed them to his buddies? How emotionally devastated would this girl be if any of that happened? She obviously didn't think about that or it would have never happened. There is a stark difference between "wanting to arouse her boyfriend" and being careless. This is the difference between adults and minors. This is why we even have those two terms. Adults have, presumably, reached a maturity level where they can understand, accept, and cope with the consequences of their actions. Minors have not. At what point do we draw the line? We set boundaries for a reason. If there was nothing wrong with this behavior then there would never have been an issue with it in the first place. Without limits there is no direction. Get it?

I've asked a few teenagers, most of which have never attended church, what they thought about this and shortly before I stoned them to death for being godless heathens, they offered a little insight into this situation. All of them said it wasn't appropriate. Some compared it to drinking alchohol, in the sense that most adults know it happens but it still should not be an acceptable practice. Not the first one said it was okay for minors to post nudity just because sexuality was natural. One even said that "just because you can get horny doesn't give you permission to act like a who*e". God bless his tormented little soul. Then they had a few other nasty little names for this girl. For this they recieved 50 lashes. The little potty mouth blasphemers made me proud though. Too bad I had to send them to hell. By the way, they all have cellphones with cameras and texting capabilities. None of them engaged in "sexting" and knew very few who did. This doesn't fall in line with the misguided belief that it is normal or as widely practiced as the news reports insinuate.

Did you honestly compare child ****ograhy to eating breakfast or taking a piss? They aren't even remotely similar. Citing that this has been happening since the dawn of man is no justification either. We've had war forever too. Just because we use bombs and machine guns instead of pointed sticks and filed-down rocks doesn't make it more acceptable. We used to club each other over the head for the right to eat a piece of rotting meat and herd mammoth's over the side of cliffs. Hardly a reason to engage in comparable practices today. These are signs of a weak arguement that can't be defended. This has nothing to do with sexual maturity and everything to do with being irresponsible.

Just because someone has an opposing point of view doesn't mean they are "brainwashed" or "incapable of thinking for themselves". You see the problem is the same thing can be said about you. Maybe you have been brainwashed into believing this is acceptable behavior for teens by Hollywood and Miley Cyrus. I mean, you have a powerful group of people (the media) who are describing some aspect of human behavior and citing a few obscure incidences as precedent and somehow relaying the notion that "everyone is doing it". Wouldn't that be brainwashing? Of course not. This would be independent thought, right? It's only brainwashing when the same thing is done by people who disagree with you.

FYI, naming a law after a girl hardly renders it irrelevant. That's weak, Tudamorf. As is your attempt to justify immoral and irresponsible behavior under the guise of natural process. Do you go around farting in cafeterias or urinating in the middle of highway intersections? Well, whaddya' know!! I guess you can correlate this situation to other natural behaviors.

One last thing poopy face. Aren't you the same one who was outraged at octo-mom and her ability to populate the state of Rhode Island? The same one who was angry at the notion that he would have to pay for the welfare babies? I wonder how many charity case children will come about if we allowed this behavior to become acceptable. Of course we could just rely on polluting our water with the remnants of birth control pills or leave it to the schools to teach about condoms and abstinence. I mean Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" program did so well in abolishing drug use among kids through the same tactics, right?

Fyyr
03-28-2009, 03:23 PM
I agree with Palarran. This is NOT normal behavior for a 14 year old child.
Are you really that stupid.
14 year girls can have babies because they are sexual beings. Not children. They can have babies because they are suppose to, because your grandmothers 100 generations back, and further, had babies at 14.

When I was that age we had a name for girls like that
Your hatred of women started early, it would appear.

and the majority of the ones I knew would avoid that label like the plague. I don't know about the people you grew up with Tudamorf, but here on Earth we do our best to stifle these actions.
Just because those who you went to your death, rape, and theft cult thought that way, does not mean the rest of us on Earth think the same thing.

Like it or not, and I suppose you don't.... Human beings are the way they are because our ancestors chose those traits with their mating partners. And even if you are one of those god worshipers, and don't believe the truth, one could equally argue that your god created them that way. So unless your god is a terrible designer or creator, then they are the way they are SUPPOSE to be.

Tudamorf
03-28-2009, 03:39 PM
We have cars. Is it socially acceptable for me to spin my tires at a red light?No, because it makes a lot of smoke, an annoying noise, and leaves marks on the road. You are harming/annoying other people on the road by doing so. The same is true of your other examples, like farting in a cafeteria or urinating in the middle of the road.

Posting pictures of yourself on your own web site does not do any of those things.

Now, if this girl were spamming public forums with her nude pictures, where others who don't want to look at them would be forced to, then I'd agree with you, it would be inappropriate and not protected as freedom of expression.You are making blanket assumptions about people you've never met or talked to and labeling them as "sexually-repressed" just because you don't agree with them.It is simple logical reasoning.

People who are comfortable with their sexuality don't care about how OTHER people have sex.

People who are overly concerned with controlling other peoples' private sex lives are either:

a) Trying to control/oppress those people generally
b) Sexually frustrated or insecure themselves
c) Sexually perverted themselves and overcompensating

The "moral" Christians are usually some combination of the three, to varying degrees.The problem comes about when you start posting pictures of FREAKING MINORS where sexual deviants can get their nasty sperm-coated paws on them.So? This girl knew the pictures could be accessed by others, including men who might jack off to them.

Apparently she was comfortable with that; the real question is, why aren't YOU? (You can respond by pointing to a, b, and/or c above.)

Sorrian
03-28-2009, 03:45 PM
My morality tells me that it is wrong to limit a person's freedom of expression, where it doesn't harm, or even annoy, others who don't want to see it.
Obviously it does at least annoy people. There are those who are upset about it. It can be used by another impressionable youth to emulate this behavior with the small but recognizable chance to result in rape, pregnancy, kidnapping, STD's, etc. So it can indeed harm others. It is illegal to throw red paint on people wearing fur. So you're wrong.

My morality tells me that it is wrong to force others to adhere to a particular religious or aesthetic standard in the privacy of their homes, or web sites.
This wasn't in the privacy of her home. Web sites are not private in the least. It is not forcing anyone to do anything. This is a scare tactic to quell some indecent actions by kids who don't have a clue about what they're doing. She will not see the inside of a prison or be labeled a sex offender. She will have a blemish on her record until she turns 18 when it will vanish. If anything other than this comes about then the over-zealous prosecutor should be shot in the kneecaps. So you're wrong.

My morality tells me that it is wrong to try to subtly preach Christianity under the guise of "morality," and use governmental force to do so.
These moral values existed long before Christianity. We have long used the government to encourage basic decency and when we lacked that ability societies crumbled. This is just you lashing out at a perceived threat or cause of some deep-seeded anger issue that you have. So you're wrong.

Then again, on the whole Christians are the most immoral people I have ever met.
Because clearly you have met the majority of Christians and the rest of the world (for comparison) and made observations and correct judgements based on those observations. No? So you based everything from perceptions, generalizations, interpolations, and assumptions conveyed to you through some unspecified media? So not only are you wrong....again....you're mentally constipated. :vaseplus:

Tudamorf
03-28-2009, 03:53 PM
rape, pregnancy, kidnapping, STD's, etc.Spare me your parade of horribles; none of those things happened here, and even if they were to happen, it wouldn't be on account of some pictures.She will not see the inside of a prison or be labeled a sex offender. She will have a blemish on her record until she turns 18 when it will vanish. If anything other than this comes about then the over-zealous prosecutor should be shot in the kneecaps.Well, I'm no expert on the law in New Jersey.

But in California, thanks in part to another recent law named after another little girl, the penalties are extremely harsh, including permanent registration, a permanent GPS device, and the inability to live just about anywhere.

And to my knowledge, no prosecutor in California has ever been shot in the kneecaps for sentencing people under these laws, despite the freedoms they destroy and the billions in tax dollars they waste. In fact they get promoted, so they can waste more of my money, by putting more innocent people in prisons.

Sorrian
03-28-2009, 05:10 PM
No, because it makes a lot of smoke, an annoying noise, and leaves marks on the road. You are harming/annoying other people on the road by doing so. The same is true of your other examples, like farting in a cafeteria or urinating in the middle of the road.

Posting pictures of yourself on your own web site does not do any of those things.
Nobody is directly harmed by squalling tires, diluted methane, or urine on asphalt, even if they were present at the time it took place. I don't like public restrooms so I'll just go piss in Time Square. Let's reverse it and use your "simple logical reasoning". If nobody was around to hear the squalling tires, see the urination, or the cafeteria was empty then it's ok right? Gotcha'. Head in the sand.

Now, if this girl were spamming public forums with her nude pictures, where others who don't want to look at them would be forced to, then I'd agree with you, it would be inappropriate and not protected as freedom of expression.It is simple logical reasoning.

I've already explained how this can get out of hand. There is no need to repeat myself about that. In case you haven't realized it yet. These pictures did get out. Someone did see them that didn't want to. How do you think the police got involved? I guess the boyfriend was offended and turned her in. You were too busy branding religious people as the bad guys that you didn't even realize the example you cited to agree with me, had indeed come to pass. But keep preaching from the cross. (I love that irony.)

People who are comfortable with their sexuality don't care about how OTHER people have sex.
So there is nothing wrong with pervs screwing animals?

People who are overly concerned with controlling other peoples' private sex lives are either:

a) Trying to control/oppress those people generally
b) Sexually frustrated or insecure themselves
c) Sexually perverted themselves and overcompensating

d) Concerned with the message it sends their own kids.
e) Worried about the precedent it sets for similar events in the future.
f) Wondering what other societal degradation this paves the way for.

Apparently she was comfortable with that; the real question is, why aren't YOU? (You can respond by pointing to a, b, and/or c above.)
As I've tried to convey to you there are far more possibilities other than the ones your neutered mind can come up with. She did NOT realize that others could and have aquire the pictures. It happened, yet that possibility never crossed her mind or yours. If she had thought about some over-weight 40 year old dirtbag masturbating to her photos then they would never have been sent. Yet here we are. The world is not how you view it and neither am I. I don't care whether this girl has sex or not. I don't care who she has sex withas long as it is a "who" and not a "what". Trafficking in child p0rn, no matter how remote the possibility is that it could get out, is still wrong. This is just another example of you trying to invalidate something by name-calling. Insinuating that I may be apt to or have committed some perverted crime is bordering on defamation of character and based largely on assumptions and preconceptions that you have. You know nothing about me or my personal life. You are trying to deflect the spotlight away from the poor arguement you have. Who is more likely to be a sexual deviant, the person who thinks nude photos of a 14 year old girl should be condemned or the one who has 8500 posts on a website for an online game and thinks there is nothing wrong with broadcasting child p0rn? I wonder....

Sorrian
03-28-2009, 05:50 PM
Spare me your parade of horribles; none of those things happened here, and even if they were to happen, it wouldn't be on account of some pictures.Well, I'm no expert on the law in New Jersey.
You're no expert, that is painfully obvious. Please explain what stalkers and pedphiles are prone to do. I guess rapes, kidnappings, etc. have never happened then right? Just because it devastates any arguement you might have made doesn't mean it never happens. It CAN cause harm. Maybe that show, To Catch a Predator, was just staged drama. Pictures can, have, and will again lead to these things whether you admit it or not.

But in California, thanks in part to another recent law named after another little girl, the penalties are extremely harsh, including permanent registration, a permanent GPS device, and the inability to live just about anywhere.

And to my knowledge, no prosecutor in California has ever been shot in the kneecaps for sentencing people under these laws, despite the freedoms they destroy and the billions in tax dollars they waste. In fact they get promoted, so they can waste more of my money, by putting more innocent people in prisons.
Please enlighten us about what 14 year old has a GPS bracer on for sending nude photos to their boy/girlfriend. What freedoms have been destroyed? The freedom for some freak to get his rocks off by staring at nubiles? The freedom for some ignorant and naive young girl to send nude photos of herself? Is this what you are clinging to? Is this really what you are defending? Perhaps you'd prefer that we had no laws governing sex at all? That's one scary can of worms you'd open for fear that some piece of human s#!t's rights might be violated. :gratz01:

Tudamorf
03-28-2009, 06:33 PM
Nobody is directly harmed by squalling tires, diluted methane, or urine on asphalt, even if they were present at the time it took place.Of course they are.

Urine stinks and is generally something I don't want all over my feet or tires.

Squealing tires sounds like a possible traffic accident which diverts peoples' attention and can cause a real accident. Or at the very least, it is loud and extremely annoying.

The actions you describe affect others. The actions I describe don't.If nobody was around to hear the squalling tires, see the urination, or the cafeteria was empty then it's ok right?Exactly. I don't care if you fart in your own kitchen, squeal the tires in your own garage (that's far enough from me that I don't hear it or smell it), or piss in your bedroom. That's your business, and it only affects you.d) Concerned with the message it sends their own kids.Then be a parent.e) Worried about the precedent it sets for similar events in the future.Circular and irrelevant, since the issue is whether the "similar events" are bad at all.f) Wondering what other societal degradation this paves the way for.Circular, since you're using your conclusion (that it IS "degradation") as your premise.

Typical Christian anti-logic.She did NOT realize that others could and have aquire the pictures.How do you know that?

As a 14-year-old she is probably ten times more computer literate than the people prosecuting her. I don't believe for a moment that she didn't realize other people can visit her Myspace page.

Maybe she didn't care, maybe she enjoyed the attention, maybe she didn't appreciate the consequences fully, maybe she used poor judgment. But that's her prerogative and the consequences are hers alone.

Sorrian
03-29-2009, 01:07 AM
Of course they are.

Urine stinks and is generally something I don't want all over my feet or tires.

You shouldn't be walking barefoot in the middle of an intersection. Is this another freedom you are worried about losing? Anyway, urine on your tires doesn't directly harm you. Are you saying that it's just repulsive therefore shouldn't be allowed? That sounds remarkably similar to something someone said about mor....nevermind....not important....
Squealing tires sounds like a possible traffic accident which diverts peoples' attention and can cause a real accident. Or at the very least, it is loud and extremely annoying.
And nude photos of a child doesn't divert attention or cause accidental infections or pregnancies? It certainly doesn't foster an enviroment where a child could be abducted or raped or otherwise exploited, right? Haven't we already been over how this can cause harm? Still got your head in the sand.

The actions you describe affect others. The actions I describe don't.Exactly. I don't care if you fart in your own kitchen, squeal the tires in your own garage (that's far enough from me that I don't hear it or smell it), or piss in your bedroom. That's your business, and it only affects you.
So you're morally opposed to stink, but only if you can smell it. If you can't you just assume the ostrich position and pretend the stink isn't there or just doesn't matter. I never said anything about my garage, bedroom, or kitchen. Changing the venue to make your arguement seem more viable is lame. You are fading. Again we've been over the fact that this does indeed affect others.
Then be a parent.
I should be able to be a parent without having to police every little tramp who's behavior is detrimental to the developing and impressionable minds of others their age. No parent can watch over their children every waking moment. I can only block programs, channels, and websites at my house. Not at the library or their friends houses. I can't forbid them from going to either of those without being over-protective and forcing them into a rebellious behavior. If only there were some magical code of conduct or guidelines that they could self-govern themselves and possibly make the right decision....At some point parents have to rely on others when they go to work to make money to feed their kids to avoid being called a bad parent by atheist liberals with an axe to grind. (Another weak and invalid arguement.) We call this "society" or sometimes a "community".
It isn't my parenting skills that would be in question, but those of the parents of the naive exhibitionist, but you'd rather blame the parents of the ones who viewed it rather than the parents of those who posted it. To think this could be avoided by (GASP!That's it!!) moral guidance. This is what it means to be a parent. You can't blame everything on bad parents and christians. Or maybe you'd rather 200 million christians be subjected (whether forced or inadvertent) to questionable behavior by teens who don't have the parental influence you stated I should install in my own children? That ugly that you see in the mirror isn't going away. We call it hypocricy and it's festering like a pimple on the ass of impropriety.
Circular and irrelevant, since the issue is whether the "similar events" are bad at all.
I've already shown you how it is "bad". Referencing that is not "circular" because you refuse to admit it's relevancy.
Circular, since you're using your conclusion (that it IS "degradation") as your premise.
See above. Refusal to admit it is not invalidation.

Typical Christian anti-logic.
Typical liberal ignorance. Can you show how it's "anti-logic"? Can you show how it's "typical"? How about "christian"? No, you can't. Seems pretty logical to everyone around me. I've already proven it and cited examples and scenarios that are very real. You want circular anti-logic? How about this; Christian morals are irrelevant because they are christian morals and it doesn't matter that these were in place before the first christian walked the Earth because christians adopted them in their religion, thus invalidating them.

How do you know that?

By the fact she went to jail. Let's put it this way, either she didn't know and she's ignorant or she did know and she's a sl*t. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and choose the lesser of two evils. Besides, it's the christian thing to do....or was it Hindu? Who cares, I'm agnostic. I get to pick and choose. I know, I know. How do I know which is worse? Must be that christian propwashing-brainoganda that I got while I wasn't going to church and playing my Nintendo....Nintendo games are full christian subliminal messages (Princess Toadstool be damned :curse: )....or whatever kooky liberal hair-brained garbage you vomited earlier. I digress. I guess we could ask a number of females if they would rather be called ignorant or a who*e. Then we'd know for sure.

As a 14-year-old she is probably ten times more computer literate than the people prosecuting her. I don't believe for a moment that she didn't realize other people can visit her Myspace page.
Wow....anti-logic. The "ability" to post on a web site is hardly proof of computer skills nor is it a defense. Even if it were there is no evidence of the prosecutors skill level in the same area. That's beside the point. She posted her pictures on her myspace page (or whatever site it was), WHICH IS A PUBLIC FORUM. That runs counter to your assertion that it was done in private.
Maybe she didn't care, maybe she enjoyed the attention, maybe she didn't appreciate the consequences fully, maybe she used poor judgment. But that's her prerogative and the consequences are hers alone.
That's just it. YOU ARE ADVOCATING NO CONSEQUENCES. Talk about circular. She didn't take some polaroids of herself and mail them in an opaque envelope. She didn't pose in person for her boyfriend in a locked room with the curtains drawn closed. She didn't make any attempt to keep this private. She put herself on display for the world to see. Just because she is a minor and the pictures are of herself doesn't redeem it. It is still a child in p0rnographic poses. For the last time. I have no problem with her finding her sexual identity. I have a problem with a young underage child posting nude pictures in a public or otherwise easily accessed area, with a complete disregard for the consequences. I have a problem with some buffoon crusading against an entire religion based on their prejudice. How are you any different than the idiots claiming every Muslim is a terrorist? They use the same logic and similar arguements. You assume alot and base your entire belief system on these assumptions.
So let me get this straight. You think she has the right to post these pictures because it's a private page on a public site and yet she knew others could access it, but may not care anyway. She didn't force perverts and non-perverts alike to view it though they had no idea what would be on the page, but she may have enjoyed the attention. She may not have appreciated the consequences of an act that shouldn't have consequences because christian morality doesn't apply, but she has to accept these consequences, if they exist. Yet none of that matters because it's her prerogotive to do so regardless of who may or may not see it because she didn't force them to...I feel like I'm going in circles...
Did you get your tongue caught in......?
a) your shoelaces
b) a car door
c) a priests zipper

Tudamorf
03-29-2009, 01:59 AM
Haven't we already been over how this can cause harm?It can't cause harm TO ME, only to her. People should have the freedom to make their own decisions, even if those decisions hurt them (only) later.And nude photos of a child doesn't divert attention or cause accidental infections or pregnancies?The only infection it might cause is an electronic one, if a virus is planted in the image.

I've never heard of biological viruses, or sperm, traveling over the Internet.

And it certainly wouldn't travel to me, because I wouldn't see the picture anyway.

So no.I should be able to be a parent without having to police every little tramp who's behavior is detrimental to the developing and impressionable minds of others their age.Why do you feel the need to police OTHER peoples' children?

Worry about your own.

And if you're an incompetent parent who can't teach your children common sense, don't breed in the first place.

Sorrian
03-29-2009, 12:05 PM
It can't cause harm TO ME, only to her. People should have the freedom to make their own decisions, even if those decisions hurt them (only) later.The only infection it might cause is an electronic one, if a virus is planted in the image.
Is that why it is illegal to smoke crack? Don't give me that garbage double standard that it doesn't harm anyone else. The crackhead could go out in public and do something idiotic to harm someone else. Like a drive a car or rob someone. Just like the disease infested sl*ts running out having sex with everyone because they have lost all inhibitions. Where is that moral guidance when you need it? Maybe we should have provided a safe enviroment for the crackhead to smoke his poison, where it doesn't affect me. Yeah and I can sweep this rhinoceros under the rug and nobody will know it's there.
[/quote=tudamorf]I've never heard of biological viruses, or sperm, traveling over the Internet.[/quote]
I guess nobody has ever met over the internet and then met face to face. Nope....no pedaphiles ever did that. There isn't any online dating sites. People don't chat on an IM then fly off to screw each other without ever really knowing that person. Still using the same ostrich defense. Out of sight, out of mind.

And it certainly wouldn't travel to me, because I wouldn't see the picture anyway.
See the above comments. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. Acting like a wh*re leads to an unrestricted sex life (likely with multiple partners) which spreads disease to people YOU may have sex with and leads to more kids doing emulating that behavior (because nobody has told them that acting that way might be hazardous) and increasing that cycle exponentially. But go ahead.....ignore it and act like it doesn't affect you idiot.

So no.Why do you feel the need to police OTHER peoples' children?

Worry about your own.
Do you really believe that? Questioning my need to police others does not invalidate it (Please get that through your head). Here's a bit of information you are probably aware of but ignore it for sake of being right: We police children and other adults everyday simply because we worry about our own kids and the examples that others set for them. You ever hear of a role model? Contrary to what you might think, parents don't get much say in what their children choose as role models. I'll be damned if I am going to relinquish what little control I do have because some jackass thinks it's wrong to keep 14 year olds from acting like who*es. I am sorry that you have absolutely NO idea what it means to be a parent. I guess we should never tell the parents that their 12 year old son is (insert victimless crime here) smoking cigarettes. I mean if they are (insert naive justification here) smoking outside it really only harms them. I should just worry about my own children because is absolutely zero chance that they could see and copy this, right? Don't split hairs and say how this is different or argue about second-hand smoke. It's the same damn thing and you know it. You just refuse to admit when you're wrong.

And if you're an incompetent parent who can't teach your children common sense, don't breed in the first place. Did the person who is defending a minor posting nude pictures, now arguing about incompetent parents teaching kids about common sense? Do you ever hear yourself talk?
This is another swipe at me because you see your arguement crumbling, once again. I have shown that this affects others. I have shown how this causes harm. I have shown, at every step, how this could have been prevented, but it was shot down because I was being "oppressive" and forcing my values on everyone else. Yeah, right. I have shown how you are a hypocrite, bigot, and ignorant. (Probably a closet anarchist too.) I have proven how your entire arguement is baseless and wrong, yet you continue to try to spew the same tired rhetoric time and time again. I have done this multiple times. You just refuse to acknowledge (or are incapable of comprehending) the parts you don't like. You skip over them as though they weren't there, cherry-picking which sentences, in a much broader statement, to attack. You still failed.
I am done here. If you feel the need to continue the arguement, then state your case, go over my previous posts, find my rebuttal (it's all there), and argue with yourself in perpetuity. That's what you are after anyway...someone to argue with. If you lived in France, you'd be a conservative just so you can have an opposing point of view and blame those around you for all the world's ills.
Arguing with you is like trying to convince a blind amnesiac that the sky is blue, when he refuses to admit that the color or the sky exist in the first place or that he is blind and just doesn't remember.

Klath
03-29-2009, 12:51 PM
I should just worry about my own children because is absolutely zero chance that they could see and copy this, right?
So, let me get this straight, you want to limit and control everyones behavior in order to protect your kids from bad role models. Lovely.

Do you object to p.ornography in general? I mean, your kids could see adults engaging in sexual behavior and want to copy it, couldn't they?

Tudamorf
03-29-2009, 12:55 PM
Is that why it is illegal to smoke crack?It shouldn't be. Alcohol is far more harmful to society, and legal.Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.I'm not ignoring it. It's simply not a problem unless it affects me.We police children and other adults everyday simply because we worry about our own kids and the examples that others set for them.I guess we should never tell the parents that their 12 year old son is (insert victimless crime here) smoking cigarettes.We police the sale of tobacco to minors as a health issue, not a moral issue. Kids who get addicted early tend to stay addicted for a long time, which costs society money in medical care and lost productivity.

Government should not be in the business of brainwashing youth into adopting certain beliefs or attitudes. Our founding fathers understood this centuries ago, why can't you?Did the person who is defending a minor posting nude pictures, now arguing about incompetent parents teaching kids about common sense?I am defending her right to do it without governmental interference, not defending her. Understand the difference.

Eridalafar
04-03-2009, 10:17 AM
And to add a little to this discussion, remember that for her generation (the one that are growing with the internet/cell phone/other instant messaging). Their view on what is private and public isn't the same that older generation that have lived without a phone alway on you (and don't go back to the 5 miles away ohone or 1 phone for all the street) and us that have see the birth of the internet.

For her generation everyone is very near and easy to talk to. For the older generations, using the web and the phone is alway creating a "mental" distance.

And when you live 24 hours a day with a web cam open, your definition of private live will not be the same that the pope have. Also when growth while seing naked peoples (or nerly naked) everywhere, you moral value will be very different from the one that have growth when just seeing the shoes of a women was scandalous....

Sending in jail a 14 years old in prison for 30 years and marking her as sex offender is going overboard very badly.

Eridalafar

AbyssalMage
04-13-2009, 04:00 AM
My only question is how this can this be child ****ography when she is the child posting it w/out cohersion. Bad judgement, I think we can all agree on, but something worth my tax dollars in Court and Jail costs and then monitoring possible until 18 or older....the DA needs to get a life if the only charge is bad judgement on the childs part. Now if there was cohersion and the child is protecting someone, then the DA should go after that person. And if it's another minor, let the charges go (i.e. no adult, no crime).

Sorry all you repressed morale americans....people have been sharing nude pictures sense the invention of the camera. Polaroid was really popular back in the day. Digital has just replaced it and the internet makes sure you can get the picture to them faster. Just now, 40 years later the same generation who used poloroid says it should be illigal and we should ruin the lives of the next few generations with overbearing laws. And for those thinking its a new concept, before the camera we had art. So sorry, history still says your wrong. We been doing nude pirctures (art) sense before you where a twinkle in your great-great-great grandmothers eye. The only time nude art was absent in europeaon culture was during the dark ages...the time the church took everything over. That should tell you something!

oh, and as far as the peeing, squeeling tires goes....

Pee'ing in public is illigal for 2 reasons...(A) It causes desease and the only reason I support the law. (B) Public nudity, people don't like looking at other people's tallywackers...personally I don't either but as a civilization we should move on to more important things than how or what is showing.

Squealing Tires is illigal for multiple reasons and 2 ill mention...(a)Damage to public property. Many things can happen when your wheels spin including debree being thrown and injuring others. Damage to the asphalt from spinning tires is also common. Why do you think all 50 states have taxes on gasoline. To repair the roads from people driving on 'em (b)The other reason that was mentioned is that its distracting. The noise, smoke, and general fear that someone is going to accelerate into the intersection prevents you from being a better driver. Add flying debree and its completely unnerving. Just for fun, (c)another reason is if you spin your tires your 95% likely to be speeding in very short order. And if you need to know why speeding is bad inside city limits either your under 12 or need to take a driver's ed course.

Please learn to think for yourself. Learning to repress yourself cause the Right says its ok only makes are country worse. Nudity isn't going away. Breastfeeding isn't going away. Kids making dumb mistakes isn't going away. Charging kids with crimes that we've been doing for generations isn't going to help. Criminilizing everything doesn't help anyone.

Tudamorf
04-13-2009, 05:04 PM
Criminilizing everything doesn't help anyone.It helps the Christians stay in power.

AbyssalMage
04-15-2009, 02:32 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30224261/

At least someone is figuring out that this law is crap. Now if the rest of the states can figure this out.

Warzle
04-20-2009, 04:51 PM
Uhh, not normal behaviour were I was brought up. And I have sex frequently.

Woldar
04-29-2009, 07:29 PM
It is sad. You guys are still stuck in the 60s. If it feels good do it. If it doesn't hurt anyone then it must be ok.

It is interesting that the right wing or christians are being labeled as the main obsticles for all this uncivilized behavior. Last I heard both parties were against most of this behavior.

However, if these groups are trying to keep children from seeing or hearing things they are not old enough to understand, or being preyed upon by adults for their own gratification then good for them.

AbyssalMage
04-30-2009, 01:57 AM
It is sad. You guys are still stuck in the 60s. If it feels good do it. If it doesn't hurt anyone then it must be ok.

It is interesting that the right wing or christians are being labeled as the main obsticles for all this uncivilized behavior. Last I heard both parties were against most of this behavior.

However, if these groups are trying to keep children from seeing or hearing things they are not old enough to understand, or being preyed upon by adults for their own gratification then good for them.

This goes beyond your argument though.

Personally (I can't speak for others) I agree that if their is an adult sexual predator preying on kids, lock them up and throw away the keys. The problem is "sexual predator" has become to mean, if you think or act about sex, your a criminal and should be thrown into jail, age doesn't matter. This case highlights the problems with the term. She will be labled a predator the rest of her life, barring her from many job opportunities and yet everyone one who takes a "step back" can relize what she did was very stupid (to say the least). She shouldn't be punished her whole life for this and the lawmakers relize this and are doing something about it. Whether you relize this is normal behavior or not is irrelevent. Im thankful that some legeslators had the mind and fortitude to decriminalize this. I think the Prosecuting Atourney should be fired for being a zelouse nut, reguardless what political party he belongs to. Being able to make sound judgement should be a requirement of anyone who prosecutes people, something many AG's lack because there looking at their own political futures.

"Slap" her on the hand, do some community service at a Rape Victim's Counseling Center and move on. Please note, the parents should be "slapping" her on the hand and making her do the community service, not the government for clarification.

Fyyr
04-30-2009, 12:16 PM
It is sad. You guys are still stuck in the 60s. If it feels good do it. If it doesn't hurt anyone then it must be ok.

It is interesting that the right wing or christians are being labeled as the main obsticles for all this uncivilized behavior. Last I heard both parties were against most of this behavior.

If something does not hurt anyone, then how can it be a crime?

Because your invisible man in the sky told you so?
Basing laws on what some invisible spirit has told you is idiotic.

Trying to force your silly belief system on others by law, by force, is not only bigoted, but morally bankrupt and evil.

Woldar
04-30-2009, 04:04 PM
Interesting Fyyr

How did law come about. Before there were jews, christians, or other religions there was common laws to bring civilization to the masses. Under your logic we should have no laws, regulations, morals, etc.

When two people get together automatically restrictions come into play as one person or the other will object to the others undesired behavior.

I guess a lot of the folks on this forum either live by themselves, can't keep a job, or have no social life. If you want to do whatever you want whether it is called immoral, unlawful, or uncivilized then fine. Enjoy your new friends in jail, enjoy being by yourself, or simply be an uncouth slob.

Tudamorf
04-30-2009, 04:34 PM
Under your logic we should have no laws, regulations, morals, etc.Under Fyyr's logic (and any other sensible person's), we should have laws to prevent people from causing harm to one another.

Under your logic, we should have laws to cause harm to others by oppressing them, so that your cult can stay in power (in part by dictating how people should have sex).

I like Fyyr's logic a lot better.

I don't like your logic at all, if you can call it that.

Fyyr
04-30-2009, 05:15 PM
P
How did law come about. Before there were jews, christians, or other religions there was common laws to bring civilization to the masses.
Well, originally, laws were kinda made up on the fly with some form of social judges or adjudicators.

One or two people would bring some grievance to that judge, then the judge would make a decision based on what was perceived fairness.

But that became too large of an endeavor as populations grew in size. So then these adjudicators codified their past decisions, or at least the common ones.

If you read through Hammurabi's Code, you can see this as if it were an onion skin. And that code (and ones like it) is the skeleton for much of the Mosiac Law (and Islamic Law).

The difference is that even though in the preface Hammurabi declares himself a god, he is still a tangible person. Moses takes that a step further, and states that his laws come from a supernatural god.

But when you read through Hammurabi's Code, even for its day, there is an inherent sense of fairness about most of it. All things condidered, at least an intent of fairness.

What happens to the children of a handmaiden and master, what happens to his wife's children.
What happens if a freewoman marries a slave, and have a child.
What happens to a masters property when he dies, how much does his wife get, how much do the children get.
How much does a person pay if he kills a slave, as opposed to a free person.
What happens if you punch me in the face, and I lose an eye or teeth, what punishment should befall you.

They are all tangible laws, about tangible real situations.

There were always laws before there were laws passed down by supernatural beings. We did not get to the point of monotheism, without some form of inherent fairness about social interaction.

"You do this to me, then we do this to you, so don't do that". Any three year old can set up a set of playground 'laws' of agreed upon fairness, we don't need an invisible supreme being to do it. Human laws or codes were around long before humans invented your god.

Populations of people today live just fine and well, with their own laws and codes, without ever hearing of your invisible man in the sky and zombie boy. Just as they always have.

When the law giver became invisible and spiritual, the laws changed too. To invisible and intangible guilt. You could then be found guilty of thought, not action. Crimes of blasphemy or heresy were invented. Masturbation becomes a crime. Lust becomes a crime, sex becomes a crime.

Thought becomes a crime. And your invisible man in the sky is the only adjudicator, until some religious lawyers want to make it real law. Which they do. Thinking about things become crimes, to your sort. Based on nonsense and spirits in the sky and zombie boy. With no real tangible harm taking place to anyone. Crazy nonsense.

Woldar
04-30-2009, 06:47 PM
Tud-Like several others have mentioned in these forums it is a waste of time trying to reason with someone who both doesn't understand logic or has so much hate.

I guess you will be spending most of your time in front of a computer and not interacting with normal folks in society. You definately don't get how society works. Your hatred for those who have any form of religious beliefs is pretty backward, but hey continue to act and behave in uncilivized ways and see how far that gets you in life.

Fyyr
04-30-2009, 07:33 PM
Your hatred for those who have any form of religious beliefs is pretty backward, but hey continue to act and behave in uncilivized ways and see how far that gets you in life.
It is really a pretty natural reaction, really. Not to your beliefs(you can believe any silly nonsense you wish to), it is your actions which need dissent.

You Christians push, and don't like to be pushed back. We get it.

You could always turn the other cheek. And since it is YOU who has struck first, it is the least you could do.


Just because you are in the majority, does not make your will, might, or force right. Your leader and founder did get that part right. If you don't understand that, you are a horrible hypocritical Christian.

palamin
04-30-2009, 09:09 PM
quote"How did law come about. Before there were jews, christians, or other religions there was common laws to bring civilization to the masses. Under your logic we should have no laws, regulations, morals, etc."

Not neccessarily. Many people have liberal idealogy. Some have even anarchist viewpoints. Which anarchy, as a point of view is often misrepresented and portrayed as everyone doing whatever they want with no restrictions, ie, raping, killing and stealing anything in sight kind of stuff. Which is a viewpoint for some and gets the most press. But, other anarchist viewpoints have more limited government involvement, less laws and restrictions, so on and so forth. Generally, don't dick over the other guys and girls laws, and as long as you do that, you can do whatever you want.

Fyrr answered the how did goverment come about fairly well.

quote"Your hatred for those who have any form of religious beliefs is pretty backward, but hey continue to act and behave in uncilivized ways and see how far that gets you in life."

We do not neccessarily hate religeon nor the beliefs they entail. Generally, it has more to do with policy of religeous structures. Judaism/Christianity/Islam has been a very popular one to bash because of the oppressive nature of their religeon. Remember these guys have killed over 450 million people over the last 2000 years with violent action. They have oppressed women, they have enslaved cultures as well as the people. They have outright rejected many advancing technologies such as the world is flat, big bang theories(what did you really think that God just turned on a light?). Many other things such as radio carbon dating estimates of dinosaur fossils, given the 7 days portion of the old testament Genesis. Certainly you could adjust your perception instead of 7, 24 hour periods to look towards a broader view of hey, maybe God's seven days were slightly longer than we originally thought.

So yes, many of us consider that particular branch of religeon archaic. There is evidence by many other religeous structures such as agnostism, atheism, that they have lower imprisonment rates, 1-2% of the inmate population in the United States, lower crime rates in countries where they are the majority, little to no open warfare, and so on. Which is funny considering they are the number one and two most hated religeons in the world, most persecuted by capita, as well as short violent deaths, save for women(but, that might just be mass though).

Tudamorf
04-30-2009, 09:11 PM
Tud-Like several others have mentioned in these forums it is a waste of time trying to reason with someone who both doesn't understand logic or has so much hate.How do you know it's a waste of time, when you haven't even tried?

All I hear from you is personal attacks -- which tells me that you have no intelligent rebuttal to anything that I have said.

That's not surprising, considering that everything I have said is logical, objectively true, and derived from common sense that anyone can understand, not from some ancient compilation of Jewish folk tales which you proclaim as absolutely true just because some guy in a robe says it is.Your hatred for those who have any form of religious beliefs is pretty backward,I don't hate your belief. I hate the actions which you attempt to justify by your belief. Learn the difference.

If you Christians stopped trying to oppress the rest of us, and just went about your business, I wouldn't care in the slightest if you prayed all day, refused to get your own abortion, refused to learn science, or whipped yourself every time you thought about sex.

Honestly. We atheists don't care what you believe in, because we're not evangelists. We just want you to leave us in peace the same way you'd like to be left in peace. (Incidentally, it's another of Jesus's teachings that you conveniently ignore.)

Moreover, if someone tried to prevent your private practice of your religion, I would speak out against it, because, like the Founding Fathers, I am strongly against any form of religious oppression. Even a religion as cruel as ridiculous as yours.

Panamah
05-01-2009, 11:02 AM
Hmmm... I have the perfect place for anti-government folks to live. Somalia! No functioning government. How about living their for awhile and comparing notes?

:lol:

I could see that religion might have been a pre-cursor to government at some point. If you can get people to behave by scaring them about what will happen to them when they die it'd help versus trying to police them, which you can really only do with a fairly advanced civ with fair amounts of population density. Maybe that's why religion is still so powerful in rather backwards countries like Afganistan. Lots of remote areas government can't get to. Religion is the law in lots of those places.

Kamion
05-02-2009, 08:41 AM
Hmmm... I have the perfect place for anti-government folks to live. Somalia! No functioning government. How about living their for awhile and comparing notes?
I reckon you should note the difference between "anti-government" and "anti-big government" sentiments. Bush/Obama big spending is incredibly out of hand. Here's a list of some notable countries (countries that are socialist, democratic-socialistic, or generally authoritarian etc) that have smaller government as a % of GDP than we do:

Venezuela, Switzerland, China, Bolivia, Australia, Ireland, Russia, Estonia, India, Lithuania, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Romania, Nepal.

Countries that we'll likely surpass in government spending (as a % of GDP) under Obama (although some of these countries may dramatically raise spending as well):

Norway, Canada, United Kingdom, Spain, New Zealand, Bulgaria, Slovak Republic, Moldova.


We have bigger government than some some nations with socialist/communist/maoist/etc governments and are likely to surpass even more under Obama.

Here's the deal. For the past 30 years or so countries around the world have been dramatically lowering their spending and tax burdens, while the US has stayed flat. Contrary to what conservatives may claim, our tax burden (as a % of GDP) hasn't been significantly reduced since the 60s/70s, and especially so when you consider state/local taxes. Under Bush, spending levels were similar to what they were in the 50s and 60s, and the combination of this crisis and Obama being elected will make them be sustained at Reagan's 'cold war' levels. Under Obama, we'll even be a stone's throw away from WWII spending levels. Obama's spending is predicted to be about 40% of GDP, where as our spending during WWII was 45% of GDP.

Panamah
05-02-2009, 12:10 PM
I reckon you should note the difference between "anti-government" and "anti-big government" sentiments.
Yeah, anti-government would be like Fyyr. I think he calls himself a Libertarian but I'm not sure they'd actually like that association. I think he's more of an anarchist.

Tudamorf
05-02-2009, 01:31 PM
Here's a list of some notable countries (countries that are socialist, democratic-socialistic, or generally authoritarian etc) that have smaller government as a % of GDP than we do:Western European countries still spend a lot more than we do, and we are close to the world average. That's pretty low, considering all the stuff we buy that other countries don't, partly because they depend on us (e.g., the military).

Spending as % of GDP:

http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/kpxsjkpzgwux/zfld2s/spend%20%282%29.pngUnder Bush, spending levels were similar to what they were in the 50s and 60s,Source?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Us_gov_spending_history_1902_2010.pngUnder Obama, we'll even be a stone's throw away from WWII spending levels. Obama's spending is predicted to be about 40% of GDP, where as our spending during WWII was 45% of GDP.Predictions by whom?

And what makes you think that the economic crisis isn't serious, and doesn't require spending to mitigate?

Kamion
05-02-2009, 04:29 PM
And what makes you think that the economic crisis isn't serious

You got this out of my post how exactly?

and doesn't require spending to mitigate?

<-Not a Keynesian fundamentalist, or a politician trying to save my own ass.

Kamion
05-08-2009, 02:38 PM
Hmmm... I have the perfect place for anti-government folks to live. Somalia! No functioning government. How about living their for awhile and comparing notes?

I thought about this yesterday. I came across this article from an Austrian-Libertarian website (arguably the most 'anarchist' form of libertarianism) that looks at Somalia in a positive light. It was written in 2006, so it doesn't talk about the current pirate news story or anything.

http://mises.org/story/2066

weoden
05-14-2009, 10:48 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090327/ap_on_re_us/teen_child_****Everyone who even THOUGHT of charging this girl with any sort of crime for engaging in a perfectly normal behavior should be shamed, ridiculed, and ostracized from our society.

This "sex offender" business is getting out of control, and the sexually repressed Christians who keep conning the public into supporting these laws belong in prison, not in power.

Yea, she was arrested in the Great socially repressive state of New Jersey..

HaHa...

Tudamorf
06-27-2009, 04:41 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/24/virtual.child.****/index.htmlTennessee man charged in 'virtual ****ography' case

(CNN) -- A Tennessee man is facing charges of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor for what authorities say are three pictures -- none of them featuring an actual child's body.

Instead, according to testimony presented at Michael Wayne Campbell's preliminary hearing in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on Wednesday, the photos feature the faces of three young girls placed on the nude bodies of adult females, CNN affiliate WDEF reported.

Hamilton County Det. Michael Cox said Campbell told authorities "he wanted to see what they would look like as adults," according to WDEF.They want to put this guy in prison for the horrible crime of photoshopping legal images.

It's Christian-legislated thoughtcrime.

I'm sure these Christians would want to find a way to imprison all those evil men who even think about sex that hasn't been pre-approved by the Christian authorities.

Tervvo
06-28-2009, 07:45 PM
Wow, this is why it's hard to make laws that make a difference.

palamin
06-29-2009, 12:09 PM
That article sounds like this state that is for sure....

Fanra
06-29-2009, 04:19 PM
Bush/Obama big spending is incredibly out of hand.
Quite a bit oversimplified.

Let's look at official figures (in millions of dollars):

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.html

FY 2000 - Revenue 2,025,457 : Spending 1,789,216 : Surplus/Deficit
236,241

2001 : 1,991,426 : 1,863,190 : 128,236
2002 : 1,853,395 : 2,011,153 : -157,758
2003 : 1,782,532 : 2,160,117 : -377,585
2004 : 1,880,279 : 2,293,006 : -412,727
2005 : 2,153,859 : 2,472,205 : -318,346
2006 : 2,407,254 : 2,655,435 : -248,181
2007 : 2,568,239 : 2,728,940 : -160,701
2008 : 2,524,326 : 2,982,881 : -458,555
2009 estimate : 2,156,654 : 3,997,842 : -1,841,188
2010 estimate : 2,332,645 : 3,591,076 : -1,258,431
2011 estimate : 2,685,358 : 3,614,774 : -929,416
2012 estimate : 3,075,328 : 3,632,747 : -557,419
2013 estimate : 3,305,141 : 3,817,463 : -512,322
2014 estimate : 3,480,124 : 4,016,020 : -535,896

Now what happened is that Clinton handed Bush a government which was running at a surplus. Bush then cut taxes and raised spending until the the surplus was gone and the government was running in the red.

Then the hatred of government "interference" and regulation (mainly by Republicans) left the financial industry able to indulge in massively greedy and stupid investing.

This brought about the worst economic mess since The Great Depression.

In January 2009, Obama was handed this mess and told, "Good luck". He's trying to do his best to fix a broken system.

Not satisfied with allowing Obama to try to fix a system that is almost hopeless, many people (including many responsible for the mess) are quick to jump on Obama for his "massive overspending".

Yes, he is spending a huge amount of money. But the situation he was given was not of his making and it seems like the best (and only) way out of this.

There is plenty of blame to go around. But to blame the guy who just took office for a problem which has been hatching for over eight years is nonsense.

Perhaps you don't like the way he is handling the problem. That is fine, lots of people have different opinions on it. But to lump Obama in with Bush is flat wrong.

Bush and his fellow Republicans (with a few Democrats) created the mess. Obama is trying to fix it.

Panamah
06-29-2009, 06:19 PM
Well said Fanra, but not sure what it has to do with sexually repressed Christian lawmakers! :lol:

Klath
06-29-2009, 07:34 PM
Well said Fanra, but not sure what it has to do with sexually repressed Christian lawmakers! :lol:
Allow Rep. Sally Kern to explain...

Sally Kern's Proclamation for Morality in which she blames the nation's current economic and other problems on gays, abortion, divorce, and all around lack of Christian faith:

Sally Kern's Proclamation for Morality (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/sally-kerns-proclamation-morality)

Fanra
06-29-2009, 10:38 PM
Well said Fanra, but not sure what it has to do with sexually repressed Christian lawmakers! :lol:

Absolutely nothing.

Dark Helmet: Before you die there is something you should know about us, Lone Star.
Lone Starr: What?
Dark Helmet: I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.
Lone Starr: What's that make us?
Dark Helmet: Absolutely nothing! Which is what you are about to become.


I was just responding to what Kamion said.

Kamion
06-29-2009, 11:59 PM
Fanra.

Really.

2009 estimate : 2,156,654 : 3,997,842 : -1,841,188

Anyone who is an apologist for this horrible monstrosity should get their head checked.

(Although that figure is out of date and is a 'tad' too small.)

Kalthanan
07-01-2009, 05:44 PM
Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. If no one is harmed in any way, it shouldn't be illegal. The government should not be running our moral lives. Separation of church and state.

Erianaiel
07-02-2009, 04:59 AM
Fanra.

Really.

2009 estimate : 2,156,654 : 3,997,842 : -1,841,188

Anyone who is an apologist for this horrible monstrosity should get their head checked.

(Although that figure is out of date and is a 'tad' too small.)


Kamion, read again. Fanra was not defending the size of that deficit, but trying to put the blame where it belongs: With the previous administration who created (in a large part) this mess, not with the current administration who inherited it.

Now, we can argue if the approach that Obama takes to address this financial mess is the right one (though I do think his position where half the economists say he should spend more and the other half say he should spend less is a bit difficult).


Eri

Erianaiel
07-02-2009, 05:07 AM
It's Christian-legislated thoughtcrime.



Tudamorf, please stop trying to blame christians for all the woes in the world. It is getting tedious, not to mention that it also is incorrect.
Just about every religion in the world (and quite a few non-religious philosophies) is attempting to repress the sexuality (especially of women). The ones in the USA just happen to be mostly christian, but if you ask the muslim religious leaders they share quite a few viewpoints (and qualities). Not to mention that many people in the USA who do not strongly identify as religious still have rather conservative moral values.

Many of these lawmakers are so terrified of the idea of sexuality that they try to stamp it out. They use christian rhetoric because that is the easiest way to justify it to themselves and those most likely to support their agendas, but it is just that: an excuse.

Eri

Kamion
07-02-2009, 09:31 AM
Kamion, read again. Fanra was not defending the size of that deficit, but trying to put the blame where it belongs: With the previous administration who created (in a large part) this mess, not with the current administration who inherited it.
Uhhh, no.

You're just continuing to apologize on behalf of Obama. Bush did not put this country onto the path of two trillion dollar budget deficits -- that is simply factually wrong. A one trillion dollar deficit in FY 09? Yes. But the difference between one and two trillion dollar deficits are incredible, but apparently some aren't able to process such big numbers. Much-as-less one trillion dollar deficits being extended off into the horizon, long after the recession is (at least in these calculations) predicted to end.

-------

You guys amaze me. A guy is running up two trillion dollar deficits and you guys are discussing trivial things like who's to blame. Anyone who thinks Obama is a 'victim' being held hostage to a terrible situation is fooling him or herself.

Obama is making great use of a tried and true Karl Rove tactic; anticipate your opponents' attack and attack them from that angle first. Obama says, "I'm not for big government, I'm for effective government. I didn't come to Washington wanting to spend like crazy, I inherited this mess and have to sort it out." Allow me to let you guys in on a secret; politicians lie -- when Obamas says these things he is merely political posturing.

You guys should focus on principles and policies; not parties, people, rhetoric, and the back and forth on cable news.

PS -- Thinking Paul Krugman speaks for 1/2 of all economists is also factually wrong. Just saying.

Tudamorf
07-02-2009, 01:34 PM
Tudamorf, please stop trying to blame christians for all the woes in the world. It is getting tedious, not to mention that it also is incorrect.
Just about every religion in the world (and quite a few non-religious philosophies) is attempting to repress the sexuality (especially of women).In how many first world countries do people go to prison for merely thinking about unapproved sex?

This guy likely will. Not for having sex with an unapproved female, but just for imagining the possibility.

And just because some Muslim third world countries in some Middle Eastern backwaters subjugate women, doesn't mean that the fanatical Christians right here aren't also bad.

Thoughtcrime should NEVER exist in ANY free nation, period.

Erianaiel
07-02-2009, 03:15 PM
Uhhh, no.

You're just continuing to apologize on behalf of Obama. Bush did not put this country onto the path of two trillion dollar budget deficits -- that is simply factually wrong. A one trillion dollar deficit in FY 09? Yes. But the difference between one and two trillion dollar deficits are incredible, but apparently some aren't able to process such big numbers. Much-as-less one trillion dollar deficits being extended off into the horizon, long after the recession is (at least in these calculations) predicted to end.

-------

You guys amaze me. A guy is running up two trillion dollar deficits and you guys are discussing trivial things like who's to blame. Anyone who thinks Obama is a 'victim' being held hostage to a terrible situation is fooling him or herself.

Obama is making great use of a tried and true Karl Rove tactic; anticipate your opponents' attack and attack them from that angle first. Obama says, "I'm not for big government, I'm for effective government. I didn't come to Washington wanting to spend like crazy, I inherited this mess and have to sort it out." Allow me to let you guys in on a secret; politicians lie -- when Obamas says these things he is merely political posturing.

You guys should focus on principles and policies; not parties, people, rhetoric, and the back and forth on cable news.

PS -- Thinking Paul Krugman speaks for 1/2 of all economists is also factually wrong. Just saying.


The way I see it Obama inherited an economy that was neck deep and sinking fast. He also inherited a record deficit which did not leave him with a whole lot of manouvering room.
He basically had two options: go the California route and freeze all government spending. Or loan a trillion dollar from the future and hope (pray) that it will be enough to kickstart the economy (or at least fill up and tamp down the black hole of banker panic). A large part of that trillion dollar had already been promised by the previous administration anyway (in case you had forgotten about the Bush administration tossing some 500 billion dollar towards irresponsible financial institutions that his minister of finance considered vital to the economy that week. That money was not on the 2008 budget but instead weighs on Obama's 2009 budget).

As I said, you can argue, rightfully so, if Obama made the right choices when it comes to dealing with the crisis. A lot of manouvering room he should have had had been taken away by the policy of the previous administration so he had less manouvering room, but he could, and quite possibly should, have made different decisions. He chose to listen to the same economists that had advised Bush to bail out the banks regardless the cost because of the potential risk of a complete system collapse.

But you can not convince me that Obama came to the white house with the intention to loan a trillion dollar from the future. If he had he would have used the money on quite different things than banks that dug themselves a hole so deep that they could not see the surface even with binoculars.


Eri

Erianaiel
07-02-2009, 03:23 PM
In how many first world countries do people go to prison for merely thinking about unapproved sex?

Why limit yourself to first world countries? That is kind of saying "how many usa's do people go to prison for thinking the wrong thing?"


This guy likely will. Not for having sex with an unapproved female, but just for imagining the possibility.

And just because some Muslim third world countries in some Middle Eastern backwaters subjugate women, doesn't mean that the fanatical Christians right here aren't also bad.

Thoughtcrime should NEVER exist in ANY free nation, period.

Did I say they were not, and did I say it should?
No. I am just suggesting to you that your constant hammering of christians and tying everything back to christian faith actually weakens the very valid points you are making.
The law this man got arrested for is spectacularly stupid. The faith of the people proposing and supporting it is of no relevance to that.


Eri

Tudamorf
07-02-2009, 03:58 PM
Why limit yourself to first world countries?Because (supposedly) free, world-leading nations should be held to a higher standard than third world backwaters led by petty dictators who claim authority from invisible men in the sky?No. I am just suggesting to you that your constant hammering of christians and tying everything back to christian faith actually weakens the very valid points you are making.The fact is, the United States is 25% fanatical Christian and 75% total Christian (who semi-support the fanatical ones, at least on some issues).

And their mythology is directly responsible for anti-sex and other oppressive laws which fly in the face of all logic and reason, not to mention the basic dictates of freedom.

Why shouldn't I single them out?The law this man got arrested for is spectacularly stupid. The faith of the people proposing and supporting it is of no relevance to that.The reason the law exists, and the reason that he is being prosecuted, is that a bunch of fanatical Christians in the bible belt decided that they don't like the way he thinks about sex.

I don't know of any atheist who would want to put a man in prison for thinking about sex.

That's because atheists don't try to control people's sexuality through thoughtcrimes, whereas Christians do, and have, for centuries. Atheists also don't evangelize and forcibly convert, whereas Christians do, and have, for centuries.

And you can't see the relevance of their religion? /boggle

Erianaiel
07-03-2009, 04:54 AM
And you can't see the relevance of their religion? /boggle



I can see the relevance of the religion, in how their interpretation of their faith encouraged them to support such a law. But that does not make the law itself worse than it already is.
Laws like that are a bad idea because they can be easily abused, are prone to cause arbitrary prosecution and criminalise behaviour that should be personal (as it affects nobody) or that is consensual (and should not be punishable at all). Being inspired by whatever faith does not make it an even worse law.
In my part of the world some staggeringly bad laws have been proposed, and even put in force, by people without any organised religion.

At any rate, I just wanted to tell you that your constant hammering at Christian is getting a wee bit tedious and I politely ask you if you can tone it down a little. If only because if you reserve it for the more excessively misguided attempts to found a theology the comments have a greate impact.

Eri

Tudamorf
07-03-2009, 01:10 PM
In my part of the world some staggeringly bad laws have been proposed, and even put in force, by people without any organised religion.How many atheists in your country want to put people in prison for thinking about sex?

I'm not just blaming the Christians because they happen to be the ones making up these oppressive thoughtcrimes. Their religion is directly responsible for it.

Fanra
07-04-2009, 01:53 AM
Fanra.

Really.

2009 estimate : 2,156,654 : 3,997,842 : -1,841,188

Anyone who is an apologist for this horrible monstrosity should get their head checked.

(Although that figure is out of date and is a 'tad' too small.)
I think I need to correct you here.

The FY 2009 budget was created by George W. Bush.

See: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/browse.html

And: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/message.pdf

In my 2009 Budget, I have set clear priorities that will help us meet our Nation’ s most pressing needs while addressing the long-term challenges ahead. With pro-growth policies and spending discipline , we will balance the budget in 2012, keep the tax burden low, and provide for our national security . And that will help make our country safer and more prosperous.

GEORGE W . BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 4, 2008.


Regardless, your points are missing something. It is true that while Bush's Official FY 2009 budget has a deficit of "only" 400 billion dollars, that figure is meaningless. Because it doesn't include many costs and uses his own figures on income. By not including many costs, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by "guessing" that the income would be higher than it really is (especially with the current recession), the "real" figures could be double or more.

But the real question, is exactly what expenditures of Obama are you questioning and why. Just pointing to a huge number and saying, "Obama is throwing the entire GDP into the fire and burning it" is an argument for morons.

Exactly what is he doing that is wrong? Much of the budget is "Mandatory spending and entitlements". Other parts are for Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there is "off budget" and "on budget" items.

The largest non mandatory spending that inflates that number is the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Both of them have issues that I'm not pleased with but they seem necessary.

Much of them was supported by Obama, but not all. He does, after all, have to get Congress to approve all spending.

Most of TARP was done under Bush. While the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed by Obama on February 17, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

Kamion
07-04-2009, 11:01 AM
I think I need to correct you here.

The FY 2009 budget was created by George W. Bush.
No need to correct. You just need to read all my posts since I don't repeat the same thing in every post of mine.


Bush did not put this country onto the path of two trillion dollar budget deficits -- that is simply factually wrong. A one trillion dollar deficit in FY 09? Yes.
---


By not including many costs, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Huh? And Obama is different how exactly? Yes, he promised to put the wars on the budget and to save money by cutting military spending, but he then went and got emergency war funding (off budget) just like Bush did, making it for a larger than projected military spending increase. (Starting to see a trend here? No matter what the area is, Obama finds a way to raise spending in it.)


and by "guessing" that the income would be higher than it really is
And Obama is different how? His budget projections for 2011 and 2012 are assuming that GDP growth will be 4.5%, which is far beyond what any reputable organization is projecting. His projections for the benefit of the stimulus were also highly dubious (ie, it's effect on unemployment.)


But the real question, is exactly what expenditures of Obama are you questioning and why. Just pointing to a huge number and saying, "Obama is throwing the entire GDP into the fire and burning it" is an argument for morons.
Uhh, not quite. I found your last post which featured a beyond-rational apology on behalf of Obama not deserving of a real reply.

The question is not what areas are Obama spending too much in. The better way to look at this is to ask what areas are Obama not spending too much in. He has literally increased spending in ever single area of government. We're desensitized to $20B here, $50B here, etc and most of these increases -on their own- don't seem like a big deal, but they all add up to very higher numbers.

And trust me, friend, the stimulus does not explain 2012's projected deficit projection, much as less 2012's projected deficit under Obama's unrealistic GDP growth assumptions.


Most of TARP was done under Bush. While the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed by Obama on February 17, 2009.
Obama changed TARP in a way that will add far more to the deficit than it would have otherwise. TARP repayments were orignally supposed to go to paying down the debt, but Obama created a slush fund so his treasury can carry out future bailouts.

---

We could do without these distractions. Yes, we all hated Bush, great. But being loyal to the person of a president rather than the policy of a president is highly counterproductive. If you like X policy under Obama, you should have liked X policy under Bush - and vice versa. Who's to blame and who's a victim need not matter; how one governs is what matters.

The problem with Obama is that he's entering us into a new age of voodoo economics. The last age of voodoo economies came from the conservatives claiming that all tax cuts were fully self-financing. Obama believes that virtually any government spending is an 'investment,' which will have returns greater than the original costs, and that we're better off in the long run by spending more now and saving money later down the road. Whether or not this is true (which is 95% of cases it is not), you need to realize that politicians always think 'now' is a lot more important than the future.

We're also way into debt-based spending as it is. Given that any additional spending will have to be financed by issuing bonds, the price tags for any new program will be much higher than advertised since we have to pay interest on every single new dollar spent. We're in the middle of a tresuries bubble atm, so we can't really grasp this threat as of yet. When inflation hits a few years down the road, the interest rate on our debt is going to skyrocket and you'll see deficits grow to dizzing heights. This is why burdening us with new long term spending obligations -like Obama wants to do- is a very bad idea.

Fanra
07-06-2009, 02:01 PM
Kamion, thank you for your reply.

What you said makes some sense. I do agree that Obama has not shown the fiscal restraint that I would like.

The exact details of where I think Obama should reduce spending I do not know. I do know that eliminating corporate welfare, including corporate farm supports, is something I favor. Also the defense budget is still, even after Secretary Gates has called for cuts, inefficient and bloated.

The Medicare Drug plan should be able to negotiate prices with drug companies, something that Congress ruled out thanks to lobbying.

There are a number of other programs that I think should be reduced or eliminated.

The other option is raising taxes.

Both of those options, cutting spending and raising taxes, are pretty much politically impossible.

Panamah
07-08-2009, 01:24 PM
It seems like spammers use the thread rating system to target threads.

Tudamorf
07-08-2009, 01:41 PM
No, they're the ones that put the ratings there in the first place.

Which begs the question, why are newly registered people allowed to immediately post, rate, and so on? Why aren't registrations manual to prevent all this spam?

For every real person registering here, there are probably 1,000 spambots. And new spam posts are going to outnumber new real posts pretty soon, not to mention I don't want to see graphic child põrn spam when I log on to the board.

I hope the moderators (if there are any left) will do something about this.

Yrys
07-08-2009, 11:57 PM
New spam posts already outnumber new real posts (we got probably around 30-40 spam posts today). We make several passes a day to clear out the spam, but it pours in fast.

I'm hoping the vB upgrade will add some new CAPTCHA options or something.

Erianaiel
07-09-2009, 09:08 AM
The problem with Obama is that he's entering us into a new age of voodoo economics. The last age of voodoo economies came from the conservatives claiming that all tax cuts were fully self-financing. Obama believes that virtually any government spending is an 'investment,' which will have returns greater than the original costs, and that we're better off in the long run by spending more now and saving money later down the road. Whether or not this is true (which is 95% of cases it is not), you need to realize that politicians always think 'now' is a lot more important than the future.

I entirely agree with you that you can rightly criticise Obama for the choices that he has made in the budget. I agree with you that he continues the trend of the past several presidents to 'borrow himself out of trouble'.
But we also have to be fair and accept that his manouvering room is extremely limited at this time. He did inherit a historically high national debt, a budget deficit that was unsustainably high and burdened by long term commitments, and one of the most severe economical crisis of the last century (and that is saying something given that we seem to have an economic crisis every other year or so).

From what I understand the economist are saying is that if Obama massively cuts costs to reduce the deficit and start paying back the debt he will deepen and prolong the economic crisis. The kind of problems that have plagued Japan for several decades now are still a very real possibilty of the USA under the current circumstances. If on the other hand he increases spending to head of the economic crisis, he risks causing high inflation (and its associated economic problems) a few years down the road. It will allow him to reduce the national debt simply by running up inflation, but it will further encourage other countries to find alternatives to trading in dollars (as they will lose trillions of dollars they loaned to the USA and are not going to be happy about it).



We're also way into debt-based spending as it is. Given that any additional spending will have to be financed by issuing bonds, the price tags for any new program will be much higher than advertised since we have to pay interest on every single new dollar spent. We're in the middle of a tresuries bubble atm, so we can't really grasp this threat as of yet. When inflation hits a few years down the road, the interest rate on our debt is going to skyrocket and you'll see deficits grow to dizzing heights. This is why burdening us with new long term spending obligations -like Obama wants to do- is a very bad idea.

This is entirely true. But the alternatives are not any more palatable at this point it seems. One thing that must eventually change is the habit of Americans, both private and government, to loan first and worry about paying back later. Either the government needs to cut down on its ambitions or they will have to raise taxes. Either works, but promising to lower taxes and raising spending are going to crush the economy. A lot of the problems with that (political) habit have been masked by the fact that the dollar is the coin in which all trade is measured (making it virtually impossible to speculate against it), but that is predicated by the perceived financial stability of the country and the ability to pay back loans (or at least the interest on them).
Inflating (or hyper-inflating) your way out of debts is going to work once, but after that the dollar will not be the cornerstone of the financial system anymore and either the Euro or an artificial monetary unit will be the coin in which international trade is paid, and this in turn will expose the USA to a far greater amount of inflation, speculation and ecomic discipline than it has been used to for the past century.

The biggest question, beyond if it is such a good idea to run up a massive debt, is if Obama is aware of the implications and if he has the political will and power to deal with the consequences when it comes to paying back the loans made now. Historical evidence of leaders world-wide does not inspire confidence and that means that in about 5 years we will have another economic crunch, even bigger than the current one, when the trust between countries starts to break down and companies begin to worry about if their international trade is still secure.


Eri

Kamion
07-09-2009, 11:00 AM
From what I understand the economist are saying is that if Obama massively cuts costs to reduce the deficit and start paying back the debt he will deepen and prolong the economic crisis. The kind of problems that have plagued Japan for several decades now are still a very real possibilty of the USA under the current circumstances.
Ironic. It's appropriate you mistyped economists and economist, since you're expressing the view one basically one person (Paul Krugman.)

Also, your entire premise is based on a false choice. The choice you're setting up is 1) massively cut [government] costs to reduce the deficit or 2) embarked on a major government 'stimulus.'

I don't have a problem with deficits in the short term. But there is a huge difference between a $500B deficit and a $2T deficit. I take issue with the size of the deficits, and especially with how long these deficits are going to be around.

If Obama's stimulus package was nothing but tax cuts and infrastructure projects, I would have had no problems with it, because those things are temporary. But 100s of billions of his stimulus package was merely growing government agencies (seriously, does homeland security 'need' more funding?) and programs. Increases in government don't go away so easily, especially when the stimulus package explicitly states that some of the increases must remain permanent.

Lastly, I don't know where you got the idea that Japan cared about deficits. Yes, there were a few times when they raised taxes and cut spending, but they never took a serious look at the deficit. Japan has -by far- the biggest national debt for a first world nation at 170% of GDP. By comparison, our national debt is a bit over 70% of GDP. And unlike America, Japan only started running a large national debt in the 1990s.

Panamah
07-09-2009, 11:28 AM
No, they're the ones that put the ratings there in the first place.]Yeah, that's what I meant.


Which begs the question, why are newly registered people allowed to immediately post, rate, and so on? Why aren't registrations manual to prevent all this spam?I kind of wondered that too. On my forum I had to implement manual approval. It was pretty easy to guess which ones were spambots. Maybe there's too much traffic here though.

Tudamorf
07-09-2009, 09:51 PM
]Yeah, that's what I meant.

I kind of wondered that too. On my forum I had to implement manual approval. It was pretty easy to guess which ones were spambots. Maybe there's too much traffic here though.Too much traffic? There are probably five, maybe ten real posts a day on the whole board.

I'm betting maybe one real registration a day, at most.

It would be far less hassle for the mods to disable automatic registration and clean out the 1 million spammers who already bot-registered than to continually delete all the recurring spam posts.

Just wipe every user registered in the past six months who has less than 10 posts, or however many the spambot uses.

Not to mention, soon the few remaining REAL readers are going to leave, because I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't like seeing põrn spam when I log in.