PDA

View Full Version : Gingrich: "Child Labor Laws Truly Stupid"


Davian93
11-21-2011, 07:54 AM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/19/gingrich-laws-preventing-child-labor-are-truly-stupid/

Its like being the GOP "frontrunner" forces them to finally say what they really think...and it always is the most ridiculous fvcked up sh!t you've ever heard. Yes Newt, lets get rid of those pesky labor laws preventing 12 year olds from earning a paycheck and using their bootstraps.

What Newt's vision for America looks like:

http://thewe.cc/thewe_/images_5/-/child-labor/boys-working-in-cooking-pot-factory.jpe

Terez
11-21-2011, 08:09 AM
I posted this on Twitter yesterday and some dude actually responded, 'did you read the article? Not a big GOP fan myself, but enabling a child of poverty 2 earn extra cash isn't 2 bad an idea.' GRR! So I explained to him in three tweets why it was actually a horrible idea, and then he says, 'when u put it like that...yeah. See your point.' That's about how much thought Newt apparently put into the idea.

fdsaf3
11-21-2011, 08:23 AM
Maybe you can summarize what's so awful about this idea for me, then. From my perspective, it seems like a decent idea. Get impoverished kids off the streets and get them a legitimate job to offset being so poor. Then there's the tertiary benefits of having more pride in their school as well.

From this article, I'm not seeing that Gingrich wants to go back to a medieval system where youth work 12 hour days of backbreaking labor. When I read it, the plan seemed more like work study for middle and high school students. I don't think it's an amazing idea, but I fail to see why it's such a horrible option.

GonzoTheGreat
11-21-2011, 08:42 AM
I think that Sandusky would also endorse this idea.

Which, if you think about it, suggests a big weakness in the plan right there: instead of letting one single paid authority figure be in charge of a bunch of poor kids, you would need to have a few people on the payroll, so that they can keep each other in check. And if you have a number of people employed for that anyway, then why not let them do the work?
So it is not at all obvious that this would be a significant reduction in costs, but it would be a pretty significant change in law.

Davian93
11-21-2011, 08:46 AM
Maybe you can summarize what's so awful about this idea for me, then. From my perspective, it seems like a decent idea. Get impoverished kids off the streets and get them a legitimate job to offset being so poor. Then there's the tertiary benefits of having more pride in their school as well.

From this article, I'm not seeing that Gingrich wants to go back to a medieval system where youth work 12 hour days of backbreaking labor. When I read it, the plan seemed more like work study for middle and high school students. I don't think it's an amazing idea, but I fail to see why it's such a horrible option.


You're replacing semi-good paying jobs with semi-decent benefits with cheap child labor. You're also having kids go to school to work, not learn.

Also, once it becomes socially acceptable for a 10 year old to work at a school, the goalposts will be kicked back and they'll say "a 12 year old has a right to work in ANY job" as it will "instill pride, etc etc".

Terez
11-21-2011, 08:57 AM
Maybe you can summarize what's so awful about this idea for me, then. From my perspective, it seems like a decent idea. Get impoverished kids off the streets and get them a legitimate job to offset being so poor. Then there's the tertiary benefits of having more pride in their school as well.

From this article, I'm not seeing that Gingrich wants to go back to a medieval system where youth work 12 hour days of backbreaking labor. When I read it, the plan seemed more like work study for middle and high school students. I don't think it's an amazing idea, but I fail to see why it's such a horrible option.*headdesk*


Hint: poor children are already disadvantaged. How does it help to make it worse by taking away their free hours? Do you know how many poor kids drop out of school when they're old enough to work as it is? We want kids in poverty to rise out of it via education, not pile on more reasons for it to be unfeasible. Also, 'work study' programs should be field training, or social work, not menial labor.

Davian93
11-21-2011, 08:58 AM
*headdesk*


Hint: poor children are already disadvantaged. How does it help to make it worse by taking away their free hours? Do you know how many poor kids drop out of school when they're old enough to work as it is? We want kids in poverty to rise out of it via education, not pile on more reasons for it to be unfeasible. Also, 'work study' programs should be field training, or social work, not menial labor.

Preparing them for a life of cleaning up after the wealthier, better off kids that dont take such jobs is pretty much the GOP vision for America....FWIW.

WinespringBrother
11-21-2011, 09:20 AM
So he wants to take jobs away from adults, and increase the work force in a time of high unemployment? (not to mention putting kids to work?)

Well, it's still not as bad as the electrified fence, at least...

Davian93
11-21-2011, 09:24 AM
So he wants to take jobs away from adults, and increase the work force in a time of high unemployment? (not to mention putting kids to work?)

Well, it's still not as bad as the electrified fence, at least...

In his defense, kids typically have tiny hands so they'll be able to reach into the machinery to undo jams far easier than an adult. Also, the slower kids will likely be ripped apart by the machinery so this will have a natural Darwin effect providing us with a stronger, more agile workforce in the future. Its win-win.

Ivhon
11-21-2011, 11:20 AM
Really, the child labor laws are outdated, anyway. I mean, they may have been useful 100 years ago when monied interests weren't ethical and responsible like they are today.

Now they are just another liberal roadblock preventing the rich from exercising their god-given rights to become even richer by their own efforts

Davian93
11-21-2011, 11:41 AM
Child labor laws are as obsolete as the 40 hr week or a minimum wage. I say do away with all of these brakes on capitalism.

Its simply not right that we live in a country where a 10 year old boy can't work 90 hours a week for pennies. Also, workplace safety is stupid. Little baby needs safety goggles to work around machinery? Screw that. Get rid of OSHA too...the market will regulate itself to ensure worker safety. Also, many of these so-called "child laborers" will likely want to take excessive breaks during their mandated 15 hr workday. We should make sure that all capitalists are issued chains and padlocks to bar the doors shut at their factories to prevent them from "stealing" time like that. Together we can fix this country.

fdsaf3
11-21-2011, 12:19 PM
Woah, somehow we started extrapolating this idea into a massive reformation of child labor laws. I think there's a bit of hyperbole going on in this thread.

Terez: I get what you're saying. I don't disagree with you. Education is probably the most viable route to getting kids out of poverty. I've done some work on this, and there's evidence that suggests that another way to preempt a child in poverty growing up into a life of crime is to provide them reasons not to commit crimes, i.e. give them jobs. Maybe I misunderstood Newt's proposal, but it was my understanding from the article that the students would go to school and work for a few hours maybe before or after to help clean up. If we're talking about a massive time commitment then my stance changes. But if it's just a few hours a day, I see some benefit to that. Again, I'm not saying this is a perfect policy alternative. I'm just saying that I don't see it as so obviously heinous as you seem to be. I'm trying to approach this with an open mind since I'm unfamiliar with this proposal. I'd recommend to you that you do the same.

Dav: In general, I don't hold much truck with the slippery slope argument. As such, I would argue that we need to analyze each policy proposal on a case by case basis. I think you make an interesting point that we would be replacing the janitorial jobs of adults with cheap labor performed by students. That's clearly something that we should think about when analyzing the efficacy of this proposal. If we were to do a cost benefit analysis, I wonder how the cost of those lost jobs and salaries would weigh against the potential benefits of the children working. I don't have an answer to that, but it's interesting to think about.

I hate to repeat myself, but at times it's necessary to make sure that it comes across. I am not a staunch defender of this proposal. In fact, I am rather neutral towards it. All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem like it's being analyzed at face value, which I think every policy alternative deserves.

Res_Ipsa
11-21-2011, 12:51 PM
I am in favor of a suitable age being allowed to obtain waivers. Granted it will be open to abuse but in some fields of work, 16 year olds are already taking shop and woodwork with the intention of being mechanics, cabinet makers, plumbers, construction workers, etc. and it is not necessarily a bad idea to allow them to stop at a certain level with their parents consent.

Education is not the be all to end all for many people. In fact, secondary education in this day and age is often overblown in its effectiveness. This is partly due to the massive interests in keeping kids paying college tuition rates at every growing costs to party. Not all do that, but it seems today that kids go to college to have fun and do not even get me started on the textbook market.

I did not read the news sources that you linked Dav so I am not sure what qualifications Gingrich gave, if any, but I do not personally care for the man. At the same time, Gingrich is a better alternative than Obama.

Terez
11-21-2011, 12:54 PM
Woah, somehow we started extrapolating this idea into a massive reformation of child labor laws. I think there's a bit of hyperbole going on in this thread.

Terez: I get what you're saying. I don't disagree with you. Education is probably the most viable route to getting kids out of poverty. I've done some work on this, and there's evidence that suggests that another way to preempt a child in poverty growing up into a life of crime is to provide them reasons not to commit crimes, i.e. give them jobs. Maybe I misunderstood Newt's proposal, but it was my understanding from the article that the students would go to school and work for a few hours maybe before or after to help clean up. If we're talking about a massive time commitment then my stance changes. But if it's just a few hours a day, I see some benefit to that. Again, I'm not saying this is a perfect policy alternative. I'm just saying that I don't see it as so obviously heinous as you seem to be. Even a few hours a day is heinous, for reasons already stated. If you want to keep kids out of trouble, then give them after-school programs that help them with school. If you want to save money on janitorial services, then don't punish the poor kids by saddling them with the job - make all the kids do it. If you want to help poor families make more money, there are a thousand better ways to go about it.


I'm trying to approach this with an open mind since I'm unfamiliar with this proposal. I'd recommend to you that you do the same.
Fuck off, dude.

Davian93
11-21-2011, 12:57 PM
At the same time, Gingrich is a better alternative than Obama.

Clearly you are too young to remember what a complete and utter POS that Gingrich is. Go look up why he had to resign from the House. That's just the tip of the iceberg as to why he should never be near any political office ever again. Hell, he's not qualified to be dogcatcher.


Also, child labor laws already allows those as young as 14 to work depending on the state with proper working papers (a waiver) and at age 16 with very few restrictions. Newt wants to lift those restrictions to allow them to worker longer and at a younger age. Its a stupid, stupid idea. There are very good reasons why we have those laws.

maacaroni
11-21-2011, 01:07 PM
I had a job aged 12, I cleaned false teeth moulds. Honestly. Hated every minute of it. It didn't instill no work ethic in me...all it did to me was make sure I never got a shitty menial job.

I understand what he is saying, in that instilling a (protestant) work ethic is a good thing. But it is also cheap labour and not necessarily true.

I would suggest that instilling the work ethic via schoolwork and/or sports and/or chores is probably the modern (and indeed better) approach.

I'll say one thing for ol' Newters...at least he has ideas of his own. Crap ideas, but they're not regurgitated, focus-group orientated, faux-morality policies the rest are spouting.

Res_Ipsa
11-21-2011, 01:16 PM
Clearly you are too young to remember what a complete and utter POS that Gingrich is. Go look up why he had to resign from the House. That's just the tip of the iceberg as to why he should never be near any political office ever again. Hell, he's not qualified to be dogcatcher.


Also, child labor laws already allows those as young as 14 to work depending on the state with proper working papers (a waiver) and at age 16 with very few restrictions. Newt wants to lift those restrictions to allow them to worker longer and at a younger age. Its a stupid, stupid idea. There are very good reasons why we have those laws.

Yeah, I don't really remember him, but I do remember he is the same PoS that lambasted Clinton for having an affair as he was having one himself. Not a big fan of that conduct, but as people tell me about Clinton, it was just a BJ. As a side note, funny the difference of 4 years makes. I was 15 in Nov. 00 and thus remember W more than Clinton. You being 4 years older would probably get your political inklings from 95-96?

Personally, I don't much care for Senator/HoR running for the Presidency bc they have little executive experience and are usually the weaker Presidents. Obama is a disaster, there is no glossing over that fact. I imagine at worst, Gingrich is more of W. Which is more much the same of Democrats and Republicans. Again, Obama is a disaster and I don't see him using the next 4 years to be any less so. Gingrich has one positive, it was the Republicans who controlled Congress who balanced the budget, not Clinton.

Beyond that, I don't know much about him, and I do not care to but faced with the unmitigated disaster that has been Obama, I am faced with lesser evils or not voting at all. Is it your position Obama has been a good president?

confused at birth
11-21-2011, 01:20 PM
i worked 4 hours a day after school from 14 with a 1/2 hour bike ride there and back for $16. it sucks but i had the choice between working and no shoes and clothes with holes in.

As long as it is the childs choice, they make in wage and it is safe what is the problem?

Davian93
11-21-2011, 01:38 PM
My opinion is that Gingrich would likely be the worst president in our nation's history...and is thus a worse option than Obama who has merely been mediocre. It takes special skill to jump up there with Harding and Grant....Gingrich has that skill.

Ivhon
11-21-2011, 01:46 PM
My opinion is that Gingrich would likely be the worst president in our nation's history...and is thus a worse option than Obama who has merely been mediocre. It takes special skill to jump up there with Harding and Grant....Gingrich has that skill.

Incorrect.

All current Democrat presidents are the worst president in history - easily eclipsed by Bozo, Fido, or Charles Manson - and therefore should be immediately impeached once the judiciary is disbanded.

All past and future Democrat presidents are tied for the second worst.

AbbeyRoad
11-21-2011, 01:57 PM
My opinion is that Gingrich would likely be the worst president in our nation's history...and is thus a worse option than Obama who has merely been mediocre.
Mediocre? You give the man too much credit...

Davian93
11-21-2011, 02:00 PM
Mediocre? You give the man too much credit...

Other than not being nearly Liberal enough and trying to govern from the Center, I dont see him as all that bad. He never should have played 2 hand touch with the GOP from 08-10. He had a huge mandate and he should have bent them over until they cried for mercy.

Terez
11-21-2011, 02:30 PM
Yeah, I pretty much gave up on him in the first year of his term because of the 'reaching across the aisle' BS. I thought about emailing him a few of Sini's posts as if to say, 'look, they don't appreciate it. give up.' But for some reason I didn't bother. I think his heart is in the right place but he's not the lone ranger we hired him to be. Granted, the power of the president is limited...but his worst choices have been those made under the assumption that the public wasn't paying any attention at all.

Res_Ipsa
11-21-2011, 02:37 PM
He had a huge mandate and he should have bent them over until they cried for mercy.
No, he had a huge anti W gimme election and voters turned away from him bc of his policies. You would have to be delusional to not recognize the huge victories Republicans had in 09,10, and 11 (though there were wins for dems in '11). Obama has been an unmitigated disaster.

Sei'taer
11-21-2011, 03:10 PM
Even a few hours a day is heinous, for reasons already stated. If you want to keep kids out of trouble, then give them after-school programs that help them with school. If you want to save money on janitorial services, then don't punish the poor kids by saddling them with the job - make all the kids do it. If you want to help poor families make more money, there are a thousand better ways to go about it.

I mowed yards when I was ten and started shoveling horse shit for a horse trainer at 14.

I paid the kids across the street to rake leaves two weekends this fall. They did a good job and are 10, 12 and 13 years old. I guess that was pretty horrible of me. I'll have to tell them no for the last rake in a couple of weeks.

My opinion is that Gingrich would likely be the worst president in our nation's history...and is thus a worse option than Obama who has merely been mediocre. It takes special skill to jump up there with Harding and Grant....Gingrich has that skill.

I despise Newt as much as I despise Mitt, which is right on par with how much I hate Obama. It's going to be a tough year in 2012. We're pretty much fucked any way it goes.

Terez
11-21-2011, 03:11 PM
@Res - The same thing happened to Clinton (hi Newt), but he still won a second term.

@Taer - I think most kids have to do chores, and generally doing work around the neighborhood is an acceptable way for kids to make extra cash. There are a thousand reasons why Newt's idea is stupid, and I could list some more so that you get a full picture, but I think you can figure it out on your own if you try.

Sei'taer
11-21-2011, 04:45 PM
@Res - The same thing happened to Clinton (hi Newt), but he still won a second term.

@Taer - I think most kids have to do chores, and generally doing work around the neighborhood is an acceptable way for kids to make extra cash. There are a thousand reasons why Newt's idea is stupid, and I could list some more so that you get a full picture, but I think you can figure it out on your own if you try.

Oh, I get it. But that's not what you said. It's now clear you didn't mean all work by children is heinous.

fdsaf3
11-21-2011, 04:47 PM
Even a few hours a day is heinous, for reasons already stated. If you want to keep kids out of trouble, then give them after-school programs that help them with school. If you want to save money on janitorial services, then don't punish the poor kids by saddling them with the job - make all the kids do it. If you want to help poor families make more money, there are a thousand better ways to go about it.



I would reply to this, except:


Fuck off, dude.

This. Same to you. I have been reasonable and honest about professing my lack of knowledge about this topic. It's surprising to me that you can pretend to have any intellectual integrity when you so blatantly presume you know the truth and build your arguments from there. I don't know who or what gave you that impression, but it's so clearly wrong that I don't really know where to begin. If the simple, polite suggestion to keep an open mind when evaluating the merits of a policy suggestion results in this level of hostility, I can only imagine what would happen if I said something really offensive.

I'd say "calm down", but I'm guessing you would misinterpret that as something highly offensive and react as if I had personally offended you.

Oh well, I guess some people are just wired to overreact to things.

Davian93
11-21-2011, 05:35 PM
I mowed yards when I was ten and started shoveling horse shit for a horse trainer at 14.

I paid the kids across the street to rake leaves two weekends this fall. They did a good job and are 10, 12 and 13 years old. I guess that was pretty horrible of me. I'll have to tell them no for the last rake in a couple of weeks.



I despise Newt as much as I despise Mitt, which is right on par with how much I hate Obama. It's going to be a tough year in 2012. We're pretty much fucked any way it goes.

There's a huge difference between between chores and a rollback of child labor laws designed to protect against the exploitation of minors.

fdsaf3
11-21-2011, 05:44 PM
There's a huge difference between between chores and a rollback of child labor laws designed to protect against the exploitation of minors.

And there's a huge difference between the proposal and what you are calling it.

Don't think that you can simply redefine the proposal to mean something that it doesn't and get away with it. This is a policy that targets a small group of children. Newt might have said that child labor laws are stupid, and you can hold him accountable for that. But what you can't do is sit here and decry this proposal for being "a rollback of child labor laws" when it isn't. You're being intentionally dishonest if you are saying it is.

I hate that I feel like I'm defending the proposal when I don't even like it that much. But I feel like it's just bad for discussion when politics gets in the way of a fair and accurate description of a policy.

Cor Shan
11-21-2011, 05:50 PM
There's a huge difference between between chores and a rollback of child labor laws designed to protect against the exploitation of miners.

Fixed :eek:

Davian93
11-21-2011, 05:54 PM
Newt is the gift that keeps on giving:

"CBO is a reactionary socialist institution" (http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/21/news/economy/gingrich_cbo_socialism/index.htm?source=cnn_bin)

Seriously? I mean seriously? The non-partisan CBO that is respected by both sides of the aisle is now a tool of the socialists?

Good stuff, Newt. I give him 2 weeks till he completely implodes.

Sei'taer
11-21-2011, 07:42 PM
Newt is the gift that keeps on giving:

"CBO is a reactionary socialist institution" (http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/21/news/economy/gingrich_cbo_socialism/index.htm?source=cnn_bin)

Seriously? I mean seriously? The non-partisan CBO that is respected by both sides of the aisle is now a tool of the socialists?

Good stuff, Newt. I give him 2 weeks till he completely implodes.

That's some pretty optimistic talk there, pretty boy.

Kimon
11-21-2011, 07:56 PM
Newt is the gift that keeps on giving:

"CBO is a reactionary socialist institution" (http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/21/news/economy/gingrich_cbo_socialism/index.htm?source=cnn_bin)

Seriously? I mean seriously? The non-partisan CBO that is respected by both sides of the aisle is now a tool of the socialists?

Good stuff, Newt. I give him 2 weeks till he completely implodes.

Do the republicans really have any other viable alternative to Romney? It certainly seems like Mitt's ceiling is around 25%, which I suppose in a crowded field might be enough to get him the nomination, but certainly doesn't inspire much confidence in the probability of his selection. And amongst Romney's competitors, as ridiculous as it seems, Newt certainly seems to be the most viable alternative. Regardless, this certainly seems the weakest field of candidates that I can recall either major party mustering in the past few decades - maybe since the sorry lot that the democrats managed in 1972.

Sei'taer
11-21-2011, 08:37 PM
Do the republicans really have any other viable alternative to Romney? It certainly seems like Mitt's ceiling is around 25%, which I suppose in a crowded field might be enough to get him the nomination, but certainly doesn't inspire much confidence in the probability of his selection. And amongst Romney's competitors, as ridiculous as it seems, Newt certainly seems to be the most viable alternative. Regardless, this certainly seems the weakest field of candidates that I can recall either major party mustering in the past few decades - maybe since the sorry lot that the democrats managed in 1972.

Dukakis.

The problem is that the republican establishment has too much control and they want Romney. Same thing basically happened last time with the dems. The dem establishment wanted obama and not Hillary, so they worked him into the right place.

I don't think any republican has a chance in hell of beating Obama. Too bad for all of us that there's not another viable candidate...I'd even take Hillary back and I hate her like I hate my ex wives.

I guess I'll be doing my normal write-in candidate vote this year. Y'all can do it too. I always vote for myself if I don't like either candidate. So I'm inviting you to vote for me as well.

Davian93
11-21-2011, 08:38 PM
Do the republicans really have any other viable alternative to Romney? It certainly seems like Mitt's ceiling is around 25%, which I suppose in a crowded field might be enough to get him the nomination, but certainly doesn't inspire much confidence in the probability of his selection. And amongst Romney's competitors, as ridiculous as it seems, Newt certainly seems to be the most viable alternative. Regardless, this certainly seems the weakest field of candidates that I can recall either major party mustering in the past few decades - maybe since the sorry lot that the democrats managed in 1972.

The Dems were pretty weak in 1984 too. The GOP in 1964 was pretty non-existent too...it was another year where the hard-right dominated their primaries/caucuses and led to the unelectable Goldwater winning the Nom. Of course, these days, Goldwater would be called a RINO by most Republicans. Nixon was further left than Obama too on a lot of issues...how scary is that?

Davian93
11-21-2011, 08:41 PM
Dukakis.

The problem is that the republican establishment has too much control and they want Romney. Same thing basically happened last time with the dems. The dem establishment wanted obama and not Hillary, so they worked him into the right place.

I don't think any republican has a chance in hell of beating Obama. Too bad for all of us that there's not another viable candidate...I'd even take Hillary back and I hate her like I hate my ex wives.

I guess I'll be doing my normal write-in candidate vote this year. Y'all can do it too. I always vote for myself if I don't like either candidate. So I'm inviting you to vote for me as well.

Hillary would have been a better president than Obama. She also has/had far more influence in the Dem leadership than Obama ever would as the Clinton wing of the party still runs much of their machinery.

I dont see Obama losing next year...not against this field. Huntsman is the only one that would have a shot in hell and the Right will never support him as he's far too much a RINO for them. Sadly Huntsman would be considered a Far Right candidate in any other election cycle if you actually looked at his political views. Its just that the average GOP candidate is in the Wackadoo fringe right at this point...or is nicknamed Mittens.

Kimon
11-21-2011, 09:02 PM
Hillary would have been a better president than Obama. She also has/had far more influence in the Dem leadership than Obama ever would as the Clinton wing of the party still runs much of their machinery.

I dont see Obama losing next year...not against this field. Huntsman is the only one that would have a shot in hell and the Right will never support him as he's far too much a RINO for them. Sadly Huntsman would be considered a Far Right candidate in any other election cycle if you actually looked at his political views. Its just that the average GOP candidate is in the Wackadoo fringe right at this point...or is nicknamed Mittens.

I'll definitely be voting for Obama again (sorry Sei), but yeah, can't help but regret that Hillary didn't win the nomination and then the election instead of him. Did he honestly think that what we wanted was pointless attempts at compromise with the republicans??

As for Huntsman, his campaign has been odd. In an already crowded field, why try to move yourself to the right to appeal to voters who already are suspicious of you for serving in Obama's administration, let alone for being a Mormon. He should have positioned himself clearly to the left of all his opponents, and made himself appeal to the few (there's got to be at least some, right??) sane republicans - you know the ones who believe in evolution, climate change, and scientific reasoning in general. Hell, at least then he could have lost with pride in the 5 or 6% of the republican electorate that he accrued.

Res_Ipsa
11-21-2011, 09:51 PM
Are we sure kids would not be better off not going to school?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/cops-called-for-school-kiss-657831\

Schools these days are so damn reactionary, it is like everyone forgot common sense.

GonzoTheGreat
11-22-2011, 03:23 AM
This is a policy that targets a small group of children.Of course. And the Jim Crow laws were aimed at a small group of people too.


Schools these days are so damn reactionary, it is like everyone forgot common sense.You are complaining about right wing policies?
Man, that's surprising, I have to say.

And yes, you are right that right wing ideology and common sense are incompatible.

AbbeyRoad
11-22-2011, 07:46 AM
A sheriff’s deputy was dispatched last week to a Florida elementary school after a girl kissed a boy during a physical education class.

School brass actually reported the impromptu buss as a possible sex crime, according to the Lee County Sheriff’s Office.
Margaret Ann Haring, 56, initially called child welfare officials, who directed her to contact the sheriff.
Holy shit.. I think I would have hung up on her if I were the sheriff.

You are complaining about right wing policies?
Man, that's surprising, I have to say.
And yes, you are right that right wing ideology and common sense are incompatible.
1. This is not right wing policy, nor left wing policy; this is idiotic inanity.

2. One of the U.S.'s biggest problems is that people think like that (everything has to be "right wing" vs. "left wing"), and forget to exercise their basic, natural judgement.

GonzoTheGreat
11-22-2011, 07:49 AM
2. One of the U.S.'s biggest problems is that people think like that (everything has to be "right wing" vs. "left wing"), and forget to exercise their basic, natural judgement.Wouldn't you get sued if you tried to do something like that? :confused:

Figbiscuit
11-22-2011, 08:06 AM
I had a job aged 12, I cleaned false teeth moulds. Honestly. Hated every minute of it. It didn't instill no work ethic in me...all it did to me was make sure I never got a shitty menial job.


Which probably did more to ensure you worked hard at school than anything else ever could have done.

Sei'taer
11-22-2011, 09:12 AM
Holy shit.. I think I would have hung up on her if I were the sheriff.


1. This is not right wing policy, nor left wing policy; this is idiotic inanity.

2. One of the U.S.'s biggest problems is that people think like that (everything has to be "right wing" vs. "left wing"), and forget to exercise their basic, natural judgement.

He's just trying to troll you. He has no experience with america or black americans so he says what he thinks will make you mad. He probably doesn't realize how dumb he sounds when he says things like that with no real experience about what it means. Just ignore him when he says those things. It'll make your life a lot easier.

Davian93
11-22-2011, 09:51 AM
He's just trying to troll you. He has no experience with america or black americans so he says what he thinks will make you mad. He probably doesn't realize how dumb he sounds when he says things like that with no real experience about what it means. Just ignore him when he says those things. It'll make your life a lot easier.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

GonzoTheGreat
11-22-2011, 10:03 AM
Actually, it was Res_Ipsa who first made the connection between right wing idiocy and lack of common sense, at least in this thread.

fdsaf3
11-22-2011, 01:44 PM
Of course. And the Jim Crow laws were aimed at a small group of people too.




Trolling, hyperbole, straw man, etc. Take your pick on how fallacious this post is.

Let me know if/when you want to have a real discussion.

GonzoTheGreat
11-23-2011, 03:42 AM
Let me know if/when you want to have a real discussion.Frankly, I do not think that the idea of "let's remove the protections against exploitation of children" is worthy of a real discussion. It is an idea which should be dismissed as insane (or possibly humorous, though that wasn't the intention this time) as soon as it is raised. The fact that Gingrich proposes this should be sufficient to disqualify him as a candidate.

So I am not intending to have a real discussion on this. There might be some politicians who could be trusted with a reform of child labor laws, and if one of those suggests something like that, then that might be worthy of actual discussion. Newt doesn't fall in that class; even if his intentions were good and honorable I would still expect him to screw it up horribly. In the same way that I thought that removing Saddam was in and of itself a good idea, but I expected GWB to screw it up, so I opposed his intentions.