1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Why ‘Gay Marriage’ is Evil

MadisonLives Wrote: Jan 26, 2015 11:10 AM
The Onion should reprint this article without any alterations. It is *hilarious*.
For example, we (as a nation) extend "rights" even to areas of land... e.g., we protect national parks from harm. Can a nation that has protects land not also protect fetuses?
This issue is *NOT* about the conversation between a doctor and a patient. The issue is the simple fact that a living fetus is more than a "body part" but less than a "full citizen". Requiring a doctor to show ultrasound pictures to the mother is, therefore, not a violation of the doctor's free speech... it is the *minimum* we must do to respect the rights of the living fetus.
Sorry, but history says that even if a nation (like Red America in this example) starts off with near-ideal freedom, that freedom it will be eroded over time. Remember: even the Tea Party can't agree on a single entitlement program to cut!
In response to:

Climate Catastrophe

MadisonLives Wrote: Dec 10, 2014 2:23 PM
Here's the problem: When someone (an individual, a company, a government, a species, etc) over-consumes, life seems awesome right up until the crash. The political right is correct to be conservative when it comes to the government's fiscal sustainability. The political left is correct to be conservative when it comes to the earth's environmental sustainability. It's all the same problem... and the correct answer is always to be conservative and live beneath our means.
How quickly you reject the first NEW idea you've heard in the left/right debate in your entire life.
Mr. Limbaugh is 100% wrong. Thanks to the Tea Party movement, the conservative/libertarian wing has had numerous opportunities to stand firm (e.g. to the point of government shutdown) and every time that happens it plays to the political left's advantage. So what's the solution? The solution realize that limiting government is just step one. Step two is to take the money that remains after the limits are in place and PRIORITIZE that spending. So instead of talking about spending caps, we need to talk about CAP+PRIORITIZE. Adding the "prioritize" step softens the message of the cap without softening the cap. To learn more, visit http://IncentiveReform.org
Hey Ron Paul -- if you can't tell the difference between the good guys (the U.S.) using sanctions and the bad guys (Putin) using sanctions then you need to stop writing columns. In other words, if this logic is too loud, you're too old!
In response to:

Favors and Loot for Sale

MadisonLives Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 3:04 AM
Yes, but a cap alone isn't politically viable. Cap-and-prioritize, however (see my post above) would combine the cap you propose with a way to sell the cap to the moderates and the left.
In response to:

Favors and Loot for Sale

MadisonLives Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 3:02 AM
Any solution needs to appeal to voters on both sides or it wont be viable nor sustainable. From my 7 years of research on this, the only possible solution is "cap and prioritize". Step 1 is to cap government like the right would like (e.g. a population + inflation cap) so government grows slower than our economy on average while maintaining purchasing power per-person. Step 2 is to take the money that's left and prioritize it -- rank it from top to bottom. This could be done in social-spending by block-granting that money to the states, creating 50 different experiments for how best to prioritize. Such a structure would constantly improve the effectiveness of social spending (as re-prioritizing would find better and better ways to use that constant purchasing power) while the tax burden -- and the money in politics -- would constantly shrink. Cap-and-prioritize. You heard it here first.
1 - 10 Next