Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's one of the problems I have with Obama, actually... I wish he'd push infrastructure investment more >.<

Investing in infrastructure is one of the few things that economists generally agree is a good thing for government to do.

A lot of our infrastructure hasn't been replaced since FDR. Upgrading it would create a good amount of temporary jobs locally and would benefit US technology based companies in the long term as we modernize things.

Melissia wrote:It's one of the problems I have with Obama, actually... I wish he'd push infrastructure investment more >.<

Investing in infrastructure is one of the few things that economists generally agree is a good thing for government to do.

A lot of our infrastructure hasn't been replaced since FDR.

Agreed. If we'd blown 800 bazillion on infrstructure (like I thought we would) I would have been a much happier man.

Luco wrote:

Yes, but why should we encourage our own fall? I'm hardly saying that they are the sole reason anything falls or has fallen, but say a war with a particularly populated nation big enough to reinstate the draft... well an extra couple hundred thousand soldiers wouldn't hurt

On the contrary, history shows us that larger populations lead to greater political instability in the long run. Again, just look at Rome - or indeed, the British Empire
Also, given that modern warfare is less about numbers now than it is about intelligence and technological superiority, I doubt drafts will be needed again. Hell, military numbers didn't help the USSR a bit in it's final days.
Fact is, there are very few cases where you'll ever fight a war big enough to need them, certainly not on a global scale, anyway.

Most problems i have with conservatives is they insult my age and intelligence when i giive them evidence to the contary of what they believe.
My cousin once said
"Your a Bleedng heart liberal, so you wouldnt understand"

hotsauceman1 wrote:Most problems i have with conservatives is they insult my age and intelligence when i giive them evidence to the contary of what they believe.
My cousin once said
"Your a Bleedng heart liberal, so you wouldnt understand"

At 20 you are a liberal
At 40 you are a conservative.

No they saying goes
IF you are a conservative at 20 you have no heart, if you are a liberal at 40 you have no brain.

hotsauceman1 wrote:No they saying goes
IF you are a conservative at 20 you have no heart, if you are a liberal at 40 you have no brain.

Thats a separate saying.

Here's a third saying:
Why put off for tomorrow what you can get someone else to do today.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Most problems i have with conservatives is they insult my age and intelligence when i giive them evidence to the contary of what they believe.

Oh, it isn't just conservatives. I got told off by one of my 60's liberal high school teachers for being "...too young to understand why lying is bad."

To this day I maintain that he was just jealous because he was an awful liar.

Silly liberal, tricks are for kids!

hotsauceman1 wrote:No they saying goes
IF you are a conservative at 20 you have no heart, if you are a liberal at 40 you have no brain.

I'm pretty sure that's a modified version of something Putin said:
"Anyone who does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart, those who want it back have no brains."

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Luco wrote:

Yes, but why should we encourage our own fall? I'm hardly saying that they are the sole reason anything falls or has fallen, but say a war with a particularly populated nation big enough to reinstate the draft... well an extra couple hundred thousand soldiers wouldn't hurt

On the contrary, history shows us that larger populations lead to greater political instability in the long run. Again, just look at Rome - or indeed, the British Empire
Also, given that modern warfare is less about numbers now than it is about intelligence and technological superiority, I doubt drafts will be needed again. Hell, military numbers didn't help the USSR a bit in it's final days.
Fact is, there are very few cases where you'll ever fight a war big enough to need them, certainly not on a global scale, anyway.

The estimated population of the entire world at the time of the Roman Empire is smaller than the population of modern day USA and we aren't doing that badly.
Technological prowess, alright, but are extra workers bad? Extra scientists? Extra pilots to deliver munitions? Extra farmers to supply the population? What of the future? What about if we do hit space era warfare or colonization in the next century or so? Two or three generations down the line, that's a lot of potential people that can be put to use. Considering the advancement of tech in the past century or so I don't think its that far out if we maintain growth.

But in reality gay people don't represent any real threat to population increase, even if you think we need more people. A small fraction of us are gay, and our population is increasing exponentially.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:No they saying goes
IF you are a conservative at 20 you have no heart, if you are a liberal at 40 you have no brain.

I'm pretty sure that's a modified version of something Putin said:
"Anyone who does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart, those who want it back have no brains."

I think the Putin quote is newer. Hotsauceman's is usually attributed to Winston Churchill, though I don't think that's right.

Robert Anton Wilson wrote that "It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea. "


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wikiquote has that quote- it's actually a lot older than Churchill.

If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain. According to research by Mark T. Shirey, citing Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations by Ralph Keyes, 1992, this quote was first uttered by mid-nineteenth century French historian and statesman François Guizot when he observed, Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. (N'être pas républicain à vingt ans est preuve d'un manque de cœur ; l'être après trente ans est preuve d'un manque de tête.) This quote has been attributed variously to George Bernard Shaw, Benjamin Disraeli, Otto von Bismarck, and others.
Furthermore, the Churchill Centre, on its Falsely Attributed Quotations page, states "there is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this." Paul Addison of Edinburgh University is quoted as stating: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

eight tenths of a percent is exponential? Many of which are likely due to immigration (the largest population gains in the past 50 years have been Hispanic, which is rather telling since Europeans made up 84% of the population in 1960) so our actual birth rate is much lower.
The figure I'm seeing for homosexuals in America is over a percent of the population. That's a fairly significant number when you consider how many more kiddies we could be having.

How many times has the human population doubled? How often does it happen?

Luco wrote:
The figure I'm seeing for homosexuals in America is over a percent of the population. That's a fairly significant number when you consider how many more kiddies we could be having.

I've never really understood this argument. Gay people didn't just appear 30 years ago, and start reducing the birth rate. I guess you could argue that by being accepting of homosexuality, we are producing an environment that somehow causes the genes that contribute to homosexuality cause that particular expression to be more likely, but that seems like a rather weak position; especially since its basically tacit to "We should hate the gays."

Of course, I'm not trying to imply that you hate, or even mildly dislike, gay people.

What's the percentage of straight people that aren't having babies, I wonder?

d-usa wrote:The problem with the conservatives around me is usually that they walk around in a zombie-like trance going "less government, less government".

But usually what they really mean is "we don't want government interfering with what I like, but please get rid of everything I don't like."

(US) Libertarian is closer to what Conservatives think they are in my opinion.

Eh, I'm not sure that's true. Its definitely true economically, but in terms of social issues I doubt many US conservatives agree with the nominal libertarian platform.

Either way, your interpretation of the conservative position can be applied to pretty much all political positions, at least when they're expressed as a general platform.

Its a shame that the Libertarian Party is so heavily driven by ideology.

I don't understand the whole "homosexuality threatens reproduction" argument. Regardless of current legislation or social attitudes, gay people are going to still be gay and not suddenly start reproducing.

It's not like if you prohibit same-sex marraige gay people are gonna go "welp, guess since that didn't work out might as well start being straight and making babies!"

If anything heterosexuals need cajoling if you want to make more humans.

Luco wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Luco wrote:

Yes, but why should we encourage our own fall? I'm hardly saying that they are the sole reason anything falls or has fallen, but say a war with a particularly populated nation big enough to reinstate the draft... well an extra couple hundred thousand soldiers wouldn't hurt

On the contrary, history shows us that larger populations lead to greater political instability in the long run. Again, just look at Rome - or indeed, the British Empire
Also, given that modern warfare is less about numbers now than it is about intelligence and technological superiority, I doubt drafts will be needed again. Hell, military numbers didn't help the USSR a bit in it's final days.
Fact is, there are very few cases where you'll ever fight a war big enough to need them, certainly not on a global scale, anyway.

The estimated population of the entire world at the time of the Roman Empire is smaller than the population of modern day USA and we aren't doing that badly.
Technological prowess, alright, but are extra workers bad? Extra scientists? Extra pilots to deliver munitions? Extra farmers to supply the population? What of the future? What about if we do hit space era warfare or colonization in the next century or so? Two or three generations down the line, that's a lot of potential people that can be put to use. Considering the advancement of tech in the past century or so I don't think its that far out if we maintain growth.

Because several reasons.
A) Because you need to feed those people, clothe them, pay them, house them etc. That causes strain. Think you can pay for all of those hungry new mouths?
Even with more farmers, where are they going to grow their grain? Farming takes up a hell of a lot of space, and you can't find enough viable farmland for them all.
B) The USA isn't doing too badly because of modern tech. Actually, the increased human population on the Earth means we are actually doing pretty badly after all; the strain on the Earth's resources is being pushed to extremes simply because too many people need too many things from it.
C) If our population continues to increase, eventually we will run into a factor that will cut it down again. That is how populations rise and fall. Too many humans and not enough food or shelter equals a lot of people dying, instead of the limitless stock of workers you seem to be envisioning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:
The figure I'm seeing for homosexuals in America is over a percent of the population. That's a fairly significant number when you consider how many more kiddies we could be having.

Over 1%?!
GREAT SCOTT, MARTY. WE NEED TO GO BACK TO 1955 AND STOP THIS FROM EVER OCCURING.
Seriously, it's laughable that you think 1% of the population being homosexual is something to worry about. That means 99% of the population is capable of breeding.

asimo77 wrote:It's not like if you prohibit same-sex marraige gay people are gonna go "welp, guess since that didn't work out might as well start being straight and making babies!"

The US court system also found this; finding that even if you prohibit homosexual marriage homosexuals will still remain homosexuals.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Seriously, it's laughable that you think 1% of the population being homosexual is something to worry about. That means 99% of the population is capable of breeding.

This, +1 so many times.

hotsauceman1 wrote:No they saying goes
IF you are a conservative at 20 you have no heart, if you are a liberal at 40 you have no brain.

Looks like I have no heart.

MrDwhitey wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Seriously, it's laughable that you think 1% of the population being homosexual is something to worry about. That means 99% of the population is capable of breeding.

This, +1 so many times.

And you know what else? Homosexuals can and sometimes do breed, through artificial insemination and the like.
That, and I bet not every straight couple ends up having kids (indeed I know some that don't want them) and so the argument that population decline is caused by homosexuals not pumpin' out kiddies is clearly logically unsound.

dogma wrote:

Luco wrote:
The figure I'm seeing for homosexuals in America is over a percent of the population. That's a fairly significant number when you consider how many more kiddies we could be having.

I've never really understood this argument. Gay people didn't just appear 30 years ago, and start reducing the birth rate. I guess you could argue that by being accepting of homosexuality, we are producing an environment that somehow causes the genes that contribute to homosexuality cause that particular expression to be more likely, but that seems like a rather weak position; especially since its basically tacit to "We should hate the gays."

Of course, I'm not trying to imply that you hate, or even mildly dislike, gay people.

Eh, it all depends on the how they became gay. This needs further study for me to really take a position on whether accepting it or not will do anything.

asimo77 wrote:I don't understand the whole "homosexuality threatens reproduction" argument. Regardless of current legislation or social attitudes, gay people are going to still be gay and not suddenly start reproducing.

It's not like if you prohibit same-sex marraige gay people are gonna go "welp, guess since that didn't work out might as well start being straight and making babies!"

If anything heterosexuals need cajoling if you want to make more humans.

Now that I'm thinking about it the implications are less for those who are homosexuals now than it is for the future. The precursory research I've done suggests it is a mix of environmental issues and genetics, which once identified can be used to eliminate those factors or 'edit' the genes once we get to that point. Of course this is opening another whole can of worms.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Because several reasons.
A) Because you need to feed those people, clothe them, pay them, house them etc. That causes strain. Think you can pay for all of those hungry new mouths?
Even with more farmers, where are they going to grow their grain? Farming takes up a hell of a lot of space, and you can't find enough viable farmland for them all.
B) The USA isn't doing too badly because of modern tech. Actually, the increased human population on the Earth means we are actually doing pretty badly after all; the strain on the Earth's resources is being pushed to extremes simply because too many people need too many things from it.
C) If our population continues to increase, eventually we will run into a factor that will cut it down again. That is how populations rise and fall. Too many humans and not enough food or shelter equals a lot of people dying, instead of the limitless stock of workers you seem to be envisioning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:
The figure I'm seeing for homosexuals in America is over a percent of the population. That's a fairly significant number when you consider how many more kiddies we could be having.

Over 1%?!
GREAT SCOTT, MARTY. WE NEED TO GO BACK TO 1955 AND STOP THIS FROM EVER OCCURING.
Seriously, it's laughable that you think 1% of the population being homosexual is something to worry about. That means 99% of the population is capable of breeding.

Personally? No, I'm waiting until I'm stable, both financially and getting past certain other issues.

There was a pretty neat article about advances in farming tech and one company was endeavoring to put a farm in a skyscraper. Haven't heard anything else about the project since, but if it turns out as a success it will increase potential farmland by an incredible amount. A couple of farmscrapers in a smallish city and you manage to feed the population of the city without need to ship food in from the rural areas and the farmland that does still exist can focus on export and profit. Its a neat idea I think at the very least.

At the moment I don't think food production is an issue for the US, currently (according to the USDA) we are exporting almost half of our wheat production, not to mention the hundreds of millions of tons of food we donate annually to poverty stricken nations.

Granted, I do think we need to get our rear in gear when it comes to clean energy and making it usable for every aspect that its needed for everyday life thus making a significantly larger population more stable.

Honestly, its more like it that its topic of discussion rather then I'm seriously concerned over it. I tend to avoid discussion on topics that I take terribly serious as emotions tend to get thrown into those issues and it winds up a mess. Just decided to throw my hat in the ring more or less and see how Dakka's "infamous" OT section reacts to me.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Seriously, it's laughable that you think 1% of the population being homosexual is something to worry about. That means 99% of the population is capable of breeding.

This, +1 so many times.

And you know what else? Homosexuals can and sometimes do breed, through artificial insemination and the like.
That, and I bet not every straight couple ends up having kids (indeed I know some that don't want them) and so the argument that population decline is caused by homosexuals not pumpin' out kiddies is clearly logically unsound.

Again, I ask how common is that procedure in comparison to how common having children in a heterosexual relationship? The average for heterosexual couples in the US is 2 children.

Luco wrote:
Eh, it all depends on the how they became gay. This needs further study for me to really take a position on whether accepting it or not will do anything.

I think you mean "Whether or not accepting it has done anything."

dogma wrote:

Luco wrote:
Eh, it all depends on the how they became gay. This needs further study for me to really take a position on whether accepting it or not will do anything.

I think you mean "Whether or not accepting it has done anything."

Right, I stand corrected.

Can we please stop using the word 'tech'? It's fething irritating. The word is 'technology'.

Sorry, that particular abbreviation just annoys me for some reason.