Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis (XBOX)
By Blue Tongue
  • Latest News
  • JP3 FAQ
  • You Review JP3!
  • News Archive
  • Cast+Crew
  • Media Gallery
  • JP3 Chat
  • Message Board
  • Fan Fiction
  • Links

    Sam Neill's real first name is "Nigel" -- Sam changed it because he felt was too common of a name in New Zealand, where he grew up. (From: SeanArcher)
    Prev   -   Next

    Submit your own JP Fact to the list! Click here!


    [ Log In ] [ Register ]

    Previous - Next - Back
    "Paul Ryan"
    On 8/12/2012 at 12:03:16 AM, QuickComment started the thread:
    It shows Romney is serious about this being a debate on the issues. Props to him for choosing someone with substance even if it hurts the campaign. Ryan is the only person who has actually come up with a plan to address the deficit and save the social programs and entitlement programs that will start collapsing in fifteen to twenty years. The only other thing that remotely came close to even touching on the economic issues in the country was the Simpson-Bowles commission that Obama called for back in the lead up to the 2010 elections and then completely ignored after they finished. The question remains as to whether people are ready for a serious discussion on it or if the Democrats can run a few more ads of him literally pushing elderly people off a cliff and win in November. They're already blaming Romney for people's cancer.

    Msg #1: On 8/13/2012 at 2:56:43 AM, Ostromite replied, saying:
    Let's not bring campaign ads into this. The pro-Romney commercials are hardly constructive discourse.

    Msg #2: On 8/13/2012 at 10:59:48 AM, QuickComment replied, saying:
    No, let's. They are responsible for the ads being run and they speak directly to who and what Obama stands for. Dismissing ads makes no sense and perpetuates deplorable campaigns. You must be accountable for what your people run.

    Msg #3: On 8/15/2012 at 3:51:55 AM, Pteranadon2003 replied, saying:
    Ya well...Romney’s ad says, “Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.”

    Which is blatantly false. Obama's plan would give individual states the right to change or modify thier own welfare plans, and what state would REALLY just give out welfare checks?

    Both attack campaigns are nasty, but just lying like that pisses me off.

        Replies: 4
    Msg #4: On 8/15/2012 at 2:29:53 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #3, saying:
    It isn't blatantly false. That was the whole point of TANF in the first place, because there were plenty of states that did not have basic requirements regarding Welfare. It's why we had Welfare reform and why it was a big deal. It undoes one of the crowning achievements of the Clinton administration with the stroke of a pen. That is specifically disallowed by the legislation but Obama continues to exert his Nixonian imperial presidency by wanting to just do whatever he wants. There are more people on Welfare now than ever before and we are at the lowest workforce participation rate since the early 1960s. Regardless of whether you agree that the assessment or not, it removes requirements. You're saying that it must be untrue based on an incorrect assumption that you've made, that states don't encourage welfare usage. They absolutely do. The federal government also runs television ads about it. States with elaborate 'safety nets' like welfare because it is federal and it lessens the overall burden of low income people who would otherwise get benefits from their liberal state programs. It's also an actual ISSUE. There is no way that blaming someone for another person's death or showing someone throwing another human being off a cliff is even in the same universe as a policy disagreement.

    Msg #5: On 8/15/2012 at 9:28:34 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
    Also, even though we can't seem to get beyond name-calling any more and policy disagreements are what really piss you off and not blaming people for unrelated deaths in the most blatant of lies, can you explain to me why right now we need to be doing anything that could even theoretically loosen restrictions on Welfare? We should be focusing on the economy, which Obama did nothing for beyond pass a trillion dollars in stimulus during the two years his party held power that didn't work and then try to wrap Obamacare up as some vague economic booster. What in the world is pressing about the lack of Welfare in this country that we need to even have a discussion about reducing restrictions on federal funds?

    Edit: I forgot, he also pressed for a commission to help tackle the deficit, which is stifling our economic growth, hurting our credit rating and will eventually break the country, in the run up to the 2010 midterm elections, then abandoned it.

    Msg #6: On 8/17/2012 at 1:25:36 AM, Narrator replied, saying:
    so he wants to cut welfare for low income housing, and he wants to ban abortion. His logic is not sound.

    You can't legislate someone to have a child they don't want and can't support and then when they need welfare deny it because it's their responsibility and expect to be taken seriously.

        Replies: 7
    Msg #7: On 8/17/2012 at 8:57:28 AM, QuickComment replied to Msg #6, saying:
    No one said anything about cutting welfare as a program. You can already see that even after Welfare reform, expenditures were not actually cut, they continued to grow almost 89% from 1997 to 2007. Questioning why someone wants to remove restrictions on welfare, which is not something people should be on for their entire lives, is not what you're making incorrect generalizations about. As far as abortion, as a Catholic, Ryan is against abortion. However, the most "controversial" of votes he's supported was to return the ability of the states to regulate what practices they want to have, which is how it should be. It shouldn't be within the scope of the federal government to decide things like this in a perfect world.

    Also, the logic that because you choose to have sex, the government your neighbors money is responsible for your child is what defies logic. You have a choice in whether you have a child. You also have a choice in whether that child is carried to term. We can have a debate on abortion, I'm pro-choice personally, but believe it is a state-level issue. At the heart of it, it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of you from cradle to grave as you're implying by subsidizing people's poor planning choices. Regardless of whether you would like for it to be that way, America does not have the money. Welfare needs to be something that you can fall back on if you have a horrible period in your life, not something that you depend on as a regular supplement to your lifestyle. The economic policies of this administration have drastically undercut the ability for the economy to rebound and we're actually slowing down again from the meager 1-2% growth we've had in the best quarters. We'll be lucky to not slide back into another technical recession, if it even feels like the first has ended for you. It doesn't for me.

    The CBO projects that medicare will go bankrupt and collapse around 2024. Every projection that the CBO scores when it comes to spending for major expenditures is revised upward. You couldn't tax your way out of our deficit if you confiscated 100% of earnings from the top income brackets in this country, you wouldn't even make a dent. Structural changes to entitlements have to be made, not to cut them or be evil and take away money from poor people, but to save it.

    If you look at the chart above, you can see that roughly 108 million(!) Americans receive subsidies of some kind, which is excluding the previously mentioned medicare as well as social security. Over 50% of taxpayers do not pay any actual federal income tax, they receive money back. That is unsustainable.

    If you're going to post, have some meat to your argument. Don't just grab some vague accusation about hurting poor people.

    Msg #8: On 8/17/2012 at 9:32:48 PM, Narrator replied, saying:
    "Also, the logic that because you choose to have sex, the government your neighbors money is responsible for your child is what defies logic. You have a choice in whether you have a child. You also have a choice in whether that child is carried to term. "

    Of course it's not your neighbors responsibility to support your child if it's your choice to have it. But he is against abortion in all cases including rape and incest. If the country worked the way he wanted, abortion would be illegal, thus women would have no choice but to have a child if they got pregnant. Yet he is also of the position that having a child is the parents responsibility.

    My point is that he has clearly failed to think critically. It's not about policy it's about his way of thinking about the world. If he can't see the obvious flaw in that sort of logic, he belongs no where near policy making. I'm not against him being pro lofe (well I am, but that's not the issue) but if you want to make it illegal to not have a baby, you are responsible for sai baby.

        Replies: 9, 10
    Msg #9: On 8/17/2012 at 10:51:10 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #8, saying:
    Can you show me a source for the quote from Ryan saying he is against abortion in the case of rape and incest? I'm about to expound on why it would be besides the point but I'd still like to know as I'm not aware of one. Also I have to assume that since you've ignored everything related to an actual point that's been made in this thread, instead continued pushing a single talking point where you're again speaking out of both sides of your mouth, that you aren't seriously interested in a discussion. Painting a false choice between requiring other citizens to pay for someone else indefinitely apparently without wanting to discuss scope or restrictions, when you still haven't been able to provide anything showing anyone wants to get rid of safety nets in any case which is a linchpin to your point, or resort what about fifty percent of the country considers to be murder, abortion. You're the one throwing up logical fallacies and false equivalence all over this thread. You have no more moral high ground in defining murder or righteousness/duty than anyone else. The difference is that your distraction from the declining status of the country depends on a false moral superiority as you're dodging any economic point. It's sad that you can't be open enough to a honest discussion and instead have to bend over backwards to try to arbitrarily disqualify someone from any other possible subject by playing to emotion and arrogance.

    Msg #10: On 8/17/2012 at 10:52:56 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #8, saying:
    What about adoption? No one is ever forced to raise a baby, even if abortion is not an option.

        Replies: 11

    Msg #11: On 8/17/2012 at 10:56:21 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #10, saying:
    Another good example of the false choice narrator is proposing and would have us disqualify someone for office over.

    Msg #12: On 8/18/2012 at 6:37:35 AM, Narrator replied, saying:

    And you either missed the point or are purposefully attempting a straw man. I wasn't presenting a moral high ground on the issue of abortion at all. The morality of abortion was not the case. It was the inconsistency of being pro life, not allowing mothers who wouldn't be financially able to support a child you are responsible for that child, as it was not the mothers choice to have said child, she had to. It is therefore, the states responsibility, at least somewhat. And i'm not certain what Ryans stances are on welfare for this, but lets say he is for it. That would contradict the very policy he stands for. Unnecessary government spending.

    Adoption is an option, obviously, but not all kids are adopted. And where do those other kids go? The foster system, which is funded by... wait for it... the government. His stance on abortion directly conflicts with his financial policy.

    I'm not defending abortion nor am I being emotional, arrogant, or self righteous and I have no idea where you got the idea that I'm simply against his pro life policy. My position on abortion is irrelevant I'm pointing out that Ryan holds two positions that are in direct conflict and he is apparently unaware.

    And since you asked, his stance on abortion is clear form his voting record. He voted pro life on every ballot since he's been in office including cases of rape and incest.

        Replies: 13, 14
    Msg #13: On 8/18/2012 at 9:02:10 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #12, saying:
    not allowing mothers who wouldn't be financially able to support a child you are responsible for that child

    Those mothers have a choice:

    1. Don't have sex, or use contraception.
    2. Adoption.

    This is why QC has been saying you're presenting false choices. It's not an "either/or" the way you're presenting it. Besides, if I am unable to sign away my rights and responsibilities to a child (the "male abortion") during the same period a woman is allowed to have an abortion, I see no reason abortion should be considered a right.

    Adoption is an option, obviously, but not all kids are adopted.

    Nearly every* newborn that is given up for adoption is adopted by someone. Prospective parents often pay tens of thousands and wait years for a newborn - the waiting list is that long. Foster care and group homes are generally reserved for the kids who have been taken away from parents deemed unfit. Abortion would do absolutely nothing to alleviate the orphan situation.

    *Leaving room for some "oddball" cases that don't happen very frequently, of course.

    Msg #14: On 8/18/2012 at 9:09:39 AM, QuickComment replied to Msg #12, saying:
    He has not voted for banning abortion in the case of rape and incest. Read this since I'm almost positive you got your information from some infographic somewhere put out by a liberal PAC.

    "His stance on abortion directly conflicts with his financial policy."

    Again, you've provided no example to explain or support this.

    I wasn't presenting a moral high ground on the issue of abortion at all...

    inconsistency of being pro life, not allowing mothers who wouldn't be financially able to support a child you are responsible for that child

    the states responsibility,

    You are making a morality claim, whether you realize it or not. Let me try to be more plain with it: you're presuming that it is a fact that abortion is a viable and acceptable practice that can even be considered. Half the country disagrees with you and considers it murder.

    Even if you aren't professing to be judging what is moral, the nature of your argument is that you find abortion to be 'logically' acceptable and that others who don't agree with you are being illogical. Or that to be logical, they must accept an undefined responsibility for the child on the part of the state (assumed federal) as the only other option. That isn't anywhere close to reality, as TW already showed.

    It isn't even about whether the government should or shouldn't help people, no one has said they shouldn't in some form or fashion and you can't indicate an example otherwise, but it's about the erroneous nature of your original 'choice' argument.

    And i'm not certain what Ryans stances are on welfare for this

    If you don't know then why are you making things up and then trying to presenting it as some incredibly solid logical argument?

    You're piling up the fallacies now. That's a pretty decent example of a straw man, right there. You're creating an inaccurate characterization of what someone else believes, perhaps inadvertently since you don't have anything to back up your understanding of Ryan's positions, in order to discredit it. Then you insert straw man Ryan into an inaccurate false dilemma (I've been calling it false choice, etc) argument to knock down a purported logical violation that never existed in the first place.

    "That would contradict the very policy he stands for. Unnecessary government spending."

    You're randomly creating some definition of what you think his positions are by trying to turn "unnecessary government spending" into meaning some weird 2d Dicksonian "let them all die in the street" mentality. Unnecessary government spending doesn't mean what you're professing it does here to just about anyone in American politics.

    TW simply and absolutely demolished your original argument more concisely than I did. To build on that further, a large number of child care facilities are run with independent charities, which is another option beyond government being responsible for them. Also, do state government fund them or do federal governments fund them? That adds a completely new wrinkle to what you're saying because what would not pass muster as a federal program may be perfectly acceptable at the state level given the 10th amendment.

    You're trying to find an easy out to dismiss anything the man has on serious policy issues while having presented no real facts about anything economic or otherwise. It doesn't matter who is making the argument, if Ryan is illogical and disqualified, speak to the ideas in the abstract.

    Msg #15: On 8/19/2012 at 4:25:30 AM, Narrator replied, saying:
    "He has not voted for banning abortion in the case of rape and incest. Read this since I'm almost positive you got your information from some infographic somewhere put out by a liberal PAC."

    Did you seriously criticize where I got my information and then post an article from "National review: conservative commentary on american politics." Yeah, they're probably completely objective.
    I got my information from his article on wikipedia. (which I'm sure you'll try to criticize)

    "You are making a morality claim,"

    I really am not. I've tried to make this clear. He can be pro life. His other views and policies should be consistent with that view. They are not. He has not thought out the consequences.

    "1. Don't have sex, or use contraception."

    accidents happen. rape happens. As I've said before, and as comment is denying, he is pro life even under circumstances of rape. It's seriously on the voting record.

    You're randomly creating some definition of what you think his positions are by trying to turn "unnecessary government spending"

    It's unnecessary because it is an outcome of making the government responsible for the births of children by legislating that mothers must have the child. If the issue was left up to choice, and, lets say all the mothers decided to have their kids, it isn't the governments responsibility.

    "If you don't know then why are you making things up and then trying to presenting it as some incredibly solid logical argument?"

    It is irrelevant. There are only two possible positions to have on the issue to the government providing welfare for financially unstable parents. To provide it, or to not provide it. That is a true dichotomy, not a false one.

    TW, you make a fair point. The little research I did, though, pointed to kids up for adoption outnumbering potential parents on the waiting list.

        Replies: 16
    Msg #16: On 8/19/2012 at 12:03:56 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #15, saying:
    Let's try this baby step, instead of continuing to go in circles, can you provide a source, which means linking to it and quoting it, showing Paul Ryan wants to cut off all government aid to low income families?

        Replies: 18
    Msg #17: On 8/19/2012 at 10:27:59 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
    Paul Ryan in Florida with mom.

    Msg #18: On 8/20/2012 at 11:21:51 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #16, saying:
    I thought I made it quite clear that it doesn't matter. either stance contradicts one of his other stances. So yes, lets try this in baby steps. Think on it for a while, and then lets move on.

        Replies: 19
    Msg #19: On 8/21/2012 at 12:01:50 AM, QuickComment replied to Msg #18, saying:
    Oh you, you're just silly.

    Msg #20: On 8/21/2012 at 12:05:52 AM, QuickComment replied, saying:
    Romney grows cash advantage on Obama

    In Picking Ryan, Romney Makes an All-In Move
    If it is Mr. Obama and the Democrats [who win], Republicans’ success in the midterm elections of 2010 will look like a blip. Democrats would then have won four of the last six presidential elections — and five of six in the popular vote. They would have passed the most significant change to the welfare state in decades, Mr. Obama’s health care law, and paid a relatively small price for it (the loss of one branch of Congress for two years). And they will have done this despite deep voter dissatisfaction with the direction of the economy and the country as a whole.

    If Republicans win everything, Mr. Obama’s success in 2008 will look like the outlier — one that could come to be seen as unavoidable given the financial crisis that was unfolding at the time. And the cost of George W. Bush’s controversial war in Iraq? The loss of the House for four years. But by 2014, Republicans would have controlled it for 16 of the last 20 years, and the new Congress would seek to roll back Mr. Obama’s health care law and other accomplishments that liberals made in the interim.

    If Republicans are running on Mr. Ryan’s ideas — and winning with them — they will be able to advance a more credible claim that they have a mandate from the public, and that our politics really have shifted to the right.

    My view is that the choice of Mr. Ryan will reduce Mr. Romney’s chances of winning the election relative to some of the alternatives. But there is a heck of a payoff if it works.

    Again, issues election.

    Msg #21: On 8/21/2012 at 4:18:31 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
    If Ryan is the one who makes this an "issues election," then maybe he ought to be the one running for president instead of the vague, waffling, non-committal airbag.

        Replies: 22
    Msg #22: On 8/21/2012 at 5:13:18 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #21, saying:
    I completely agree, but I don't think the Democrats would have voted to replace the airbag with him as their nominee.

    Msg #23: On 8/25/2012 at 3:14:49 PM, Colin replied, saying:
    He's handsome.

        Replies: 24
    Msg #24: On 8/25/2012 at 5:24:37 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #23, saying:
    Lolwut? He's fucking ugly and his suits are too big. Even Romney is better looking, and he's 65 years old.

        Replies: 25
    Msg #25: On 8/26/2012 at 2:40:08 AM, QuickComment replied to Msg #24, saying:
    I thought this was humorous.

    Msg #26: On 8/30/2012 at 12:33:01 AM, QuickComment replied, saying:

    Msg #27: On 8/31/2012 at 5:07:36 AM, Narrator replied, saying:
    Ryans speech not so factual

    I don't expect this will actually get you to consider questioning your position, but your Ryan love is getting out of hand.

        Replies: 28
    Msg #28: On 8/31/2012 at 5:09:49 PM, Pteranadon2003 replied to Msg #27, saying:
    Ya...even FOX News called him out on alot his bullshit.

    That being said Romney's speech really pulled me in last night. I still fundamentally disagree with him on a number of important issues. But the dude seemed like a real guy.

    Msg #29: On 9/1/2012 at 6:55:08 AM, Colin replied, saying:
    I thought Romney's speech was same old from him. Positive, general, but uninspiring.

    Rubio gave a very solid speech and is somehow thriving as a respectful and thoughtful candidate in the most volatile wave of a party in recent history.

    Romney and the RNC have got to be smacking themselves, however, that Clint Eastwood talking to a chair is what everybody is going to remember.

    Msg #30: On 9/4/2012 at 9:02:10 PM, Vinsfeld replied, saying:
    Lyin' Ryan

    Msg #31: On 9/4/2012 at 10:52:14 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
    I've been on vacation, still am actually, in the airport on the way home.What exactly was Ryan lying about? I'd especially like to know what bullshit Fox called him out for. I see a lot of echoing here but no substance.

        Replies: 32
    Msg #32: On 9/5/2012 at 5:10:47 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #31, saying:
    just click the link buddy or do a quick google search.

        Replies: 33
    Msg #33: On 9/5/2012 at 6:16:24 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #32, saying:
    You don't count as people. ;-)

        Replies: 35
    Msg #34: On 9/5/2012 at 8:40:57 PM, Maester replied, saying:
    This is a simpler means of understanding the political spectrum.

    Republicans: Evil
    Democrats: Pussies

    Msg #35: On 9/6/2012 at 12:37:54 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #33, saying:

        Replies: 36
    Msg #36: On 9/6/2012 at 2:54:54 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #35, saying:
    Well, I'm no maester but I do try.

    Previous - Next - Back


    (C)2000 by Dan Finkelstein. "Jurassic Park" is TM & © Universal Studios, Inc. & Amblin Entertainment, Inc.
    "Dan's JP3 Page" is in no way affiliated with Universal Studios.

    DISCLAIMER: The author of this page is not responsible for the validility (or lack thereof) of the information provided on this webpage.
    While every effort is made to verify informa tion before it is published, as usual: Don't believe everything you see on televis...er, the Internet.