| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On September 08 2011 14:17 Letho wrote:As for the gay marriage thing, the nominee's response would be "no, I would leave it to the States." Perry signed a pledge commiting him to taking federal action to ban gay marriage. Yes he is stupid enough to pledge to doing something which would never pass and would alienate large parts of the country, including many republicans. http://www.dallasvoice.com/breaking-perry-signs-anti-gay-marriage-pledge-1087368.html | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
| ||
|
Letho
20 Posts
On September 08 2011 14:56 Falling wrote: True religion is taking care of the orphan, widow, and alien- aka the dis-enfranchised.) I see this all the time; you are attempting to argue that welfare is godlike. The simple answer is that no, it's not, at least not in its current form. You have 1% of the population paying 40% of the taxes, which enables 50% of the population to pay no tax / receive welfare from the government. Of course, even this 40% is not enough, so the entire country is going broke. I cannot recall anything in Christianity that calls on people to go into personal debt to others in the interest of providing welfare. Not to mention the fact that the actual recipients of welfare are by-and-large leading middle-class lives with the proceeds (albeit the lack of the whole 9-5 thing). There is a very sound reason for the separation of church and state in a republic. The church has always overseen welfare through voluntary efforts of its congregation; having a government step in and take over this process is both unprecedented and undesirable (as we have seen in recent years). On September 08 2011 15:02 On_Slaught wrote: Perry signed a pledge commiting him to taking federal action to ban gay marriage. Yes he is stupid enough to pledge to doing something which would never pass and would alienate large parts of the country, including many republicans. http://www.dallasvoice.com/breaking-perry-signs-anti-gay-marriage-pledge-1087368.html Well, I'm gobsmacked... | ||
Falling
Canada11376 Posts
On September 08 2011 15:05 Letho wrote: I see this all the time; you are attempting to argue that welfare is godlike. The simple answer is that no, it's not, at least not in its current form. You have 1% of the population paying 40% of the taxes, which enables 50% of the population to pay no tax / receive welfare from the government. Of course, even this 40% is not enough, so the entire country is going broke. I cannot recall anything in Christianity that calls on people to go into personal debt to others in the interest of providing welfare to others. There is a very sound reason for the separation of church and state in a republic. The church has always overseen welfare through voluntary efforts of its congregation; having a government step in and take over this process is both unprecedented and undesirable (as we have seen in recent years). You misunderstand my intentions. It could be reasonably argued that government or some private organization whether voluntarily or for-profit could meet the above requirements. The point is that in tying themselves so heavily with the GOP, to me it seems evangelicals get caught up in the everyman for himself mentality. The means to help the dis-enfranchised could be small government or big government. But when so much time is spent arguing how they're lazy, undeserving, etc it is a distinctly un-Christian attitude. The entire point of Christianity is no-one is deserving and yet there is mercy. Your problem with progressive taxes I won't deal with much mostly because my views on it are entirely separate from religion and everything to do with taxing where the money is- you can flat tax all the way down to the 12 year old with a paper route, but your not going to get much more money then if you bump up taxes a little more for the rich. But that's a entirely separate issue from taking care of the disenfranchised. (Though it could be a means.) Edit. Oh, but I will add this. I think it's disingenuous to combine 50% not paying taxes with / and welfare. As though 50% of US is not working, but living on welfare. Unless that's true and then America truly is screwed. In addition, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's 50% not paying income tax as opposed to everyone that pays sales tax? Therefore, even the poor pay taxes and pay it all the time. | ||
|
Ero-Sennin
United States756 Posts
| ||
|
Letho
20 Posts
On September 08 2011 15:16 Falling wrote: You misunderstand my intentions. It could be reasonably argued that government or some private organization whether voluntarily or for-profit could meet the above requirements. The point is that in tying themselves so heavily with the GOP, to me it seems evangelicals get caught up in the everyman for himself mentality. The means to help the dis-enfranchised could be small government or big government. But when so much time is spent arguing how they're lazy, undeserving, etc it is a distinctly un-Christian attitude. The entire point of Christianity is no-one is deserving and yet there is mercy. Your problem with progressive taxes I won't deal with much mostly because my views on it are entirely separate from religion and everything to do with taxing where the money is- you can flat tax all the way down to the 12 year old with a paper route, but your not going to get much more money then if you bump up taxes a little more for the rich. But that's a entirely separate issue from taking care of the disenfranchised. (Though it could be a means.) Edit. Oh, but I will add this. I think it's disingenuous to combine 50% not paying taxes with / and welfare. As though 50% of US is not working, but living on welfare. Unless that's true and then America truly is screwed. In addition, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's 50% not paying income tax as opposed to everyone that pays sales tax? Therefore, even the poor pay taxes and pay it all the time. I would think that evangelicals tie themselves to the GOP because of the common thread of Christianity more than anything else. It's not that anyone is lazy or undeserving to start, it's the fact that our system makes people that way. In fact, if I was a minister, I would argue that the increased government involvement in welfare is turning people away from God as it interferes with the church's ability to reach these people and significantly dulls the consequences of personal failure that could have otherwise created an opportunity for conversion / reaffirmation of faith. Any other religion could make the same argument (except Islam, as it operates via government and thus has no real foothold in the US as of yet). As far as the 50%, just think about it. Just the fact that they are not paying taxes is welfare in itself, as they are getting the use of all income tax-funded benefits for free (education, federal roads, govt subsidies for utilities, gas, industries, etc). Sales taxes are there, true, but in most cases, free market forces have already acted to adjust the price of taxable goods / services to levels acceptable by consumers (i.e. sales taxes are included in the final prices that people are willing to pay for particular goods / services). Yes, we really are screwed, unless we do something about it. | ||
|
Scott Clune
10 Posts
| ||
|
HoldenR
Netherlands256 Posts
Newt Gingrich felt like some grumpy old senile grandfather that didn't belong there, Michelle Bachman is a world-class tool(right up there with Palin), Herman Cain seems to be completely clueless about how a government works, Ron Paul is frighteningly willing to leave everything up to corporations(So are a lot of them), Santorum is... well I don't even need to address that. I sort of liked Huntsman as he seemed to be the only one willing to actually take an opposing stance on typical republican viewpoints(see: accepting science of evolution, global warming, what have you), but he also seemed very... forgettable, and not "catchy" enough to get a nomination. Rick Perry is alright, but with everything he said, it feels like he's willing to spend his entire presidency doing nothing at all but undoing everything Obama did. Is that really the way forward? I hope, for republicans, that Romney takes it. Not only does he have the most appeal to centrist independent voters, giving him the strongest chance to win against Obama, but that seems to be by and far the smartest man up there, with the charisma to lead, and not be another disaster for foreign relationships, be it with Europe, the middle east or Asia. But it's all speculation from an outsider, so take it as you will. | ||
|
Scott Clune
10 Posts
| ||
|
~Lowkey~
United States12 Posts
Here is what I concluded from the second 'republican' debate: 1) Santorum posed as a defender of the poor and wants to invade Venezuela, which makes sense considering the fact that America has been looking for an excuse to invade Venezuala ever since Hugo Chavez stood up against American corporate imperialism. 2) Perry thinks he should automatically win because he has a hotline directly linked from his head to "God." I would love to see his Texas education system implemented across the United States (satire in case any of you missed that). 3) I think Bachmann forgot how to speak (wait, she never could?). 4) Romney proved to be a well-polished "politician." (I completely concur with Scott) 5) Ron Paul, was the only candidate who made any coherent sense. Considering the fact that most Americans are ignorant, I am grateful that Ron Paul somewhat masks his views behind a veil. Stating his actual position would, most likely, further discount his current position in the race and deter the brainwashed populous from voting for him. Which, in my opinion, is this: AMERICA has been the biggest terrorist threat in the Middle East and that is the stem of the major societal and economic problems. Get rid of the 1k+ U.S. military bases around the world, stop funding unsustainable (corporate) wars, and let's take care of ourselves. 6) And all of them, minus Paul, were blabbering on about how big of a threat Iran is in the middle east. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
Perry looked weak, aside from brief back and forth with Romney at the start (and both candidates came out even after that). He came off as inarticulate, especially on the climate change questions. It's pretty hard to botch those when you're talking to a crowd of science deniers. He also clearly had no answers prepared for defending his economic and education record in Texas. Bachmann was the big loser. After Ed Rollins (her campaign manager) quit earlier this week, I figured she'd be a train wreck. He was pretty much the only thing keeping her on point and in the race. Without his coaching, she fell into her old arguments about the US losing its sovereignty due to an open border and UN membership (which is classic Bachmann crazy). As much as I wish it didn't matter, she also looked pretty bad (in appearance). Coughing into the mic throughout probably didn't help either. + Show Spoiler + On September 08 2011 13:46 On_Slaught wrote: You must be one of those fools who think Gingrich is making a reasonable point when he attacks the moderators. The fact you think that it isn't ok for the "liberal media" to ask hard questions, and instead want a conservative debate with softballs, says a lot. Gingrich has nothing to stand on so he has been going for this "attack the media and the questions" bullshit the last few debates. Every single question they have asked is legitimate. Saying that something is a "gotcha" question doesn't mean jack shit when you actually did say/do the bullshit hypocritical shit that they are asking you about. Just because they are calling you on your bullshit and you don't want to answer it doesn't mean you can just shrug it off as a gotcha question. You, the idiot (gingrich) set up the gotcha question by doing so much dumb shit. Also, saying something like "we don't accept the media turning us on eachother" is another bullshit claim because only one of you can win the primary. Gingrich must not have gotten the memo but everybody else spent the entire night attacking eachother, as they should have. Romney won the debate again. Perry won't be able to stand up under the scrutiny of his real record and ideals. He can't actually win a debate against Obama when they ask shit like "so you're going to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as soon as you get presidency eh? Lol..." Not even Republicans can think anything Gingrich has said is anything close to rational. He gives talking points (which most of what was said tonight were) a bad name. Attacking the media/moderator is obviously a very weak argument, but it plays extremely well in the Republican electorate. I'm sure he gained some points among likely primary voters. It probably wasn't nearly enough to bring him out of the massive hole he's in, but I'm sure it went well. | ||
|
XicalaAera
United States51 Posts
Since, I guess about WW2, the country has seemed to have spiraled downward. As long as this don't poorly effect E-sports I guess I'll live. v('_^) | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On September 08 2011 18:26 XicalaAera wrote: Some people seem to be forgetting that Obama hasn't done all that much good for the country, nor most of the presidents before him. Maybe we should re-evaluate the voting or campaigning systems. Since, I guess about WW2, the country has seemed to have spiraled downward. As long as this don't poorly effect E-sports I guess I'll live. v('_^) Your country spiraled downwards since reagan. | ||
|
icemanzdoinwork
447 Posts
Apparently he got under Perry's skin last night. What's he doing? Too me, it looks like he's trying to scold him for bringing out the truth. I guess that's a bad thing to do. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PMSBK.jpg) | ||
|
Letho
20 Posts
It's not surprising that just about every poster here thinks that Romney or Huntsman won / did well in the debate; of the people who actually have a chance, they are by far the least conservative (and most like Bush). The simple fact is, the Tea Party is not going to nominate either of them over Perry, Cain or even Gingrich and Bachman. And unless Jimmy Hoffa manages to "take us all out" by then, we are going to continue to be a major voice in this playing field. On September 08 2011 16:36 HoldenR wrote:Herman Cain seems to be completely clueless about how a government works, How so, specifically? He got to speak 5 times, and presented 5 solid solutions. I don't remember there being any discussions about how government works. The man is very intelligent and has been a radio talk show host for years, so to say that he is completely clueless about anything pertaining to politics is a bit extreme, no? On September 08 2011 20:35 BlackFlag wrote: Your country spiraled downwards since reagan. Would you care to present some facts to support your rather bold statement? Re: WW2, it is true that the New Deal broke our backs. The huge losses sustained by our working force and therefore the increased public demand for government-run welfare systems are equally to blame. However, when taken in perspective, what country of significance did not "spiral downwards" during this same time period? It's all relative, and it's a fact that the US was still considered the #1 place to live / make a living until 2009. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 08 2011 16:21 Scott Clune wrote: Gee, I wonder which candidate you support? Huntsman is the only one I have any amount of respect for. Pity he's lingering at something like 1% support: Perry seriously needs to get some pace and flow training for his speaking. It's like YouTube is lagging out every few seconds when it's actually him taking awkward pauses to think about his answers. Not that I don't like a candidate who thinks before speaking, but I suspect it's more than he hasn't really thought about most of the issues in depth beforehand to get a good grasp on the subject so has to think of the answers on the spot. I haven't really gotten behind any candidate. In fact, I've been rather critical of Romney in this thread and stated that I was leaning towards Perry (I'm not so sure any more). Romney isn't perfect and there are plenty of things about him that I don't like. However, if he gives the best performance at every debate, then I have to give him his due. | ||
|
twiitar
Germany372 Posts
| ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On September 08 2011 15:49 Letho wrote: I would think that evangelicals tie themselves to the GOP because of the common thread of Christianity more than anything else. It's not that anyone is lazy or undeserving to start, it's the fact that our system makes people that way. In fact, if I was a minister, I would argue that the increased government involvement in welfare is turning people away from God as it interferes with the church's ability to reach these people and significantly dulls the consequences of personal failure that could have otherwise created an opportunity for conversion / reaffirmation of faith. Any other religion could make the same argument (except Islam, as it operates via government and thus has no real foothold in the US as of yet). As far as the 50%, just think about it. Just the fact that they are not paying taxes is welfare in itself, as they are getting the use of all income tax-funded benefits for free (education, federal roads, govt subsidies for utilities, gas, industries, etc). Sales taxes are there, true, but in most cases, free market forces have already acted to adjust the price of taxable goods / services to levels acceptable by consumers (i.e. sales taxes are included in the final prices that people are willing to pay for particular goods / services). Yes, we really are screwed, unless we do something about it. Alright, but that 50% not paying income tax? They collectively own about 2.5% of all American wealth. Not in money, but in *everything they own on this entire planet*. That wealthy 1%? They actually OWN 40% of all American wealth. We could take a full HALF of, again, *everything the poorer half of the country own*, including homes, cars, clothes, food, etc, half of all their worldly possessions, and we'd come up with about 700 billion dollars. Simply hiking taxes on the richest 2 tax brackets would create the SAME amount of money over the next decade. I mean, we're talking a 2-3% income tax hike on the rich providing the same revenue as taxing the poorest half of the nation for half of everything they're worth. How is that not fair in your eyes? It's easy to say "the poor aren't paying taxes" until you realize just how goddamn poor they are compared to the "rich who are already paying sooooo much". I know I link this series of charts everywhere, but it absolutely blows my mind that people think the poor are "freeloading" off the rest of the country. That's a full 165 million people you're talking about all just "living off the rich". It's absurd. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph edit: more fun numbers, yay! http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts oh, and most of these charts do go back to the mid 70's and 80's, so you can see what things were like before Reagan came into power. He did loooads of good, lol. | ||
|
Letho
20 Posts
| ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
http://motherjones.com/politics/2006/07/poor-losers http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
OSC
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
OSC
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
