|
Hahaha
Ginrich: "I can't believe you are trying to get us to debate in a debate. We just want to all collectively bash on your cable lines Obama."
|
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote:
I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits.
|
On September 08 2011 09:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote:
I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's. The individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the Supreme Court is going to strike it down) and should be discarded. The better approach is to create a two-tiered health care system where either the federal government or the states (probably the states would be better) provides a basic level of health care for everyone, and then individuals and/or companies are free to purchase and/or provide to employees supplemental coverage that gives extra benefits.
I can't tell the future like you. The only reason the mandate exists is because Republicans would resist any move towards "Medicare for everyone with supplemental private insurance" as communism and the death of America, so Democrats had to use the corporate healthcare insurance system to get semi-universal coverage.
|
On September 08 2011 09:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:15 acker wrote:On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Full employment is 4-5% unemployment. Google says MA unemployment is currently at 7.5%, with increased nonparticipatory population. Just FYI. They're talking about when Romney was governor, at which time Massachusetts had sub-5% unemployment. In fact, Huntsman, in a further demonstration of how retarded he is, just said in the debate that he had a better job creation record than Romney because he created more jobs when Utah had a 5.9% unemployment rate while Massachusetts had a 4.9% unemployment rate at the same time. Brilliant.
I see, that really is retarded on MSNBC's part. And mine -.-
|
On September 08 2011 09:08 Bulldog654 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 08:56 Brainling wrote:On September 08 2011 08:51 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 08 2011 08:38 Brainling wrote:On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote:
I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them. Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class. You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now. People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway. Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months. I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote. Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights?
She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told.
Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening.
If Bachmann's public statements are to be taken seriously, then she believes that the end is nigh, Obama's push to expand a public service act amounts to government re-education camps, the census is an internment camp, and the government is coming for your lightbulbs, and folding money. She's also a foriegn corespondent behind enemy lines.
She's just... nuts. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it.
Would you like more? Because I've got plenty more.
|
On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote:
I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's.
I know that Gingrich proposed it in the 90s and Heritage was promoting it even during the Bush administration, but should these necessarily be taken seriously? Both were mainly used as counterproposals aimed to stop momentum for a single payer-type system. I'm not sure that the GOP (to say nothing of conservative voters) actually would have supported an individual mandate with low-income vouchers in the late 90s.
|
On September 08 2011 09:18 goiflin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:13 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line up questioning during the last debate. I keep wondering why it's the governments job to create jobs in the first place, and why people would entrust something so important as jobs to an institution that has made worse nearly everything it has put its hands in. Someone has to make the jobs. If the government doesn't entice companies to come to america or stay there, then they will go some place where they can make a greater profit margin.
Hmmmm...what are some good ways to entice companies to come to or stay in America? Anyone?
Could it be that the best way to keep those evil greedy money grubbing corporations and businesses in America is.....taxing them less?
|
On September 08 2011 09:18 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 08:29 Fleebenworth wrote:On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote:
I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them. No one is demonizing the rich, but simply asking that they pay increased taxes seeing as how they have benefited disproportionately from the post-war economic gains, while at the same time having to do little actual work for that money (grilling your hedge fund manager doesn't count). I find it ridiculous that you'd try to use how hard someone works as justification for taxing, that's so insanely subjective. Most new investment bankers work significantly harder than any minimum wage worker in retail, and most likely harder than a large portion of manual laborers (that are legally paid at least minimum wage). These are the people that aren't making outrageous $/hr on WallStreet, but end up making so much money because they are averaging 80-100 hrs per wek year long. It's completely grueling. For a fair comparison in terms of hours, you'd need to compare to someone working 2 jobs "full time." And then they only come out to making slightly more than twice as much - which isn't really that much more at all when you consider they most likely attended a prestigious college, got good grades, etc. compared to the minimum wage worker who may or may not have his high school diploma. Overall, I don't think you should be able to support a family on minimum wage, nor do I think it's good policy whatsoever to fact effort into the equation when arguing income tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
I know it is wikipedia but there are reference links on the site.
Your post doesn't make sense. You state that you "find it ridiculous that you'd try to use how hard someone works as justification for taxing, that's so insanely subjective", which is fair enough. But then you go on to try to justify that wall street bankers are working much harder than minimum wage earners. Even if you took your premise that somehow wall street is the equivalent of two full time jobs, the numbers don't stack up.
Here is an interesting stat, the "earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968". Essentially the high earners are earning more than 10 times more than minimum wage. You can't justify that by somehow proving that wall-street is "harder". There are reasons for the difference, but working hard, as you said, is a ridiculous premise to base income/tax comparisons on.
Your bleating about that wall street workers deserve these levels on income because they went to school and studied hard, is hollow when you need significant resources to do just that. Sure some will make it, but it is far more likely that your supposed wall-street hero came from a relatively wealthy family.
Don't feel sorry for the rich, in teh grand-scheme of things, their problems are insignificant.
|
On September 08 2011 09:34 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote:
I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's. I know that Gingrich proposed it in the 90s and Heritage was promoting it even during the Bush administration, but should these necessarily be taken seriously? Both were mainly used as counterproposals aimed to stop momentum for a single payer-type system. I'm not sure that the GOP (to say nothing of conservative voters) actually would have supported an individual mandate with low-income vouchers in the late 90s.
They did not have a problem ideologically justifying it with, ironically, the same thing they used to attack it later; individual responsibility. Had they not done so I wouldn't have faulted them for it.
|
On September 08 2011 07:44 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 06:39 Fleebenworth wrote:
This last bit about religion is particularly interesting because I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed from a radical anti-society poverty-embracing message to the gospel of wealth and corruption. The tele-evangelists and megachurches are a joke. Don't take them seriously or consider them in any way related to real Christianity. Also...the guy was using it as a parallel, he wasn't actually commenting on the actual megachurches.
Errr... what is "real Christianity"? I'd say that any kind of Christianity practiced by a large enough sect qualifies when talking about the effects of Christianity in the political sphere.
See also the no true scotsman fallacy.
|
On September 08 2011 09:36 Bulldog654 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:18 goiflin wrote:On September 08 2011 09:13 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line up questioning during the last debate. I keep wondering why it's the governments job to create jobs in the first place, and why people would entrust something so important as jobs to an institution that has made worse nearly everything it has put its hands in. Someone has to make the jobs. If the government doesn't entice companies to come to america or stay there, then they will go some place where they can make a greater profit margin. Hmmmm...what are some good ways to entice companies to come to or stay in America? Anyone? Could it be that the best way to keep those evil greedy money grubbing corporations and businesses in America is.....taxing them less?
Doesn't seem to be working at teh moment. The US has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. (15-35%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States
The problem is demand, you can't sell shit if no-one is buying.
|
So it sounds like the GOP is being really sneaky with manipulating public views.
|
On September 08 2011 09:37 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:34 Signet wrote:On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote:
I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's. I know that Gingrich proposed it in the 90s and Heritage was promoting it even during the Bush administration, but should these necessarily be taken seriously? Both were mainly used as counterproposals aimed to stop momentum for a single payer-type system. I'm not sure that the GOP (to say nothing of conservative voters) actually would have supported an individual mandate with low-income vouchers in the late 90s. They did not have a problem ideologically justifying it with, ironically, the same thing they used to attack it later; individual responsibility.. Had they not done so I wouldn't have faulted them for it.
I agree with this. I'm just more of the opinion that it was a bunch of empty rhetoric rather than something they genuinely supported. (moreso from Heritage in the last decade; it's possible Gingrich really meant it in the early/mid 90s -- after all, Bush Sr's proposed health care reforms from just a few years earlier would get him labeled a Communist today)
Nate Silver took a cursory look at ideological shifts in the parties here:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/how-liberal-is-president-obama/
Overall I do agree with you that the GOP has shifted significantly rightward in the last few decades. The data seems to agree.
|
By the way, we should really make a live report thread for the Republican debate. xD
Just my take.
This article me VERY angry. -___-x I already suspected most of these things, but to see it confirmed makes me sad. 
|
On September 08 2011 09:32 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:08 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 08 2011 08:56 Brainling wrote:On September 08 2011 08:51 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 08 2011 08:38 Brainling wrote:On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote:
I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them. Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class. You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now. People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway. Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months. I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote. Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk. Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights? She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told. Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening. If Bachmann's public statements are to be taken seriously, then she believes that the end is nigh, Obama's push to expand a public service act amounts to government re-education camps, the census is an internment camp, and the government is coming for your lightbulbs, and folding money. She's also a foriegn corespondent behind enemy lines. She's just... nuts. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it. Would you like more? Because I've got plenty more.
So you hate the woman for adhering to her beliefs? She is a Christian, and believes that God commands that she obey her husband, so she does, and you have a problem with that? Somehow that makes her nuts?
Also, regarding Phyllis Shlafly....so what? You do a good job of sounding indignant about the woman and her statements i'll give you that. Hey, should I bring up Obama's heroes, you know, just to see if they said anything really crazy?
There is nothing wrong with a woman obeying her husband, after all, its her choice to do so isn't it? And where exactly do you see her enforcing this on other women? This is her own personal choice and her own personal relationship with her husband and unless she starts trying to get laws passed saying everyone else has to do it too, then its not an issue.
|
On September 08 2011 09:36 Bulldog654 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:18 goiflin wrote:On September 08 2011 09:13 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 08 2011 09:10 xDaunt wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate MSNBC. I'm watching the republican debate right now, and they're badgering Romney about having a poor job creation record when he was governor, which is ludicrous given that you can't really create jobs when you're already at full employment. Perry is an asshole and a dumbass for picking up that line of attack as well.
For the record, Fox also tried to hammer Romney with that line up questioning during the last debate. I keep wondering why it's the governments job to create jobs in the first place, and why people would entrust something so important as jobs to an institution that has made worse nearly everything it has put its hands in. Someone has to make the jobs. If the government doesn't entice companies to come to america or stay there, then they will go some place where they can make a greater profit margin. Hmmmm...what are some good ways to entice companies to come to or stay in America? Anyone? Could it be that the best way to keep those evil greedy money grubbing corporations and businesses in America is.....taxing them less?
Maybe we already tax our corporations less than most of the world?
Maybe wealth disparity in our nation hasn't been as high since the end of the Gilded Age?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
Maybe average income is down 27% since 1980 when you factor in inflation, yet CEOs and other "hard workin' rich folks" are enjoying record profits and massive raises every year?
http://www.businessinsider.com/34-signs-that-point-to-a-rapidly-shrinking-american-middle-class-2011-8#
At the end of the day, everyday Americans; teachers, construction workers, janitors, factory workers, truck drivers, etc, are getting shafted and taking pay cuts and losing benefits, (and being demonized for having them in the first place) while the top fraction of a percent are making record profits.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#the-gap-between-the-top-1-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-bad-since-the-roaring-twenties-1
|
On September 08 2011 09:44 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:37 Romantic wrote:On September 08 2011 09:34 Signet wrote:On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote:
I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's. I know that Gingrich proposed it in the 90s and Heritage was promoting it even during the Bush administration, but should these necessarily be taken seriously? Both were mainly used as counterproposals aimed to stop momentum for a single payer-type system. I'm not sure that the GOP (to say nothing of conservative voters) actually would have supported an individual mandate with low-income vouchers in the late 90s. They did not have a problem ideologically justifying it with, ironically, the same thing they used to attack it later; individual responsibility.. Had they not done so I wouldn't have faulted them for it. I agree with this. I'm just more of the opinion that it was a bunch of empty rhetoric rather than something they genuinely supported. (moreso from Heritage in the last decade; it's possible Gingrich really meant it in the early/mid 90s -- after all, Bush Sr's proposed health care reforms from just a few years earlier would get him labeled a Communist today) Nate Silver took a cursory look at ideological shifts in the parties here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/how-liberal-is-president-obama/Overall I do agree with you that the GOP has shifted significantly rightward in the last few decades. The data seems to agree.
I agree with you. It was indeed a response to mandates on business to provide coverage or single payer incarnations. I hit them with a stick because they often ideologically backed up the proposal, rather than saying, "Look, this is just a shitty compromise we have to make."
It is a more of a critique of the ever elusive meaning of personal responsibility.
|
On September 08 2011 09:46 Bulldog654 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:32 Haemonculus wrote:On September 08 2011 09:08 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 08 2011 08:56 Brainling wrote:On September 08 2011 08:51 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 08 2011 08:38 Brainling wrote:On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote:
I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them. Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class. You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now. People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway. Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months. I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote. Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk. Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights? She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told. Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening. If Bachmann's public statements are to be taken seriously, then she believes that the end is nigh, Obama's push to expand a public service act amounts to government re-education camps, the census is an internment camp, and the government is coming for your lightbulbs, and folding money. She's also a foriegn corespondent behind enemy lines. She's just... nuts. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it. Would you like more? Because I've got plenty more. So you hate the woman for adhering to her beliefs? She is a Christian, and believes that God commands that she obey her husband, so she does, and you have a problem with that? Somehow that makes her nuts? Also, regarding Phyllis Shlafly....so what? You do a good job of sounding indignant about the woman and her statements i'll give you that. Hey, should I bring up Obama's heroes, you know, just to see if they said anything really crazy? There is nothing wrong with a woman obeying her husband, after all, its her choice to do so isn't it? And where exactly do you see her enforcing this on other women? This is her own personal choice and her own personal relationship with her husband and unless she starts trying to get laws passed saying everyone else has to do it too, then its not an issue.
Phyllis Shlafly has spent her *entire career* demonizing women for having the audacity to leave the kitchen. She absolutely tries to push her views on all women.
Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. But those *purely religious* views should absolutely not be put into law. The fact that we have someone with those beliefs in politics in 2011 is mind blowing. So yes, I have a problem with that.
|
On September 08 2011 09:46 Bulldog654 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:32 Haemonculus wrote:On September 08 2011 09:08 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 08 2011 08:56 Brainling wrote:On September 08 2011 08:51 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 08 2011 08:38 Brainling wrote:On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote:
I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them. Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class. You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now. People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway. Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months. I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote. Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk. Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights? She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told. Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening. If Bachmann's public statements are to be taken seriously, then she believes that the end is nigh, Obama's push to expand a public service act amounts to government re-education camps, the census is an internment camp, and the government is coming for your lightbulbs, and folding money. She's also a foriegn corespondent behind enemy lines. She's just... nuts. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it. Would you like more? Because I've got plenty more. So you hate the woman for adhering to her beliefs? She is a Christian, and believes that God commands that she obey her husband, so she does, and you have a problem with that? Somehow that makes her nuts? Also, regarding Phyllis Shlafly....so what? You do a good job of sounding indignant about the woman and her statements i'll give you that. Hey, should I bring up Obama's heroes, you know, just to see if they said anything really crazy? There is nothing wrong with a woman obeying her husband, after all, its her choice to do so isn't it? And where exactly do you see her enforcing this on other women? This is her own personal choice and her own personal relationship with her husband and unless she starts trying to get laws passed saying everyone else has to do it too, then its not an issue.
The point she is out of step with what most americans believe.
The president is supposed to represent the people. If heaven-forbid she made it into the office, do you really want someone who believes in divine intervention deciding of foreign policy with Iran? You want someone with strong ideals, that at least looks rational. Abdicating in favour of your husband's wishes, just shows a willingless not to think for yourself.
From an outsider's point of view, she scares the crap out me.
|
On September 08 2011 09:49 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:44 Signet wrote:On September 08 2011 09:37 Romantic wrote:On September 08 2011 09:34 Signet wrote:On September 08 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote:
I find it interesting that the individual mandate - originally a Republican idea - is not the essence of big government intervention. Only goes to show how far the Republican party is from where it was in the 90's. I know that Gingrich proposed it in the 90s and Heritage was promoting it even during the Bush administration, but should these necessarily be taken seriously? Both were mainly used as counterproposals aimed to stop momentum for a single payer-type system. I'm not sure that the GOP (to say nothing of conservative voters) actually would have supported an individual mandate with low-income vouchers in the late 90s. They did not have a problem ideologically justifying it with, ironically, the same thing they used to attack it later; individual responsibility.. Had they not done so I wouldn't have faulted them for it. I agree with this. I'm just more of the opinion that it was a bunch of empty rhetoric rather than something they genuinely supported. (moreso from Heritage in the last decade; it's possible Gingrich really meant it in the early/mid 90s -- after all, Bush Sr's proposed health care reforms from just a few years earlier would get him labeled a Communist today) Nate Silver took a cursory look at ideological shifts in the parties here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/how-liberal-is-president-obama/Overall I do agree with you that the GOP has shifted significantly rightward in the last few decades. The data seems to agree. I agree with you. It was indeed a response to mandates on business to provide coverage or single payer incarnations. I hit them with a stick because they often ideologically backed up the proposal, rather than saying, "Look, this is just a shitty compromise we have to make." It is a more of a critique of the ever elusive meaning of personal responsibility.
The problem with policy is that it is fairly transparent and concrete. Much better to campaign on rhetoric, that way you can always change your tune. By allowing a conservative option for his health-plan Obama tried to out-wit the reps by giving them ground. He under-estimated how flexible republican ideals are.
"What's this? Obama moving right? Well let's just go further..."
If the reps were happy with Obama, they would be toast. You just aren't allowed to agree in Washington
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
