|
Wait, the URL says teamliquid.net but I'm clearly reading a thread on 4chan's /b/. What is going on here?
User was warned for this post
|
On September 08 2011 07:23 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 06:39 Fleebenworth wrote:
I have always wondered how christianity has been transformed...[into] the gospel of wealth and corruption. That is an absurdly simplistic and ignorant claim. Many many Christians would not take their religion to be supportive of wealth and corruption. The opinion of televangelists and whoever else you claim to be mending Christianity to their own ends does not define Christianity to the majority of its followers. Your statement hints at an assumption that Christians are sheep, just like the economically disadvantaged whites who the staffer assumes (emphasis on assumes) to be influenced by televangelists. Anyone with a sliver of knowledge about the religion knows that it can't be simplified into something that is corrupt.
Those televangelists are televangelists because they are incredibly popular. You can say they're not the majority (I would like to know why you think they aren't) but you can't deny that a lot of people think that way.
It's possible that you don't quite realize what Christianity once was? I say that not because I think you're ignorant, but because you are offended by that characterization which seems fair enough to me. Things are very different now. In earlier times (like the first few hundred years after Christ) people took much more seriously verses along the lines of 'it is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy man to get into heaven.'
There are some preaches who still interpret things that way, but from what I've seen this is rare. But I have only loosely studied this stuff and I could be very wrong. Again if you have good reasons to think that the majority of Christians are different than we're characterizing, let me know.
edit: lol I just realized it says its my birthday but that's tomorrow
|
On September 08 2011 09:50 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:46 Bulldog654 wrote: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.
Well, I agree Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. I also agree that those "purely religious views shouldn't be put into law, and Bachmann hasn't tried to get them put into law. The fact that we have someone in politics in 2011 with those views blows my mind as well, but for probably the exact opposite reason as you.
What interests me the most about Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, is how often i meet people that are capable of regurgitating funny SNL one liners but the number of people that can produce rational arguments against the views of those two women on matters of politics and government is very small.
Articulate your disagreement with them on taxes? Defense? health care? nah, just say they're dumb!
|
Wow this is exactly what I thought the GOP was like from the inside no ones more surprised then me to find myself right about it.
The GOP is led by people who want to win. Fuck trying to be right let the people who give us money tell us what they want and we'll win every year we can. Thats their curse and blessing. I belive the Dems are right but they can't get shit done or win.
Still makes me really sad how bad our government is.
|
On September 08 2011 09:57 Sideburn wrote:
Wait, the URL says teamliquid.net but I'm clearly reading a thread on 4chan's /b/. What is going on here?
how so? i don't see nude / gruesome picts every other post.
|
So politicians play games with the political system to win political contests.
News flash from 2500 BC.
|
On September 08 2011 10:01 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:57 Sideburn wrote:
Wait, the URL says teamliquid.net but I'm clearly reading a thread on 4chan's /b/. What is going on here? how so? i don't see nude / gruesome picts every other post.
But the amount of people stating their uneducated opinions as fact on both sides is astounding!
"All republicans are stupid heartless retards who just want to keep the rich rich and demonize the poor! I disagree with them on principle as they are republicans! They are destroying our country and are stupid ignorant science hating religious zealots. This is painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain (IE: anyone who agrees with me)"
"No way, all democrats are spineless sissies that want to hand our freedom over to the terrorists and our money to the undeserving. Nothing a democrat says can ever be reasonable. This is demonstrably true and known by anyone who has been paying attention the past 10 years and isn't a slack jawed retard (IE: people who agree with me)"
Truly awe inspiring stuff in this thread. Also the lack of nude pics every other post is cause to lament, IMO.
|
On September 08 2011 09:27 InvalidID wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:18 FabledIntegral wrote: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. The thing is, we are not talking twice as rich, we are talking factors of ten or twenty, and you are right that effort should not factor into it. What should factor into it is utility. You need to compare the marginal utility of a dollar for a person making 1,000,000 a year, versus the marginal utility of a dollar for a person making 20,000 a year. The standard of living for the person making 20,000 a year is increased more by that additional dollar, then the standard of living for the person making 1,000,000 a year is decreased. When you redistribute wealth, you are doing what is called a transfer payment. Ideally a transfer payment neither creates wealth, nor absorbs resources, it simply redistributes it. Obviously when you get to a certain level of taxation then resources begin to be absorbed: the incentive for additional productivity at both the low and high ends are attenuated. This effect does not prevent a happy medium from being found. The fact that current tax rates on high earners are lower then historical norms, would indicate that we are far below the level that would disincentivize the wealthy from contributing further.
Utility shouldn't factor into it either. All you've done is make the argument that those with less money value each individual dollar more. I fail to see how that is any justification. What should factor into it is how much the company wants to pay its workers, as it's a private entity, I believe it should be able to dictate itself. If they value the CEO at 239023x the amount of an employee, then they clearly see a ton of utility in that CEO regardless.
Regardless I'm talking merely from principle, I don't see much wrong with the way current tax brackets are structured because I don't think 35% is a ridiculously high amount. I do think the rates in many European countries are appallingly high, however.
|
On September 08 2011 10:00 Bulldog654 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:50 Haemonculus wrote:On September 08 2011 09:46 Bulldog654 wrote: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. Well, I agree Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. I also agree that those "purely religious views shouldn't be put into law, and Bachmann hasn't tried to get them put into law. The fact that we have someone in politics in 2011 with those views blows my mind as well, but for probably the exact opposite reason as you. What interests me the most about Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, is how often i meet people that are capable of regurgitating funny SNL one liners but the number of people that can produce rational arguments against the views of those two women on matters of politics and government is very small. Articulate your disagreement with them on taxes? Defense? health care? nah, just say they're dumb!
People who blindly criticize someone, (I've seen people attacking Bachmann for her looks, for example), are silly. I'm not defending that. However there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to attack her, and if her political ideology isn't fair game, then I don't know what is.
|
On September 08 2011 09:31 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:28 xDaunt 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. 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.
Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
|
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.
What you're talking about is Prosperity Gospel, which is a heretical teaching. Many heresies have sprung up throughout the history of Christianity, and many have been very popular as this one is, but they do not represent theologically correct beliefs. Nor do they represent Christianity as a whole.
The reason it may seem to an outsider that every Christian believes this nonsense is because the most popular (money-making) stuff about Christianity is Prosperity Gospel. They're the ones with the multibillion dollar TV networks pumping out their stuff. Their stuff is very prominent, so gets noticed by non-Christians more. The churches following Biblically-based teachings are old news and don't get noticed as much, but we're still around!
|
On September 08 2011 10:07 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 10:00 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 08 2011 09:50 Haemonculus wrote:On September 08 2011 09:46 Bulldog654 wrote: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. Well, I agree Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. I also agree that those "purely religious views shouldn't be put into law, and Bachmann hasn't tried to get them put into law. The fact that we have someone in politics in 2011 with those views blows my mind as well, but for probably the exact opposite reason as you. What interests me the most about Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, is how often i meet people that are capable of regurgitating funny SNL one liners but the number of people that can produce rational arguments against the views of those two women on matters of politics and government is very small. Articulate your disagreement with them on taxes? Defense? health care? nah, just say they're dumb! People who blindly criticize someone, (I've seen people attacking Bachmann for her looks, for example), are silly. I'm not defending that. However there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to attack her, and if her political ideology isn't fair game, then I don't know what is.
First of all, it is silly to attack her for her looks, in my opinion she is a very fine looking woman, but that surely has no effect on me! >.>
Her political ideology is fair game, the points you brought up are her personal ideology.
|
On September 08 2011 07:14 xDaunt wrote:
This article is a monstrosity. It's ridiculously cliched and largely unfounded.
Let me resummarize one of the points of this article from a more conservative point of view: "Why won't those uppity conservatives, republicans, and tea-partiers just shut up and play possum like they used to before Ronald Reagan, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich came onto the scene?"
Every time I see an article like this that bemoans the "lack of civility" in Washington, I just laugh. The democrats were the dominant force in Washington for over fifty years. They held Congress for forty years straight, they owned the media, and they owned the educational establishment. Now their monopolies are disappearing (and in some cases, have disappeared), so they whine. Completely ridiculous at best, and hypocritical at worst.
EDIT: For the record, yes, I understand that this guy is a "republican." However, he clearly comes from the David Brooks wing of the republican party -- the liberal types who were dreamily jerking off to Obama speeches during the 2008 campaign.
Roddy Piper wants you to put on these sunglasses, bro. Open your eyes.
|
On September 08 2011 10:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:
So politicians play games with the political system to win political contests.
News flash from 2500 BC.
I agree with this completely. Government and politics is one big fucking game, and Democrats don't seem to understand this quite as well as Republicans.
|
On September 08 2011 10:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 09:31 Romantic wrote:On September 08 2011 09:28 xDaunt 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. 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. Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobinAs for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
|
I have always hated the GoP. Recently it's been a lot worse then usual. I still have no idea what the hell they are spewing but it's definitely not in the interest of the country. I'm just sick and tired of seeing the constant amount of BS in the news in regards to the Republicans. I don't understand their idea of, "Let's let the middle society suffer and suffer, and not touch the billionaires."
I remember reading the poll on how Washington is doing. It's been heavily unsatisfied. Like way past 50%. I think at least with most people of the middle income are just sick and tired of this and wants to re-elect basically everyone in the Congress at this point. They are not looking for our interest anymore and I'm just tired of them giving lame excuses to protect the rich while the rest of us suffer through the economic problem.
Democrats are no saints either, at least they are honest. GoP on the other hand's latest tactics are basically to disturb, and cock block anything and everything. I just want things to work at this point, and it won't happen unless all of Washington gets replaced by more competent people.
|
On September 08 2011 10:13 Bulldog654 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 10:07 Haemonculus wrote:On September 08 2011 10:00 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 08 2011 09:50 Haemonculus wrote:On September 08 2011 09:46 Bulldog654 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Well, I agree Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. I also agree that those "purely religious views shouldn't be put into law, and Bachmann hasn't tried to get them put into law. The fact that we have someone in politics in 2011 with those views blows my mind as well, but for probably the exact opposite reason as you. What interests me the most about Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, is how often i meet people that are capable of regurgitating funny SNL one liners but the number of people that can produce rational arguments against the views of those two women on matters of politics and government is very small. Articulate your disagreement with them on taxes? Defense? health care? nah, just say they're dumb! People who blindly criticize someone, (I've seen people attacking Bachmann for her looks, for example), are silly. I'm not defending that. However there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to attack her, and if her political ideology isn't fair game, then I don't know what is. Her political ideology is fair game, the points you brought up are her personal ideology.
Given her history of passed and attempted legislature during her political career, I'd say the two are one and the same.
|
On September 08 2011 09:57 Sideburn wrote:
Wait, the URL says teamliquid.net but I'm clearly reading a thread on 4chan's /b/. What is going on here?
If you have more informed opinions feel free to express them, rather than just insulting everyone who's posted.
|
On September 08 2011 10:11 xDaunt wrote:Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
There's very little evidence one way or another for how the Supreme Court will decide other than that it will be a 5-4 vote.
|
On September 08 2011 10:17 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 10:11 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2011 09:31 Romantic wrote:On September 08 2011 09:28 xDaunt 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. 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. Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobinAs for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal. Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
