|
|
On August 29 2012 13:33 neo_sporin wrote:
So I dont vote, but I generally think I am pretty politically aware. My tennis coach from highschool posted this on his facebook
"Mr. President...Real leaders don't follow polls... real leaders change polls." Chris Christie (reminds me of W.)
and I pointed out that in todays era of soundbits and such, it could easily be used to imply (out of context) that electoral fraud or changing any polls (popularity or votes) could and should be altered by those in power.
He ended up going off the deep end about how wrong I am that anyone would ever infer that from the quote, in or out of context. So i question--am I crazy or is this the kind of thing that can turn into a soundbite come tomorrow. (probably wont--Im sure the media will be covering bigger gaffes and important stuff) but i think its possible
imo, the funniest thing about that quote is that it comes from someone supporting Romney, THE ultimate "I'll say whatever the people want to hear" candidate.
|
On August 29 2012 14:24 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 13:33 neo_sporin wrote:
So I dont vote, but I generally think I am pretty politically aware. My tennis coach from highschool posted this on his facebook
"Mr. President...Real leaders don't follow polls... real leaders change polls." Chris Christie (reminds me of W.)
and I pointed out that in todays era of soundbits and such, it could easily be used to imply (out of context) that electoral fraud or changing any polls (popularity or votes) could and should be altered by those in power.
He ended up going off the deep end about how wrong I am that anyone would ever infer that from the quote, in or out of context. So i question--am I crazy or is this the kind of thing that can turn into a soundbite come tomorrow. (probably wont--Im sure the media will be covering bigger gaffes and important stuff) but i think its possible imo, the funniest thing about that quote is that it comes from someone supporting Romney, THE ultimate "I'll say whatever the people want to hear" candidate.
saw this quote somewhere else, thought it was perfect for Romney: "Romney is Schroedinger's candidate. He occupies all points of the policy space with non-zero probability, and you only get to learn his true position by electing him"
|
On August 29 2012 12:30 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 12:25 BlackPanther wrote:
It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism. Not really. The GOP isn't against welfare, it's against large-scale GOVERNMENT welfare programs. I spent a year working for a homeless shelter that was funded by a Catholic church (I'm not a religious person). This shelter took care of people that even government programs couldn't help. The argument is that government programs are notoriously inefficient at providing locally tailored solutions in the same manner a community can. And it's the correct argument. I decided to go to law school and get involved with politics because I saw how shitty our system currently is.
I wish the central message of Republicans was that government is wasteful, and that it can always be more efficient. I wish it was more nuanced than 'the government wants to take away your freedom and your faith and your money!'
I thought true conservatism is supposed to be risk-averse and restrained. I thought true conservatism minds it's own business. I don't know when it became a party of religious zealotry, xenophobia and wild-west economics.
Like I mentioned before, a conservative economic policy would be an economy with strong regulations and low taxes, or little regulation and high taxes to pay for a strong social safety net. It would be risk averse. This vision of lowering taxes for the wealthy and freeing them from 'the chains' of regulation and oversight is the epitomizes high risk.
They won't bet on the government or social services from saving the middle class, but they're willing to bet on the extremely wealthy? Why?
Mark Cuban said on Politically Incorrect the other day, "You could raise my taxes 5% and I wouldn't even blink. On Shark Tank, we hear 20 pitches a day and no once do we talk about taxes. It doesn't impact how we invest at all."
I know that's all gross oversimplification, but I just don't understand what Republicans stand for anymore. It's a mess of fake patriotism and extreme, intolerant positions. It's certainly not the kind of conservatism that guys like George HW Bush, Jeb Bush, Rupert Murdoch, Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan practices.
The sad thing is the US could desperately use some old-school conservatives right now. They're necessary in creating a balanced, functional political discourse.
|
On August 29 2012 14:24 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 13:33 neo_sporin wrote:
So I dont vote, but I generally think I am pretty politically aware. My tennis coach from highschool posted this on his facebook
"Mr. President...Real leaders don't follow polls... real leaders change polls." Chris Christie (reminds me of W.)
and I pointed out that in todays era of soundbits and such, it could easily be used to imply (out of context) that electoral fraud or changing any polls (popularity or votes) could and should be altered by those in power.
He ended up going off the deep end about how wrong I am that anyone would ever infer that from the quote, in or out of context. So i question--am I crazy or is this the kind of thing that can turn into a soundbite come tomorrow. (probably wont--Im sure the media will be covering bigger gaffes and important stuff) but i think its possible imo, the funniest thing about that quote is that it comes from someone supporting Romney, THE ultimate "I'll say whatever the people want to hear" candidate.
Romney -- King of Pansies.
Did anyone watch Mitt's face tighten as Christie railed on about the importance of 'truth'?
The more I think about it, the more I think Rick Santorum and Chris Christie masterfully played the audience, positioned themselves for 2016, while dropping poison pills in their speeches designed to bite Romney in the ass. It's no secret that the GOP establishment was and is not enamoured with Romney as a leader -- remember how desperate they were ito find ANYONE else in the primaries? -- and are only supporting him because they hate Obama more.
But the way Rick Santorum ended on an uncompromising call for Pro-Life advocacy, and the way Christie hammered the importance of 'Truth' and making hard choices, was really, really interesting. They're both strong, inescapable statements designed to box the slippery Romney in, and can become potential lines of attack for Obama when the debates start.
Obama: "Christie said you're a leader that stands for truth, one that will tell it like it is. So tell us the truth -- what are you going to cut from the budget to pay for your five trillion dollar tax cut?"
|
On August 29 2012 13:00 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 12:52 BlackPanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:45 BluePanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:38 BlackPanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:30 BluePanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:25 BlackPanther wrote:
It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism. Not really. The GOP isn't against welfare, it's against large-scale GOVERNMENT welfare programs. I spent a year working for a homeless shelter that was funded by a Catholic church (I'm not a religious person). This shelter took care of people that even government programs couldn't help. The argument is that government programs are notoriously inefficient at providing locally tailored solutions in the same manner a community can. And it's the correct argument. I decided to go to law school and get involved with politics because I saw how shitty our system currently is. The problem is that local churches and charities don't have near the available funding or infrastructure to properly address the needs of masses. Many larger charities are also notorious for being as wasteful if not more so than the government. The amount of donation money that actually goes to the cause is no where near as much as people believe. And I'm not just talking about homeless shelters. I'm talking social security and medicare / medicaid as well. So instead of collecting 20% in income taxes, why not just say, we're collecting 15%, and you must donate the other 5% to the local, non-political 501c of your choice. I mean, that obviously has abuses and would have to be shored up, but the I think the idea behind that would be far more beneficial than have the government dole it out. I'm just not sure why you think it's more efficient for local groups to be given charity money than the government. It's like comparing the production possibilities between a bunch of small companies and a one very large company. The very large company has the connections and the infrastructure to produce goods very cheaply and efficiently while smaller companies have more expensive manufacturing costs because they lack the same amount and quality of capital the larger company does. Do you really think comparing local charities to manufacturing is a good comparison ? The bigger the organization, the more overhead and red tape. I don't know many charities that are manufacturing with heavy machinery.
It's an analogy used to demonstrate a simple economic concept called economies of scale. I don't think you understood.
|
On August 29 2012 12:56 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 12:32 BlackPanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:13 Kaitlin wrote:On August 29 2012 11:56 Defacer wrote:
He doesn't even to have the courage to release his tax returns! Or discuss his record at Bain! Or keep his gay foreign policy advisor!
Because these are much more important than getting the economy going for the millions of unemployed across the country. Bain, tax returns, all that is bullshit brought up by the left to have anything other than the economy and unemployment to talk about. What is more important to college grads to be ? What Mitt Romney invests in and what % of income taxes he pays (which is a complete bullshit argument anyways) or whether they can get a job using their degree when they graduate or if they have to flip burgers ? But isn't his prior business experience what helps people determine if hes competent enough to fix the economy. He claims that his business success means he has the knowledge to fix our country's problems but he won't disclose details regarding how he became rich and successful. The reason he isn't revealing anything is because the things he did make him the antithesis of who Americans want as their president. Look at his experience turning the Olympics into a success. Look at his experience as Governor. Tax returns don't have anything to do with his experience. The fact that we know he's rich as hell based on his experience as a venture capitalist, something we don't need tax returns to see, since even pro-Obama SuperPacs are running ads left and right about Bain, indicates he understands why businesses succeed and why they fail. His wealth is largely derived from investing in failing businesses, and either turning them around (Staples) or selling them. When venture capitalists take on risky investments, they are frequently businesses that are going to close their doors for whatever reason, and can't even qualify for more standard financing, thus the need for the venture capitalists. To demonize Bain for some factories shutting down is a joke that clueless, ignorant people buy into because they're retards. The business was already failing. The fact that Romney is rich means that he was able to get value out of businesses that nobody else could. He risked his capital and reaped the financial rewards. Nothing wrong with that. Not to mention, how much did he give to charity ? A certified shit-ton. I think Romney's record is hardly one of "the antithesis of who Americans want as their president". President Obama loves to call Romney extreme. Somewhat true. Romney's success is pretty extreme to President Obama.
I'm not discrediting that he is a very successful person but given his record, what makes you think Romney is the correct guy to be running the economy. His profession was to reorganize businesses to make more money, not to improve the economic health of the economy. He may be a very good businessman but being a good businessman does not mean you understand how to run an economy. He advocates policies that mainstream economists discredit and claim are ineffective as well as deadly to the nation's economic health.
|
I spent a year working for a homeless shelter that was funded by a Catholic church (I'm not a religious person). This shelter took care of people that even government programs couldn't help. The argument is that government programs are notoriously inefficient at providing locally tailored solutions in the same manner a community can. And it's the correct argument. I decided to go to law school and get involved with politics because I saw how shitty our system currently is.
I'm sorry but I have to bring this out in light of the current war being waged on the political front.
This is the most pressing issue facing our Republic today and the answer must be given without delay.
Does the homeless shelter provide health insurance for some of its workers, and does this health insurance cover contraceptives?
Only later on may we proceed to other, less important issues facing the Republic.
Such as:
I'm not discrediting that he is a very successful person but given his record, what makes you think Romney is the correct guy to be running the economy. His profession was to reorganize businesses to make more money, not to improve the economic health of the economy. He may be a very good businessman but being a good businessman does not mean you understand how to run an economy. He advocates policies that mainstream economists discredit and claim are ineffective as well as deadly to the nation's economic health.
Successful businessman? Check.
Make more money = improve the economic health of the economy? Check.
Damn this guy's the right guy for the economy. By which I mean, keep the damn government's hands off from moving around its clay figures of corporations on its map of America like a kid with his action figures.
|
On August 29 2012 15:20 Danglars wrote:Such as: Show nested quote +I'm not discrediting that he is a very successful person but given his record, what makes you think Romney is the correct guy to be running the economy. His profession was to reorganize businesses to make more money, not to improve the economic health of the economy. He may be a very good businessman but being a good businessman does not mean you understand how to run an economy. He advocates policies that mainstream economists discredit and claim are ineffective as well as deadly to the nation's economic health. Successful businessman? Check. Make more money = improve the economic health of the economy? Check. Damn this guy's the right guy for the economy. By which I mean, keep the damn government's hands off from moving around its clay figures of corporations on its map of America like a kid with his action figures.
I can't tell if you're trolling or grossly oversimplifying economics.
|
On August 29 2012 14:28 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 14:24 kwizach wrote:
imo, the funniest thing about that quote is that it comes from someone supporting Romney, THE ultimate "I'll say whatever the people want to hear" candidate. saw this quote somewhere else, thought it was perfect for Romney: "Romney is Schroedinger's candidate. He occupies all points of the policy space with non-zero probability, and you only get to learn his true position by electing him"
Hey, you know what Obama said about himself?
"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."
Do you guys on the Left have any clue about your attack lines? It's like shooting banelings with banshees around here.
|
On August 29 2012 15:28 BlackPanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 15:20 Danglars wrote:Such as: I'm not discrediting that he is a very successful person but given his record, what makes you think Romney is the correct guy to be running the economy. His profession was to reorganize businesses to make more money, not to improve the economic health of the economy. He may be a very good businessman but being a good businessman does not mean you understand how to run an economy. He advocates policies that mainstream economists discredit and claim are ineffective as well as deadly to the nation's economic health. Successful businessman? Check. Make more money = improve the economic health of the economy? Check. Damn this guy's the right guy for the economy. By which I mean, keep the damn government's hands off from moving around its clay figures of corporations on its map of America like a kid with his action figures. I can't tell if you're trolling or grossly oversimplifying economics.
Yeah! Bad Danglars! You left out the part where you take money from successful people, run it through government bureaucracies and redistribute it to automatically have a multiplying effect on the economy no matter how the government decides to spend it!
Don't listen to stories about Solyndra going bankrupt in spite of millions of taxpayer dollars. Solar Good! Oil Bad!
Don't let anyone tell you GM is in trouble. It's great that rather than going through the normal bankruptcy process they got hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, had 20,000 non-union workers stripped of their pensions, and has seen their stock, which started artificially high drop 20-35% in value because even though the taxpayer lost billions in the deal and the prior investors got screwed, the auto union workers got their payoff and those dues are going back into electing Democrats and isn't that what freedom is really about?
Trust me dude, you're better off leaving these things simplified. Let Obama be the nice guy that people don't want to vote against because then they'll be racist. It's the best chance you've got.
|
On August 29 2012 15:32 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 14:28 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2012 14:24 kwizach wrote:
imo, the funniest thing about that quote is that it comes from someone supporting Romney, THE ultimate "I'll say whatever the people want to hear" candidate. saw this quote somewhere else, thought it was perfect for Romney: "Romney is Schroedinger's candidate. He occupies all points of the policy space with non-zero probability, and you only get to learn his true position by electing him" Hey, you know what Obama said about himself? "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." Do you guys on the Left have any clue about your attack lines? It's like shooting banelings with banshees around here.
Sounds like the real problem is that Romney's screen only gives double images or static.
Don't get discouraged though; I'm sure you still have TheBest comebacks.
|
On August 29 2012 15:32 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 14:28 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2012 14:24 kwizach wrote:
imo, the funniest thing about that quote is that it comes from someone supporting Romney, THE ultimate "I'll say whatever the people want to hear" candidate. saw this quote somewhere else, thought it was perfect for Romney: "Romney is Schroedinger's candidate. He occupies all points of the policy space with non-zero probability, and you only get to learn his true position by electing him" Hey, you know what Obama said about himself? "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." Do you guys on the Left have any clue about your attack lines? It's like shooting banelings with banshees around here.
Huh? Both of those quotes are true. A moderate center-right President like Obama, who has kept tax rates at their lowest level since the end of the Second World War for his entire term and passed a Republican designed healthcare project is a Muslim Marxist Kenyan in the eyes of the GOP. And Romney has had 4 different, and mutually impossible, positions on abortion in the last 15 months.
|
On August 29 2012 15:32 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 14:28 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2012 14:24 kwizach wrote:
imo, the funniest thing about that quote is that it comes from someone supporting Romney, THE ultimate "I'll say whatever the people want to hear" candidate. saw this quote somewhere else, thought it was perfect for Romney: "Romney is Schroedinger's candidate. He occupies all points of the policy space with non-zero probability, and you only get to learn his true position by electing him" Hey, you know what Obama said about himself? "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." Do you guys on the Left have any clue about your attack lines? It's like shooting banelings with banshees around here.
Are you choosing to not see the difference between the two quotes?
The quote about Romney was referring to Romney on actual policy, not on much politics. The point he was making is that Romney's policies have been ever-changing over the years, from Governor, to Republican presidential candidate.
The point Obama was making when referring to himself, was obviously a little more kind. He was talking less about policy, and more about politics. People see two very different political figures in Obama, both of which are wrong. Some on the left idolize him as someone who was going to change things drastically, institute multiple left-wing policies across the board, end the wars, close Guantanamo, etc. Whereas on the right, people see Obama as someone who was born in a foreign country, holds extremist views and is secretly trying to make America a Communist, anti-religious, quasi-dictatorship.
When in reality, looking at the policies our country has experimented with over the years, decades, and centuries, Obama is close to exactly the same as Bush. Even Clinton presided over a more left-wing government than we have now. Obama is more right-wing than any Democratic president in the past few decades. He is, in fact, a centrist who has pretty much maintained the status-quo of things with a few exceptions. And yet, he is still maligned by people on both sides who want to label him as an "extremist" to further their own, actual extremist ideas of what government should look like.
|
Leporello, why you so rational?
|
On August 29 2012 12:47 BlackPanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 12:39 whatevername wrote:On August 29 2012 12:25 BlackPanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:02 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 11:31 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 10:50 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 10:45 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 10:34 Defacer wrote:
I wonder what xDaunt is thinking about when he listens to Santorum link pro-life to the American Dream. Hard to dream if you've been torn to shreds in the womb. You know what is effective way of discouraging abortion? Socialized medicine. Countries with socialized medicine have a significantly lower abortion rate than countries that don't, because the medical costs of raising a child, particularly one with a disability, is a non-issue. Looks better on their chart so feel free to click source Sweden (1996) Births per 1,000 - 7.8 Abortions per 1,000 - 17.2 Abortion ratio - 68.8 France (1995)* Births per 1,000 - 10.0 Abortions per 1,000 - 10.2 Abortion ratio - 50.5 Canada (1995) Births per 1,000 - 24.5 Abortions per 1,000 - 21.2 Abortion ratio - 46.4 Great Britain (1995)** Births per 1,000 - 28.3 Abortions per 1,000 - Abortion ratio - 39.4 United States (1996) Births per 1,000 - 54.4 Abortions per 1,000 - 29.2 Abortion ratio - 34.9 Source Oh yeah, better sex education and contraception also lowers all those unwanted pregnancies too. A REAL Christian would support socialized medicine if they cared about the lives and welfare of children from the moment of inception. It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism. I dont know a single person who suggests we dont give aid to charity. Charity is demonstrably better dollar for dollar, without the immorality of robbing people to "help others". How are taxes 'robbing others'? Since when did this idea of paying dues to live in a civilized society turned into such a sin? Why is it bad to give back to your country? When I have to give men my private property under the threat of violence, its extortion at best. And I'm not "giving back" to my country, I'm being robbed to pay for anti social corrupt bureaucratic nightmare.
|
On August 29 2012 16:26 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 12:47 BlackPanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:39 whatevername wrote:On August 29 2012 12:25 BlackPanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:02 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 11:31 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 10:50 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 10:45 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 10:34 Defacer wrote:
I wonder what xDaunt is thinking about when he listens to Santorum link pro-life to the American Dream. Hard to dream if you've been torn to shreds in the womb. You know what is effective way of discouraging abortion? Socialized medicine. Countries with socialized medicine have a significantly lower abortion rate than countries that don't, because the medical costs of raising a child, particularly one with a disability, is a non-issue. Looks better on their chart so feel free to click source Sweden (1996) Births per 1,000 - 7.8 Abortions per 1,000 - 17.2 Abortion ratio - 68.8 France (1995)* Births per 1,000 - 10.0 Abortions per 1,000 - 10.2 Abortion ratio - 50.5 Canada (1995) Births per 1,000 - 24.5 Abortions per 1,000 - 21.2 Abortion ratio - 46.4 Great Britain (1995)** Births per 1,000 - 28.3 Abortions per 1,000 - Abortion ratio - 39.4 United States (1996) Births per 1,000 - 54.4 Abortions per 1,000 - 29.2 Abortion ratio - 34.9 Source Oh yeah, better sex education and contraception also lowers all those unwanted pregnancies too. A REAL Christian would support socialized medicine if they cared about the lives and welfare of children from the moment of inception. It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism. I dont know a single person who suggests we dont give aid to charity. Charity is demonstrably better dollar for dollar, without the immorality of robbing people to "help others". How are taxes 'robbing others'? Since when did this idea of paying dues to live in a civilized society turned into such a sin? Why is it bad to give back to your country? When I have to give men my private property under the threat of violence, its extortion at best. And I'm not "giving back" to my country, I'm being robbed to pay for anti social corrupt bureaucratic nightmare.
It's only your private property by the threat of violence in the first place. Also most employers just withhold taxes in the first place anyway. Seriously, just stop filing taxes and see what happens: chances are at no point is anyone going to use violence against you (though of course your life will be ruined through other means).
|
On August 29 2012 14:24 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 13:33 neo_sporin wrote:
So I dont vote, but I generally think I am pretty politically aware. My tennis coach from highschool posted this on his facebook
"Mr. President...Real leaders don't follow polls... real leaders change polls." Chris Christie (reminds me of W.)
and I pointed out that in todays era of soundbits and such, it could easily be used to imply (out of context) that electoral fraud or changing any polls (popularity or votes) could and should be altered by those in power.
He ended up going off the deep end about how wrong I am that anyone would ever infer that from the quote, in or out of context. So i question--am I crazy or is this the kind of thing that can turn into a soundbite come tomorrow. (probably wont--Im sure the media will be covering bigger gaffes and important stuff) but i think its possible imo, the funniest thing about that quote is that it comes from someone supporting Romney, THE ultimate "I'll say whatever the people want to hear" candidate.
All politicians are such. If you think Obama is pure your out of your mind. He passed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to enable illegal immigrants a path to permanent residency. This helped him on the hispanic vote.
What he doesn't tell you is that if you try to prove that you were here for 5 years by giving proof of employment, you will not only lose your job you will also not be eligible for the program seeing as how you committed perjury by signing an I-9 which is required by law for employment.
Simple case of "i'll say whatever the people want to hear" candidate.
On August 29 2012 16:29 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 16:26 whatevername wrote:On August 29 2012 12:47 BlackPanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:39 whatevername wrote:On August 29 2012 12:25 BlackPanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:02 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 11:31 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 10:50 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 10:45 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 10:34 Defacer wrote:
I wonder what xDaunt is thinking about when he listens to Santorum link pro-life to the American Dream. Hard to dream if you've been torn to shreds in the womb. You know what is effective way of discouraging abortion? Socialized medicine. Countries with socialized medicine have a significantly lower abortion rate than countries that don't, because the medical costs of raising a child, particularly one with a disability, is a non-issue. Looks better on their chart so feel free to click source Sweden (1996) Births per 1,000 - 7.8 Abortions per 1,000 - 17.2 Abortion ratio - 68.8 France (1995)* Births per 1,000 - 10.0 Abortions per 1,000 - 10.2 Abortion ratio - 50.5 Canada (1995) Births per 1,000 - 24.5 Abortions per 1,000 - 21.2 Abortion ratio - 46.4 Great Britain (1995)** Births per 1,000 - 28.3 Abortions per 1,000 - Abortion ratio - 39.4 United States (1996) Births per 1,000 - 54.4 Abortions per 1,000 - 29.2 Abortion ratio - 34.9 Source Oh yeah, better sex education and contraception also lowers all those unwanted pregnancies too. A REAL Christian would support socialized medicine if they cared about the lives and welfare of children from the moment of inception. It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism. I dont know a single person who suggests we dont give aid to charity. Charity is demonstrably better dollar for dollar, without the immorality of robbing people to "help others". How are taxes 'robbing others'? Since when did this idea of paying dues to live in a civilized society turned into such a sin? Why is it bad to give back to your country? When I have to give men my private property under the threat of violence, its extortion at best. And I'm not "giving back" to my country, I'm being robbed to pay for anti social corrupt bureaucratic nightmare. It's only your private property by the threat of violence in the first place. Also most employers just withhold taxes in the first place anyway. Seriously, just stop filing taxes and see what happens: chances are at no point is anyone going to use violence against you (though of course your life will be ruined through other means).
That is terrible advice. Don't stop filling taxes ever, you will face penalties and possible jail time. Last year I earned $600 and I still owed California taxes when I filed.
|
On August 29 2012 16:29 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 16:26 whatevername wrote:On August 29 2012 12:47 BlackPanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:39 whatevername wrote:On August 29 2012 12:25 BlackPanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:02 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 11:31 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 10:50 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 10:45 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 10:34 Defacer wrote:
I wonder what xDaunt is thinking about when he listens to Santorum link pro-life to the American Dream. Hard to dream if you've been torn to shreds in the womb. You know what is effective way of discouraging abortion? Socialized medicine. Countries with socialized medicine have a significantly lower abortion rate than countries that don't, because the medical costs of raising a child, particularly one with a disability, is a non-issue. Looks better on their chart so feel free to click source Sweden (1996) Births per 1,000 - 7.8 Abortions per 1,000 - 17.2 Abortion ratio - 68.8 France (1995)* Births per 1,000 - 10.0 Abortions per 1,000 - 10.2 Abortion ratio - 50.5 Canada (1995) Births per 1,000 - 24.5 Abortions per 1,000 - 21.2 Abortion ratio - 46.4 Great Britain (1995)** Births per 1,000 - 28.3 Abortions per 1,000 - Abortion ratio - 39.4 United States (1996) Births per 1,000 - 54.4 Abortions per 1,000 - 29.2 Abortion ratio - 34.9 Source Oh yeah, better sex education and contraception also lowers all those unwanted pregnancies too. A REAL Christian would support socialized medicine if they cared about the lives and welfare of children from the moment of inception. It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism. I dont know a single person who suggests we dont give aid to charity. Charity is demonstrably better dollar for dollar, without the immorality of robbing people to "help others". How are taxes 'robbing others'? Since when did this idea of paying dues to live in a civilized society turned into such a sin? Why is it bad to give back to your country? When I have to give men my private property under the threat of violence, its extortion at best. And I'm not "giving back" to my country, I'm being robbed to pay for anti social corrupt bureaucratic nightmare. It's only your private property by the threat of violence in the first place. Also most employers just withhold taxes in the first place anyway. Seriously, just stop filing taxes and see what happens: chances are at no point is anyone going to use violence against you (though of course your life will be ruined through other means). LOL wtf are you talking about, how is my wealth through violence? I have it through voluntary transaction.
|
On August 29 2012 16:40 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 16:29 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2012 16:26 whatevername wrote:On August 29 2012 12:47 BlackPanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:39 whatevername wrote:On August 29 2012 12:25 BlackPanther wrote:On August 29 2012 12:02 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 11:31 dvorakftw wrote:On August 29 2012 10:50 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 10:45 dvorakftw wrote:
[quote]
Hard to dream if you've been torn to shreds in the womb. You know what is effective way of discouraging abortion? Socialized medicine. Countries with socialized medicine have a significantly lower abortion rate than countries that don't, because the medical costs of raising a child, particularly one with a disability, is a non-issue. Looks better on their chart so feel free to click source Sweden (1996) Births per 1,000 - 7.8 Abortions per 1,000 - 17.2 Abortion ratio - 68.8 France (1995)* Births per 1,000 - 10.0 Abortions per 1,000 - 10.2 Abortion ratio - 50.5 Canada (1995) Births per 1,000 - 24.5 Abortions per 1,000 - 21.2 Abortion ratio - 46.4 Great Britain (1995)** Births per 1,000 - 28.3 Abortions per 1,000 - Abortion ratio - 39.4 United States (1996) Births per 1,000 - 54.4 Abortions per 1,000 - 29.2 Abortion ratio - 34.9 Source Oh yeah, better sex education and contraception also lowers all those unwanted pregnancies too. A REAL Christian would support socialized medicine if they cared about the lives and welfare of children from the moment of inception. It's ironic that the GOP is both Christian and anti-welfare. Jesus was all about assisting those who need help and promoting a common community amount men. The GOP supports a dog-eat-dog style of civilization without welfare or a sense of patriotism. I dont know a single person who suggests we dont give aid to charity. Charity is demonstrably better dollar for dollar, without the immorality of robbing people to "help others". How are taxes 'robbing others'? Since when did this idea of paying dues to live in a civilized society turned into such a sin? Why is it bad to give back to your country? When I have to give men my private property under the threat of violence, its extortion at best. And I'm not "giving back" to my country, I'm being robbed to pay for anti social corrupt bureaucratic nightmare. It's only your private property by the threat of violence in the first place. Also most employers just withhold taxes in the first place anyway. Seriously, just stop filing taxes and see what happens: chances are at no point is anyone going to use violence against you (though of course your life will be ruined through other means). LOL wtf are you talking about, how is my wealth through violence? I have it through voluntary transaction.
I think what he is trying to say is that all American land and the opportunities it provides exist because the government exerts a controlling military presence in the world (violence). People have fought and died and will continue to fight and die to maintain the legitimacy of your private property.
To me this seems like a litte bit too focused view (to prove a point Im sure) but Obama's point will always be true no matter how much his "you didn't build that" quote is taken out of context.
|
On August 29 2012 15:53 Leporello wrote:
When in reality, looking at the policies our country has experimented with over the years, decades, and centuries, Obama is close to exactly the same as Bush. Even Clinton presided over a more left-wing government than we have now. Obama is more right-wing than any Democratic president in the past few decades. He is, in fact, a centrist who has pretty much maintained the status-quo of things with a few exceptions. And yet, he is still maligned by people on both sides who want to label him as an "extremist" to further their own, actual extremist ideas of what government should look like.
I am equally shocked, amazed, and frightened that anyone could believe that nonsense. Obama's done everything from big (subjugating the health care industry and strangling the real energy sector) to small (undoing Clinton era welfare reform and ending school choice in DC) while running up $5 trillion dollars in debt and printing dollars like it was Monopoly money and you think he's right-wing? The extent to which he has left things as status quo (a defining personality trait of voting Present to avoid any responsibility himself) it's because he couldn't get enough Democrats in 2009 and 2010 to vote for the things he wanted such as obvious tax raises (though there's plenty hidden in ObamaCare), single-payer health care, and bringing Gitmo terrorists into American criminal courts.
Meanwhile the Tea Partiers are considered the real extremists in America because they have this crazy idea that our government spends too much money. Why can't anyone explain to them that raising taxes on the 1% richest Americans might raise another $40 billion dollars a year and save us from the over $1 trillion dollar deficits every year for the last four years! They're rich. They don't really need that money. The government needs it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
