|
|
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.
Your property that isn't in your immediate possession only remains yours without any need for you to defend it because the government enforces your monopoly on it. Abstract things like title consist of a lot more than voluntary transaction.
|
Oh yeah, meanwhile supposed 'tell them anything' Romney refuses to repudiate his healthcare plan from Massachusetts even though we on the right all but wrote the excuses for him (the plan was never quite what he wanted and the Dems after he left made it even worse - which is a great excuse since it happens to be true) and it would greatly help him in the campaign against ObamaCare which is one of the most unpopular (and poorly written) laws in modern history.
Oh and you want fun? http://mittromneyflipflops.com - So far over half of the ones I've found are variations on his conversion to pro-life. But check out this doozy:
'I've been a hunter pretty much all my life.'
'I'm not a big game hunter... I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will.'
So busted! Did you see how first he says he's been a hunter pretty much all his life and then he flip-flops and says he's always been a "rodent and rabbit hunter"? Have you EVER seen a more disingenuous slimy sleazy say-anything politician? First he says he hunts and then he says he hunts! Meanwhile Obama has actually eaten dogs.
|
On August 29 2012 16:35 Jisall wrote:
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.
...
This doesn't actually seem like a very simple case at all, but my understanding of DACA (and DREAM) are admittedly not great. What exactly would the "obviously correct" course of action here, as far as legislation, as well as the steps an individual ought to take towards residency? I'm honestly curious. As far as I've understood (probably incorrectly), it's designed as a band-aid fix for the situation where people who immigrate illegally, go to school and/or join the military, and don't otherwise engage in criminal activity can't actually become citizens because what they did was illegal in the first place. From reading it, the allowed documentation seemed fairly broad to me:
9. What Documents May Show That You Continuously Resided in the United States during the 5-Year Period Immediately Before June 15, 2012 and Up to the Present Date?
...
f. Official records from a religious entity in the United States confirming your participation in a religious ceremony, rite, or passage (e.g., baptism, first communion, wedding);
g. Money order receipts for money sent in or out of the country; passport entries; birth certificates of children born in the United States; dated bank transactions; correspondence between you and another person or organization; U.S. Social Security card; automobile license receipts, title, vehicle registration, etc.; deeds, mortgages, rental agreements, contracts to which you have been a party; tax receipts; insurance policies; receipts; postmarked letters; or
h. Any other relevant document
(source: http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/files/form/i-821dinstr.pdf)
Now, see, saying one thing to one group and then saying the opposite of that to another group, that would be a simple case of a candidate who will say "whatever [these] people want to hear". This doesn't seem nearly as cut and dry as your post suggested.
EDIT:
On August 29 2012 17:01 dvorakftw wrote:
...
Meanwhile Obama has actually eaten dogs.
I heard he touched a dirty A-rab once, too!
|
On August 29 2012 16:47 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +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!
Wow. You genuinely don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
What? Are you talking about eminent domain? Do you realize how rare that actually is? What is an anti-social corrupt bureaucratic nightmare?
|
On August 29 2012 17:28 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 16:47 dvorakftw wrote:Actually, I think these actual photos from Tea Party rallies are why the Tea Party is considered extremist. ![[image loading]](http://56rebels.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/obama-hitlerstache.jpg)
This one doesn't really count because LaRouchites have always been their own particular brand of crazy, but in general, yeah.
|
How anyone can call what Obama is proposing "extremist" in any way is beyond me and probably everyone else with a not 100% ideologically biased mind.
I wonder how you folks would react to a really left leaning president (or candidate)... Tthat would be sooo much fun.
|
On August 29 2012 16:47 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +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!
Lets look at what you have stated:
"subjagating the health care industry": How has he done this? By preventing health care companies from defrauding their customers by claiming prior conditions? By preventing people from free riding the health care system if they can't pay? These are sane and even conservative ideas. This is modeled off of RomneyCare.
"strangling the "real" energy industry": WTF does this even mean? I'm going to assume you're talking about Keystone XL and the temporary halt on further offshore drilling. Neither of these are in any way strangling the energy industry.
"running up $5 trillion dollars in debt": Nothing Obama can do (he could have raised taxes but his hands were tied by house republicans). Blame tax cuts for rich, Medicare Part D, and the middle east wars.
"printing money like it was monopoly money": Yet we have no signs of hyperinflation. That's kinda strange don't you think?
You spout talking points you read from conservative blogs and hear from Fox News and you also have no clue what they mean. Your input lacks intelligent thought.
|
dvorakftw, you have no idea what you're talking about. Good job debunking your own position on the abortion debate, by the way. Glad I could be of help in explaining to yourself your own numbers.
|
On August 29 2012 15:04 BlackPanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 13:00 Kaitlin wrote: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.
I am familiar with Economies of Scale. It doesn't automatically trump every other consideration, however.
|
On August 29 2012 17:28 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 16:47 dvorakftw wrote:
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! Actually, I think these actual photos from Tea Party rallies are why the Tea Party is considered extremist.
Nobody has ever contended that the Tea Party doesn't have some crazies in there. But you can't say that everyone who cares about the environment is therefore an eco-terrorist because a few who care about the environment are eco-terrorists. Yes, racists hide in the Tea Party, but the vast majority of them are not racist.
You are stereotyping.
|
On August 29 2012 22:50 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2012 17:28 Defacer wrote:On August 29 2012 16:47 dvorakftw wrote:
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! Actually, I think these actual photos from Tea Party rallies are why the Tea Party is considered extremist. Nobody has ever contended that the Tea Party doesn't have some crazies in there. But you can't say that everyone who cares about the environment is therefore an eco-terrorist because a few who care about the environment are eco-terrorists. Yes, racists hide in the Tea Party, but the vast majority of them are not racist. You are stereotyping.
The tea party is an extremist movement in the sense that it's base is adults who like to play with markers and coloring utensils. All the political nutjobs who are butthurt over a democrat being in office swarmed what was once a movement built off a libertarian philosophy. The tea party movement didn't take long to become the movement of retarded political signs.
Signed,
A dissappointed libertarian. Dey took err mevment.
|
On August 30 2012 00:25 stevarius wrote:
A dissappointed libertarian. Dey took err mevment.
I blame palin and rush. Palin was too dumb to know what libertarian means, and Rush too smart to let it gain steam.
|
On August 30 2012 00:37 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 00:25 stevarius wrote:
A dissappointed libertarian. Dey took err mevment. I blame palin and rush. Palin was too dumb to know what libertarian means, and Rush too smart to let it gain steam.
What does this mean? The talk radio guys are all very pro-tea party.
|
On August 30 2012 00:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 00:37 BluePanther wrote:On August 30 2012 00:25 stevarius wrote:
A dissappointed libertarian. Dey took err mevment. I blame palin and rush. Palin was too dumb to know what libertarian means, and Rush too smart to let it gain steam. What does this mean? The talk radio guys are all very pro-tea party.
the tea party was initially a libertarian movement. rush noticed it gaining steam, and swung his crazies into it and rode the success -- transforming it into a far right movement instead of a libertarian movement.
|
On August 30 2012 00:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 00:37 BluePanther wrote:On August 30 2012 00:25 stevarius wrote:
A dissappointed libertarian. Dey took err mevment. I blame palin and rush. Palin was too dumb to know what libertarian means, and Rush too smart to let it gain steam. What does this mean? The talk radio guys are all very pro-tea party.
Libertarians like to keep it to state rights and low spending. When you get the crazies involved, you also get a lot of anti-gay, mega-christian stuff in the mix. You go from Ron Paul to Mike Huckabee. Some ideals are the same, but its like adding food coloring to a glass of water. Still got some water, but its tainted.
|
On August 30 2012 00:59 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2012 00:37 BluePanther wrote:On August 30 2012 00:25 stevarius wrote:
A dissappointed libertarian. Dey took err mevment. I blame palin and rush. Palin was too dumb to know what libertarian means, and Rush too smart to let it gain steam. What does this mean? The talk radio guys are all very pro-tea party. the tea party was initially a libertarian movement. rush noticed it gaining steam, and swung his crazies into it and rode the success -- transforming it into a far right movement instead of a libertarian movement.
I disagree that the Tea Party is a "far right" movement to the extent that you mean that it is a socially conservative movement. The Tea Party is and always has been a fundamentally libertarian movement with regards to fiscal and economic issues. Yes, there are social conservatives in the Tea Party, but those people are there because they are libertarian on fiscal and economic issues and not because they are looking to co-opt the Tea Party and turn it into a social conservative movement.
Quite frankly, "pure" libertarians should be thrilled to have the support of social conservatives because the popularity of the Tea Party has given libertarians a renewed and strengthened ideological platform. Take another look at the Republican Party platform and just try and tell me that there's no libertarian/Ron Paul influence in there.
In short, I think you have it backwards. Libertarians have used the Tea Party as a vehicle to infiltrate and co-opt the Republican Party and social conservatives. Not the other way around.
|
On August 30 2012 01:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2012 00:59 BluePanther wrote:On August 30 2012 00:42 xDaunt wrote:On August 30 2012 00:37 BluePanther wrote:On August 30 2012 00:25 stevarius wrote:
A dissappointed libertarian. Dey took err mevment. I blame palin and rush. Palin was too dumb to know what libertarian means, and Rush too smart to let it gain steam. What does this mean? The talk radio guys are all very pro-tea party. the tea party was initially a libertarian movement. rush noticed it gaining steam, and swung his crazies into it and rode the success -- transforming it into a far right movement instead of a libertarian movement. I disagree that the Tea Party is a "far right" movement to the extent that you mean that it is a socially conservative movement. The Tea Party is and always has been a fundamentally libertarian movement with regards to fiscal and economic issues. Yes, there are social conservatives in the Tea Party, but those people are there because they are libertarian on fiscal and economic issues and not because they are looking to co-opt the Tea Party and turn it into a social conservative movement. Quite frankly, "pure" libertarians should be thrilled to have the support of social conservatives because the popularity of the Tea Party has given libertarians a renewed and strengthened ideological platform. Take another look at the Republican Party platform and just try and tell me that there's no libertarian/Ron Paul influence in there. In short, I think you have it backwards. Libertarians have used the Tea Party as a vehicle to infiltrate and co-opt the Republican Party and social conservatives. Not the other way around.
Infiltrate the Republican party? Have you seen the fallout from the RNC in regards to Ron Paul delegates?
Republicans have made it clear that their issues that revolve around the horrific ideology of conservatives come first and that libertarian candidates stand no chance in the party.
Complete ban on abortions and gay marriage is their stance they passed yesterday I believe. The fuck are they thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.blackenterprise.com/files/2010/07/0714_naacp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamaafrican.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://mrmokelly.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/tea-party-racist-signs-01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://tackyextremeactivists.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/sherrodd.jpg)
