Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue

Well today is Election Day here in the U.S., our annual opportunity to practice democracy (insert joke here about continuing to practice until we get it right). Here's hoping all those who are registered get out and vote, and that the process proceeds smoothly.

Smooth Links: Thanks Ant and Acleacius.
Play: Obama vs Romney Boxing Match
Legendary Thieves.
Links: 'Battlestar Galactica- Blood and Chrome' being released online Friday.
New! GameMaxx. Thanks HARDOCP.
Science: Experiencing math anxiety may be like the experience of physical pain.
Broken Heart Syndrome: Now doctors say you really CAN die from a sudden shock to the system.
New dinosaur named after Sauron from Lord of the Rings. Or Blue's forum poster. Thanks nin.
Media: The Brooklyn Hipster.
Adam Savage Builds Patton Oswalt's Halloween Costume.
How Videos Go Viral.

View
236 Replies. 12 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Older >

236. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 11, 2012, 23:49 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 11, 2012, 22:15:
Well, it appears that my suggestion for compromise MIGHT be an actual possibility. Of course, considering the source you might want to take it with a salt shaker's worth of salt. I can't find the story anywhere else - I tried though.

Bob Corker, one of the key negotiators is my state senator and is one of the compromsers I mentioned that the majority of the Republican party faithful revile, so it may possibly come to pass.

I heard basically the same thing on NPR earlier, so it seems they may be making progress. Of course last time Boehner and the President came to an agreement, he wasn't able to sell it to the House. Hopefully he'll have some better leverage over them this time. I would hope the RNC would be backing him and giving him the power he needs.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
235. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 11, 2012, 22:15 Prez
 
Well, it appears that my suggestion for compromise MIGHT be an actual possibility. Of course, considering the source you might want to take it with a salt shaker's worth of salt. I can't find the story anywhere else - I tried though.

Bob Corker, one of the key negotiators is my state senator and is one of the compromsers I mentioned that the majority of the Republican party faithful revile, so it may possibly come to pass.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
234. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 22:44 Prez
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 22:21:
You know, this is most significant sign that the US government is more "European" than it used to be. I look at the "collation" governments in European parliaments and think what a pain it must be to have to cater to, at least in part, these small, outlying, politic parties who manage to get elected seats because you need to form a majority. The "effectively two party" system in the US avoids that. But the reality is that's no longer true. Both the Rs and Ds have members calling themselves Rs and Ds who really belong in some other small, outlying political party. But they can't get elected doing that, so they integrate themselves into the Rs and Ds. This is what Boenher, and to a lesser degree, the Ds are having to deal with.

What you said hits the nail on the head. My wife listens to conservative talk radio (don't hold that against her; she really is a great gal), and I hear how they verbally abuse anyone in the Republican party who even thinks of compromising to get a deal done. In truth I share a lot of the fiscal conservatism they preach. In reality, though, I understand that I am never going to get everything I want; concessions need to be made in order to make progress. Conservative talk radio hosts have the luxury of being pure ideologues; politicians have to be negotiators and compromisers if they are going to get anything done. The trouble is the radio ideologues can work their audiences up into a frenzy and get the compromisers and negotiators removed and replaced by more ideologues. They use the term "Rhino" Republicans" (Republicans In Name Only) to negatively brand anyone in the party who doesn't strictly adhere (and by 'strictly' I mean on absolutely 100% of the ideology) to the staunch conservative platform.

This is where the Democrats are simply KILLING the Republicans. The Democrats have room for everyone - there are dozens of conservative Democrats in the Legislature for example - while the Republican party is dominated by an exclusivity mentality that shuts out differing viewpoints. You really don't need to look any farther to figure out why they keep losing elections.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
233. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 22:21 Mr. Tact
 
You know, this is most significant sign that the US government is more "European" than it used to be. I look at the "collation" governments in European parliaments and think what a pain it must be to have to cater to, at least in part, these small, outlying, politic parties who manage to get elected seats because you need to form a majority. The "effectively two party" system in the US avoids that. But the reality is that's no longer true. Both the Rs and Ds have members calling themselves Rs and Ds who really belong in some other small, outlying political party. But they can't get elected doing that, so they integrate themselves into the Rs and Ds. This is what Boenher, and to a lesser degree, the Ds are having to deal with.  
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
232. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 22:02 Prez
 
Then Boehner couldn't sell it to the GOP because of the "no more revenue" pledge.

I see the events the same. My take on it is that Boehner needs to grow a pair. Admittedly he is in a tough position because his being the House Majority Leader is due in large part to a far right grass roots movement that caused a major shake-up in the 2010 mid-term elections, but any politician ought to know he will never be able to please everyone. His job at this juncture is to get the Republicans in a room and negotiate with them. His position is one of leadership so he needs to be a leader. The voters will vote the way they will, but everyone needs to do their jobs.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
231. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 21:50 Mr. Tact
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 21:37:
That's what the public - you and me - hear. Through the sensationalist media. I would expect that instead of trading public jabs to score political points on the nightly news these clowns would get behind closed doors and actually do some negotiating. And another thing; cuts are not concessions; in the mess we are in they are an absolute necessity and a foregone conclusion. The Democrats are not yielding anything. The two parties need to sit down and work out what exactly will be cut instead of whoring themselves to the media. In union negotiations at work the two parties will present an unyielding stance upfront but with ardent negotiation sooner or later compromises are always reached. That's what negotiating is, and the Democrats are no more willing to do it than the Republicans are. Obama needs to force these guys to the table and fight it out. Enough of the media showboating.
Yes, at some level you are correct. Often, on both sides, "cutting" translates to "growing the spending more slowly". I think Boehner and Obama actually did what you suggest. They sat down in a room and hammered out a deal. Then Boehner couldn't sell it to the GOP because of the "no more revenue" pledge.
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
230. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 21:49 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 21:37:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 20:43:
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 19:04:
Well, what I am seeing two parties dropping anchor and refusing to budge from their positions, which belies the overwhelming judgment of those here who emphatically insist that it's only the GOP that won't compromise. Neither party is blameless in the stalemate by my estimation. When is the last time Harry Reid talked about compromise?

It's the problem with politics today - the constituency elects hard-nosed idealists and looks at candidates willing to compromise as weak.

Umm... what exactly do you want the Democrats to offer? They've already offered like 3 or 4 to one cuts to revenues. Republicans said no, they'd only accept 0 revenues. That was a long while back. Now they've tightened up again and are talking 2-3 to 1 cuts to revenues. Republicans still say they won't accept revenue increases. So we can't even begin to negotiate what or how much to cut when the Republicans won't budge at all on revenues. They've already pledged to do what Norquist wants, not what's best for the country. They've painted themselves into a corner.

That's what the public - you and me - hear. Through the sensationalist media. I would expect that instead of trading public jabs to score political points on the nightly news these clowns would get behind closed doors and actually do some negotiating. And another thing; cuts are not concessions; in the mess we are in they are an absolute necessity and a foregone conclusion. The Democrats are not yielding anything. The two parties need to sit down and work out what exactly will be cut instead of whoring themselves to the media. In union negotiations at work the two parties will present an unyielding stance upfront but with ardent negotiation sooner or later compromises are always reached. That's what negotiating is, and the Democrats are no more willing to do it than the Republicans are. Obama needs to force these guys to the table and fight it out. Enough of the media showboating.
Like I said, when the Republicans are saying that revenues are off the table, that's obstructing. Democrats haven't put anything off the table. That's not obstructing. There's room to negotiate there. Republicans need to stop saying that anything is completely off the table before any real negotiations can begin. It's just a ridiculous stance, even if it is just for public consumption. None of us knows what's going on behind closed doors, but we can all see that the Republicans are publicly being obstructionist, as they've been all along on a whole variety of issues.

At this point I'm starting to lean towards letting the sequestration happen. I know it's risky, but I'm sick of the bullshit that Boehner's group is pulling. I'm sick of filibuster threats and black and white views of everything, and I'm sick of their delusional view of things. I'm starting to be willing to see the deep cuts happen, just so the Republicans will lose all the Bush tax cuts, and then we can start fresh. Then we can cut taxes for the middle class. Then we can strategically restore funding where it's needed.

Of course I can easily see them refusing even tax cuts for the middle class if they can't get them for the very wealthy too. Just going by their current refusal to give even the slightest bit on taxes.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
229. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 21:37 Prez
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 20:43:
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 19:04:
Well, what I am seeing two parties dropping anchor and refusing to budge from their positions, which belies the overwhelming judgment of those here who emphatically insist that it's only the GOP that won't compromise. Neither party is blameless in the stalemate by my estimation. When is the last time Harry Reid talked about compromise?

It's the problem with politics today - the constituency elects hard-nosed idealists and looks at candidates willing to compromise as weak.

Umm... what exactly do you want the Democrats to offer? They've already offered like 3 or 4 to one cuts to revenues. Republicans said no, they'd only accept 0 revenues. That was a long while back. Now they've tightened up again and are talking 2-3 to 1 cuts to revenues. Republicans still say they won't accept revenue increases. So we can't even begin to negotiate what or how much to cut when the Republicans won't budge at all on revenues. They've already pledged to do what Norquist wants, not what's best for the country. They've painted themselves into a corner.

That's what the public - you and me - hear. Through the sensationalist media. I would expect that instead of trading public jabs to score political points on the nightly news these clowns would get behind closed doors and actually do some negotiating. And another thing; cuts are not concessions; in the mess we are in they are an absolute necessity and a foregone conclusion. The Democrats are not yielding anything. The two parties need to sit down and work out what exactly will be cut instead of whoring themselves to the media. In union negotiations at work the two parties will present an unyielding stance upfront but with ardent negotiation sooner or later compromises are always reached. That's what negotiating is, and the Democrats are no more willing to do it than the Republicans are. Obama needs to force these guys to the table and fight it out. Enough of the media showboating.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
228. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 20:43 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 19:04:
Well, what I am seeing two parties dropping anchor and refusing to budge from their positions, which belies the overwhelming judgment of those here who emphatically insist that it's only the GOP that won't compromise. Neither party is blameless in the stalemate by my estimation. When is the last time Harry Reid talked about compromise?

It's the problem with politics today - the constituency elects hard-nosed idealists and looks at candidates willing to compromise as weak.

Umm... what exactly do you want the Democrats to offer? They've already offered like 3 or 4 to one cuts to revenues. Republicans said no, they'd only accept 0 revenues. That was a long while back. Now they've tightened up again and are talking 2-3 to 1 cuts to revenues. Republicans still say they won't accept revenue increases. So we can't even begin to negotiate what or how much to cut when the Republicans won't budge at all on revenues. They've already pledged to do what Norquist wants, not what's best for the country. They've painted themselves into a corner.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
227. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 19:04 Prez
 
Well, what I am seeing two parties dropping anchor and refusing to budge from their positions, which belies the overwhelming judgment of those here who emphatically insist that it's only the GOP that won't compromise. Neither party is blameless in the stalemate by my estimation. When is the last time Harry Reid talked about compromise?

It's the problem with politics today - the constituency elects hard-nosed idealists and looks at candidates willing to compromise as weak.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
226. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 18:51 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 18:35:
Mr. Tact wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:19:
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 10:35:
I'm not aware of who Grover Norquist is, which is odd since I pay attention to the goings-on in the legislature, but I am going to go out on a limb and say I highly doubt they "swore fealty" to him. I have never heard John Boehner explicitly state that he equates closing loopholes with a tax hike. If he does then he is flat incorrect because it isn't.
Not heard of Grover Norquist? Either you are being sarcastic or you haven't been paying attention to the discussion around raising taxes in the US. I barely pay attention and I know of him and why despite not being a member of government why he is part of the discussion around revenue increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist


Why would I suddenly start being sarcastic after discussing this seriously all this time? I honestly didn't know of the guy. I pay less attention to the tax discussion simply because I believe that ethically and morally speaking, before we start taking more of other peoples' money I think we have an obligation of reigning in spending and eliminating the disgusting amount of waste in government. In my opinion that needs toncome first, and the Democrats just won't get on board.

Democrats are on board with cuts, but they want revenue increases as well. We need both to get things going the right direction without screwing over the middle class and plunging the economy back into recession. The Republicans refuse, and have been obstructing any attempt at a deal. Hopefully you at least see that much now, and see why most of them are doing it.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
225. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 18:35 Prez
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:19:
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 10:35:
I'm not aware of who Grover Norquist is, which is odd since I pay attention to the goings-on in the legislature, but I am going to go out on a limb and say I highly doubt they "swore fealty" to him. I have never heard John Boehner explicitly state that he equates closing loopholes with a tax hike. If he does then he is flat incorrect because it isn't.
Not heard of Grover Norquist? Either you are being sarcastic or you haven't been paying attention to the discussion around raising taxes in the US. I barely pay attention and I know of him and why despite not being a member of government why he is part of the discussion around revenue increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist


Why would I suddenly start being sarcastic after discussing this seriously all this time? I honestly didn't know of the guy. I pay less attention to the tax discussion simply because I believe that ethically and morally speaking, before we start taking more of other peoples' money I think we have an obligation of reigning in spending and eliminating the disgusting amount of waste in government. In my opinion that needs toncome first, and the Democrats just won't get on board.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
224. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 13:32 Verno
 
Well put Bagger. When you make more money, you pay more taxes. It's the price of living in a society, everyone can't pay an equal share, you pay your fair share.  
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Dragon Age Inquisition, Far Cry 4, This War of Mine
Watching: Pioneer, Predestination, Homeland
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
223. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 12:43 Beamer
 
Don't look at it as a very small percentage of the population paying most of the bill. Don't compare people and money. Compare money and money. It's a large portion of the income paying a large portion of the bill.

As I keep saying, only a small portion of the population has any wealth or significant income. So it makes sense that that portion is footing much of the bill.

 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
222. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 12:19 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 12:14:
Beamer wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:47:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:27:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 23:15:
Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 22:20:
I don't get this social utopia garbage. Obama is less social than Joe McCarthy tax-wise, and has a lot in common with Eisenhower in nearly all areas of policy. Those guys would have punched you in the face for calling them socialists, yet Obama is very, very similar and gets knocked around.

Also, what's more important to protect - the rights of a large organization or the rights of the individual? I'm going individual. Regardless, RollingThunder only cares about HIS religion. Christianity? Protect at all costs! Again, if it was the Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to pay for health care for ANY of their employees, as they do not believe in modern science, he'd probably be against it. But he's one of those people that feels a need to be a victim, and there's a war on Christianity in his eyes.

Just watch Fox for a few hours and you can see that if there's any group in this country that feels they are victims, it's Republicans/Tea Partiers. They see themselves beset on all sides by liberals who are alternately lazy, incompetent boobs or evil masterminds who have fooled everyone, whichever fits their narrative at the time.

Actually I don't care about any religion, I said already I'm not religious, I was merely pointing out the status quo of hypocrisy liberals display on a regular basis. Where its politically correct to jump all over Christianity.

Comparing a Jehovah Witness owning a private company to a religious run university are not one in the same. Nice deflect there Beamer.

Still waiting to hear what you would cut btw. You libs seem to be scarce in that area, except when talking about the military.

At stake was hospitals, not just universities. But I don't really see a distinction - you're looking at the beliefs of the owner, are you not?

I've already said repeatedly that I'm not really a lib, and that I agreed with you on many of your cuts. I've also said that we should care less about cutting and more about spurring the economy, and raising taxes to 1960s levels is the best way to do that.

For the record, and I'm not sure if I mentioned this already, I'm not for the Bush tax cuts, I wasn't then either. Obviously taxes need to go up along with cuts. I just don't think it's fair to expect a very small portion of the population to cover the whole bill.
There's only a very small portion of the population who have seen their incomes rise in the past 15 years, and taxing them will not hurt the economy nearly as much as taxing the middle class. The middle class buying stuff is what drives the economy. Those at the very top will be just fine, as will the rest of us, because all that trickle-down stuff is complete garbage. You tax where the money is, and more and more, it's become highly concentrated in the hands of a very tiny minority of the population. Coincidentally enough, they are taxed at nowhere near the rate that the rest of us are. Depending on where they draw the line, I may see my taxes go up too. Sucks, especially since I don't agree with how that debt was racked up to begin with, but its gotta be paid for.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
221. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 12:14 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:47:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:27:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 23:15:
Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 22:20:
I don't get this social utopia garbage. Obama is less social than Joe McCarthy tax-wise, and has a lot in common with Eisenhower in nearly all areas of policy. Those guys would have punched you in the face for calling them socialists, yet Obama is very, very similar and gets knocked around.

Also, what's more important to protect - the rights of a large organization or the rights of the individual? I'm going individual. Regardless, RollingThunder only cares about HIS religion. Christianity? Protect at all costs! Again, if it was the Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to pay for health care for ANY of their employees, as they do not believe in modern science, he'd probably be against it. But he's one of those people that feels a need to be a victim, and there's a war on Christianity in his eyes.

Just watch Fox for a few hours and you can see that if there's any group in this country that feels they are victims, it's Republicans/Tea Partiers. They see themselves beset on all sides by liberals who are alternately lazy, incompetent boobs or evil masterminds who have fooled everyone, whichever fits their narrative at the time.

Actually I don't care about any religion, I said already I'm not religious, I was merely pointing out the status quo of hypocrisy liberals display on a regular basis. Where its politically correct to jump all over Christianity.

Comparing a Jehovah Witness owning a private company to a religious run university are not one in the same. Nice deflect there Beamer.

Still waiting to hear what you would cut btw. You libs seem to be scarce in that area, except when talking about the military.

At stake was hospitals, not just universities. But I don't really see a distinction - you're looking at the beliefs of the owner, are you not?

I've already said repeatedly that I'm not really a lib, and that I agreed with you on many of your cuts. I've also said that we should care less about cutting and more about spurring the economy, and raising taxes to 1960s levels is the best way to do that.

For the record, and I'm not sure if I mentioned this already, I'm not for the Bush tax cuts, I wasn't then either. Obviously taxes need to go up along with cuts. I just don't think it's fair to expect a very small portion of the population to cover the whole bill.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
220. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 11:47 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:27:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 23:15:
Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 22:20:
I don't get this social utopia garbage. Obama is less social than Joe McCarthy tax-wise, and has a lot in common with Eisenhower in nearly all areas of policy. Those guys would have punched you in the face for calling them socialists, yet Obama is very, very similar and gets knocked around.

Also, what's more important to protect - the rights of a large organization or the rights of the individual? I'm going individual. Regardless, RollingThunder only cares about HIS religion. Christianity? Protect at all costs! Again, if it was the Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to pay for health care for ANY of their employees, as they do not believe in modern science, he'd probably be against it. But he's one of those people that feels a need to be a victim, and there's a war on Christianity in his eyes.

Just watch Fox for a few hours and you can see that if there's any group in this country that feels they are victims, it's Republicans/Tea Partiers. They see themselves beset on all sides by liberals who are alternately lazy, incompetent boobs or evil masterminds who have fooled everyone, whichever fits their narrative at the time.

Actually I don't care about any religion, I said already I'm not religious, I was merely pointing out the status quo of hypocrisy liberals display on a regular basis. Where its politically correct to jump all over Christianity.

Comparing a Jehovah Witness owning a private company to a religious run university are not one in the same. Nice deflect there Beamer.

Still waiting to hear what you would cut btw. You libs seem to be scarce in that area, except when talking about the military.

At stake was hospitals, not just universities. But I don't really see a distinction - you're looking at the beliefs of the owner, are you not?

I've already said repeatedly that I'm not really a lib, and that I agreed with you on many of your cuts. I've also said that we should care less about cutting and more about spurring the economy, and raising taxes to 1960s levels is the best way to do that.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
219. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 11:44 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:27:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 23:15:
Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 22:20:
I don't get this social utopia garbage. Obama is less social than Joe McCarthy tax-wise, and has a lot in common with Eisenhower in nearly all areas of policy. Those guys would have punched you in the face for calling them socialists, yet Obama is very, very similar and gets knocked around.

Also, what's more important to protect - the rights of a large organization or the rights of the individual? I'm going individual. Regardless, RollingThunder only cares about HIS religion. Christianity? Protect at all costs! Again, if it was the Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to pay for health care for ANY of their employees, as they do not believe in modern science, he'd probably be against it. But he's one of those people that feels a need to be a victim, and there's a war on Christianity in his eyes.

Just watch Fox for a few hours and you can see that if there's any group in this country that feels they are victims, it's Republicans/Tea Partiers. They see themselves beset on all sides by liberals who are alternately lazy, incompetent boobs or evil masterminds who have fooled everyone, whichever fits their narrative at the time.

Actually I don't care about any religion, I said already I'm not religious, I was merely pointing out the status quo of hypocrisy liberals display on a regular basis. Where its politically correct to jump all over Christianity.
There's no hypocrisy there. I'd jump all over any religion that tries to force the rest of us to live by their personal religious views.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 11:27:
Still waiting to hear what you would cut btw. You libs seem to be scarce in that area, except when talking about the military.

Still waiting to hear what your issue is with health care law providing for birth control since we're providing for non-essential stuff like Viagra for guys. Why the hypocrisy?

As for cuts, there's no point in discussing it until Republicans accept that they actually have to pay for stuff that they didn't pay for before, like the wars, tax cuts and drug bill. The current offer from Dems is something like 2 or 3 to one cuts to revenues, and the specifics won't matter until Republicans agree to budge on revenues.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
218. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 11:34 Mr. Tact
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 10:35:
I have never heard John Boehner explicitly state that he equates closing loopholes with a tax hike. If he does then he is flat incorrect because it isn't.
Boehner might not have, but others have and it's already been shown the "absolutely no new revenue" portion of the party have enough sway that it seems out of his hands. I actually think Boehner is a reasonable (as far as politicians go) guy but he is not in lock step with his own party.
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
217. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 11:32 Verno
 
People jump all over Christianity because its constantly on the attack in North America and meddles in almost every aspect of society. I'm sure "Liberals" will bitch about other religions when they become dominant and do the same. I don't care for Islam either but it's not affecting me in the way that Christianity does.

Time to stop blaming all of our problems on Liberals and actually start mending the country.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Dragon Age Inquisition, Far Cry 4, This War of Mine
Watching: Pioneer, Predestination, Homeland
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
236 Replies. 12 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo