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 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Older >

216. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 11:27 RollinThundr
 
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.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
215. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 11:19 Mr. Tact
 
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

 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
214. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 11:18 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 10:35:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 10:19:
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 09:52:
What's missing from that Boehner quote is any mention of accepting some revenue increases along with all the cuts, which has been their entire reason for obstructing all along. They want 0 revenue increase and all cuts. Haven't seen that change yet.

I actually agree that revenue boost is needed but that's easily done with closing loopholes - no tax increase needed. Just because Republicans staunchly oppose tax hikes doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't get on board with that, which as Reagan proved increases revenue from the wealthiest taxpayers since they make the most use of loopholes by a fair margin.

Actually they've explicitly said that they consider closing loopholes to be a tax hike. The command came down from God himself, Grover Norquist, to whom they've all sworn fealty. Grover says, "No net revenue increase, period." So if closing a loophole would result in more revenue for the government, it's out.

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.

Seriously man, you need to look it up. All but 13 sitting Republicans in Congress actually signed a pledge, written and presented to them by Grover Norquist, pledging to never raise taxes, and he considers any net revenue increase to be a tax increase.

Americans for Tax Reform

The Pledge (CBS News)


 
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
 
213. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 10:35 Prez
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 10:19:
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 09:52:
What's missing from that Boehner quote is any mention of accepting some revenue increases along with all the cuts, which has been their entire reason for obstructing all along. They want 0 revenue increase and all cuts. Haven't seen that change yet.

I actually agree that revenue boost is needed but that's easily done with closing loopholes - no tax increase needed. Just because Republicans staunchly oppose tax hikes doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't get on board with that, which as Reagan proved increases revenue from the wealthiest taxpayers since they make the most use of loopholes by a fair margin.

Actually they've explicitly said that they consider closing loopholes to be a tax hike. The command came down from God himself, Grover Norquist, to whom they've all sworn fealty. Grover says, "No net revenue increase, period." So if closing a loophole would result in more revenue for the government, it's out.

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.
 
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
 
212. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 10:19 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 09:52:
What's missing from that Boehner quote is any mention of accepting some revenue increases along with all the cuts, which has been their entire reason for obstructing all along. They want 0 revenue increase and all cuts. Haven't seen that change yet.

I actually agree that revenue boost is needed but that's easily done with closing loopholes - no tax increase needed. Just because Republicans staunchly oppose tax hikes doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't get on board with that, which as Reagan proved increases revenue from the wealthiest taxpayers since they make the most use of loopholes by a fair margin.

Actually they've explicitly said that they consider closing loopholes to be a tax hike. The command came down from God himself, Grover Norquist, to whom they've all sworn fealty. Grover says, "No net revenue increase, period." So if closing a loophole would result in more revenue for the government, it's out.
 
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
 
211. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 09:52 Prez
 
What's missing from that Boehner quote is any mention of accepting some revenue increases along with all the cuts, which has been their entire reason for obstructing all along. They want 0 revenue increase and all cuts. Haven't seen that change yet.

I actually agree that revenue boost is needed but that's easily done with closing loopholes - no tax increase needed. Just because Republicans staunchly oppose tax hikes doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't get on board with that, which as Reagan proved increases revenue from the wealthiest taxpayers since they make the most use of loopholes by a fair margin.

This comment was edited on Nov 9, 2012, 10:09.
 
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
 
210. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 09:29 Beamer
 
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.

Like Bill O'Reilly's comment that the white majority is now the minority, explaining the election.
But 72% of voters were white...
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
209. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 09:02 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 00:43:
John Boehner: "There's a lot of ways you could do this that would allow the Congress to fix our tax code next year, look at real spending cuts and entitlement reforms that would produce what the president's called for — a balanced approach," he said.

No deal, Senate Democrats say. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., outlined an opposing view: Democrats want an agreement to extend the Bush-era cuts on everyone except the top earners, and they want it done in the next 53 days. "Waiting for a month, six weeks, six months, that's not gonna solve the problem. We know what needs to be done," Reid said.

Boehner said his rank-and-file views heading over the cliff as "unacceptable," but he acknowledged there is no clear path forward for compromise. He was optimistic that a deal would be reached between himself, Reid and President Obama."


So I read the above excerpt from a USA Today article, and many others like it and I just don't see any GOP "obstructionism". From how it and other stories like it reads it's Boehner who is looking for compromise and Reid in his usual caustic manner flatly dismissing it.

Harry Reid has gone 4 years without calling for serious budget talks but all of a sudden this is a rush - in the next 53 days or GTFO! What am I missing? If closing loopholes and removing entitlements will get the rich to yield more tax revenue (which is exactly how Reagan handled it - lowering taxes overall while increasing tax revenue) why is it there is an all or nothing attitude on the part of Democrats for higher taxes on the rich? Who is stonewalling here?
What's missing from that Boehner quote is any mention of accepting some revenue increases along with all the cuts, which has been their entire reason for obstructing all along. They want 0 revenue increase and all cuts. Haven't seen that change yet.
 
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
 
208. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 9, 2012, 00:43 Prez
 
John Boehner: "There's a lot of ways you could do this that would allow the Congress to fix our tax code next year, look at real spending cuts and entitlement reforms that would produce what the president's called for — a balanced approach," he said.

No deal, Senate Democrats say. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., outlined an opposing view: Democrats want an agreement to extend the Bush-era cuts on everyone except the top earners, and they want it done in the next 53 days. "Waiting for a month, six weeks, six months, that's not gonna solve the problem. We know what needs to be done," Reid said.

Boehner said his rank-and-file views heading over the cliff as "unacceptable," but he acknowledged there is no clear path forward for compromise. He was optimistic that a deal would be reached between himself, Reid and President Obama."


So I read the above excerpt from a USA Today article, and many others like it and I just don't see any GOP "obstructionism". From how it and other stories like it reads it's Boehner who is looking for compromise and Reid in his usual caustic manner flatly dismissing it.

Harry Reid has gone 4 years without calling for serious budget talks but all of a sudden this is a rush - in the next 53 days or GTFO! What am I missing? If closing loopholes and removing entitlements will get the rich to yield more tax revenue (which is exactly how Reagan handled it - lowering taxes overall while increasing tax revenue) why is it there is an all or nothing attitude on the part of Democrats for higher taxes on the rich? Who is stonewalling here?
 
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
 
207. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 23:27 nin
 
whichever fits their narrative at the time.

Reminds me of http://youtu.be/SVwXA7sHUlE

 
http://store.nin.com/index.php?cPath=10
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
206. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 23:15 Wowbagger_TIP
 
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.
 
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
 
205. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 22:20 Beamer
 
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.

 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
204. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 20:26 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 19:45:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 19:38:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
Wbich double standard are you talking about? Is it the usual liberal one where Christianity is bad, but being gay, Islamic, or racist against white people/playing the race card when confronted with a position they have a hard time debating is awesome?
No, I meant exactly the one I said. The one where it's bad for gays to "throw their life choice in your face", but not bad for religious folks to do the same. Why the double standard?

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
3. No shit sparky, fix the tax code sure, but enough with spending on things we don't need. What we're doing now isn't sustainable.

And it would get fixed if Republicans would get the hell out of the way. Bush put 2 wars, a huge tax cut and a prescription drug plan on the national credit card. Time has come to pay up. We need both cuts and tax increases, which is exactly what the Dems are proposing.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
4. This ties into the first response really, where it's ok to attack Christianity as this big evil thing that's so pushed onto you poor liberals supposedly. Hell I'm not religious at all and it's not hard to see the shit you people whine about. I'm sure you're prolly one of those that hates the Pledge of Allegiance for having the words One nation under God in it too. Oh no so it's offensive! Freak
Why don't you address what I actually said rather than making up some other argument that has nothing to do with what I said? I said they should cut the Viagra and other "lifestyle" stuff for guys too. How the hell does that relate at all to what you said?

Address what you said? You brought up religion in the first place. I never said one word about saying it was ok for religious types to throw anything in anyone's faces and really that doesn't happen much these days anyway. It's almost politically incorrect at this point to believe in God in the US to begin with.

Yep Repubs should just get the hell out of the way of the social utopia. Granted I'm sure when it bankrupts us you'll think differently.

Umm... religion is everywhere, all the time. You apparently just don't notice it. Republicans bitched about the Democrats not having God in their platform. They have to talk about God every time they give a speech. Half their platform is based on religious beliefs, and they don't seem to care that not everyone in this country shares their religion. There's a school here in Texas where the cheerleaders are suing because they want to be able to put a bunch of bible quotes on their banners at football games. So seriously, don't tell me that religious folks don't throw it in our faces.

As for the "social utopia" thing, I said they should get out of the way of implementing cuts + tax increases. Not sure what your issue is with that.
 
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
 
203. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 19:45 RollinThundr
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 19:38:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
Wbich double standard are you talking about? Is it the usual liberal one where Christianity is bad, but being gay, Islamic, or racist against white people/playing the race card when confronted with a position they have a hard time debating is awesome?
No, I meant exactly the one I said. The one where it's bad for gays to "throw their life choice in your face", but not bad for religious folks to do the same. Why the double standard?

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
3. No shit sparky, fix the tax code sure, but enough with spending on things we don't need. What we're doing now isn't sustainable.

And it would get fixed if Republicans would get the hell out of the way. Bush put 2 wars, a huge tax cut and a prescription drug plan on the national credit card. Time has come to pay up. We need both cuts and tax increases, which is exactly what the Dems are proposing.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
4. This ties into the first response really, where it's ok to attack Christianity as this big evil thing that's so pushed onto you poor liberals supposedly. Hell I'm not religious at all and it's not hard to see the shit you people whine about. I'm sure you're prolly one of those that hates the Pledge of Allegiance for having the words One nation under God in it too. Oh no so it's offensive! Freak
Why don't you address what I actually said rather than making up some other argument that has nothing to do with what I said? I said they should cut the Viagra and other "lifestyle" stuff for guys too. How the hell does that relate at all to what you said?

Address what you said? You brought up religion in the first place. I never said one word about saying it was ok for religious types to throw anything in anyone's faces and really that doesn't happen much these days anyway. It's almost politically incorrect at this point to believe in God in the US to begin with.

Yep Repubs should just get the hell out of the way of the social utopia. Granted I'm sure when it bankrupts us you'll think differently.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
202. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 19:38 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
Wbich double standard are you talking about? Is it the usual liberal one where Christianity is bad, but being gay, Islamic, or racist against white people/playing the race card when confronted with a position they have a hard time debating is awesome?
No, I meant exactly the one I said. The one where it's bad for gays to "throw their life choice in your face", but not bad for religious folks to do the same. Why the double standard?

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
3. No shit sparky, fix the tax code sure, but enough with spending on things we don't need. What we're doing now isn't sustainable.

And it would get fixed if Republicans would get the hell out of the way. Bush put 2 wars, a huge tax cut and a prescription drug plan on the national credit card. Time has come to pay up. We need both cuts and tax increases, which is exactly what the Dems are proposing.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
4. This ties into the first response really, where it's ok to attack Christianity as this big evil thing that's so pushed onto you poor liberals supposedly. Hell I'm not religious at all and it's not hard to see the shit you people whine about. I'm sure you're prolly one of those that hates the Pledge of Allegiance for having the words One nation under God in it too. Oh no so it's offensive! Freak
Why don't you address what I actually said rather than making up some other argument that has nothing to do with what I said? I said they should cut the Viagra and other "lifestyle" stuff for guys too. How the hell does that relate at all to what you said?
 
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
 
201. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 19:28 Bhruic
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 18:13:
4. This ties into the first response really, where it's ok to attack Christianity as this big evil thing that's so pushed onto you poor liberals supposedly.

It has nothing to do with Christianity. It's a simple matter - should your employer be in charge of determining what health care you get? If your employer said they don't believe in transplants, should they be able to avoid funding yours? If they don't believe in drug companies, should the be able to force you to have to pay for your own?

It really is that simple, employers shouldn't have any say over what your insurance covers. And that includes objections on a religious basis.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
200. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 18:13 RollinThundr
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 17:02:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 15:03:
Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 13:07:
But I think the only places we likely very much disagree are in that:
1) Abortion is a choice we should not make for people
2) Gays are people, too, and deserve equal rights because why the hell not?
3) Our tax policy has destroyed the middle class and needs to be reversed
4) Women that enjoy sex are not sluts

1.agreed
2. agreed just don't throw your life choice in my face every 5 mins
Why not? Others feel free to throw their religion or other beliefs in our face constantly, everywhere. Why the double standard for gay folks?

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 15:03:
3. along with excessive spending
If you're gonna spend, you gotta tax, but the middle has seen their incomes stagnant for so long you have to admit that that's the wrong place to further tax. The incomes at the top have skyrocketed, but for some reason we cap the amount we tax for them. Maybe they should face the same rate as the rest of us, and maybe we should have actually paid for those wars if we thought they were so damn important.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 15:03:
4. They can enjoy sex all they want, on their own dime, if they're being insured through a religious entity that doesn't condone paying for it, tough luck.
As long as they're going to keep subsidizing Viagra and other non-essential stuff for guys, then they sure as hell better do it for women too.


Wbich double standard are you talking about? Is it the usual liberal one where Christianity is bad, but being gay, Islamic, or racist against white people/playing the race card when confronted with a position they have a hard time debating is awesome?

3. No shit sparky, fix the tax code sure, but enough with spending on things we don't need. What we're doing now isn't sustainable.

4. This ties into the first response really, where it's ok to attack Christianity as this big evil thing that's so pushed onto you poor liberals supposedly. Hell I'm not religious at all and it's not hard to see the shit you people whine about. I'm sure you're prolly one of those that hates the Pledge of Allegiance for having the words One nation under God in it too. Oh no so it's offensive! Freak
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
199. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 17:02 Wowbagger_TIP
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 15:03:
Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 13:07:
But I think the only places we likely very much disagree are in that:
1) Abortion is a choice we should not make for people
2) Gays are people, too, and deserve equal rights because why the hell not?
3) Our tax policy has destroyed the middle class and needs to be reversed
4) Women that enjoy sex are not sluts

1.agreed
2. agreed just don't throw your life choice in my face every 5 mins
Why not? Others feel free to throw their religion or other beliefs in our face constantly, everywhere. Why the double standard for gay folks?

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 15:03:
3. along with excessive spending
If you're gonna spend, you gotta tax, but the middle has seen their incomes stagnant for so long you have to admit that that's the wrong place to further tax. The incomes at the top have skyrocketed, but for some reason we cap the amount we tax for them. Maybe they should face the same rate as the rest of us, and maybe we should have actually paid for those wars if we thought they were so damn important.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 15:03:
4. They can enjoy sex all they want, on their own dime, if they're being insured through a religious entity that doesn't condone paying for it, tough luck.
As long as they're going to keep subsidizing Viagra and other non-essential stuff for guys, then they sure as hell better do it for women too.

 
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
 
198. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 16:28 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 15:03:
Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 13:07:
But I think the only places we likely very much disagree are in that:
1) Abortion is a choice we should not make for people
2) Gays are people, too, and deserve equal rights because why the hell not?
3) Our tax policy has destroyed the middle class and needs to be reversed
4) Women that enjoy sex are not sluts

1.agreed
2. agreed just don't throw your life choice in my face every 5 mins
3. along with excessive spending
4. They can enjoy sex all they want, on their own dime, if they're being insured through a religious entity that doesn't condone paying for it, tough luck.


So now a business owned by Jehovah's Witnesses can provide health insurance that only supports GNC?
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
197. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 8, 2012, 15:03 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 13:07:
But I think the only places we likely very much disagree are in that:
1) Abortion is a choice we should not make for people
2) Gays are people, too, and deserve equal rights because why the hell not?
3) Our tax policy has destroyed the middle class and needs to be reversed
4) Women that enjoy sex are not sluts

1.agreed
2. agreed just don't throw your life choice in my face every 5 mins
3. along with excessive spending
4. They can enjoy sex all they want, on their own dime, if they're being insured through a religious entity that doesn't condone paying for it, tough luck.

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


footer

Blue's News logo