# Open Letter to Conservatives



## jsaras (Apr 1, 2011)

I find your lack of self-awareness to be almost comical. 

You call Palin a wacko because...she's smarter than Joe Biden ever was? The insults about the mental acuity of conservatives began with Barry Goldwater (1000 psychologists declared him mentally defective), then Reagan was the dumbest President ever, then both Bushes were even dumber, then Palin dumber still. Every year conservatives get dumber and dumberer! It's a tired lie that has no basis in reality.

I'm not a huge supporter of Newt Gingrich but he has an formidable intellect. He can beat anyone in a real debate that isn't limited to 60-second soundbite answers.

This is typical of what the left does to all who differ with their opinions and agenda. The right isn't just incorrect. They're BAD people, stupid, bigots, homophobes, xenophobes who should be sent to re-education camps. I'm tired of the character assassination. Unlike the left, I can honestly state that there are GOOD PEOPLE who differ with my views. I understand their views, but I think that they are mistaken and I oppose their agenda and values at the ballot box. However, I don't paint the opposition as bad/evil. 

I currently support B.O.'s war (uh...kinetic military action) in Libya. Despite his Social Democrat indoctrination, he has come to the realization that the values of "the world"/U.N. are inferior to American values. China and Russia are happy to see innocents slaughtered by Kadaffi as long as the oil keeps coming. 

So, yes, let's get back to the left's ideas of civility. The days of "Buck Fush" bumper stickers, the days of suggesting that Bush somehow aimed Hurricane Katrina at black people, the days of Howard Dean stating that Republicans want children to go to bed hungry at night. Yeesh

O.K. Rant over. Let's get back to making the world a better place with some uplifting music.

J


----------



## dedersen (Apr 1, 2011)

As an outsider to American politics, I honestly find it quite scary that politicians such as Palin are taken serious at all. It's a bad omen of where politics is heading, and indeed has been heading for many years now. And the trend is slowly making its way into Danish politics as well. Here, though, the problem seems to have been distributed quite evenly across the entire political spectrum.

Oh, and:


jsaras @ Fri Apr 01 said:


> Despite his Social Democrat indoctrination, he has come to the realization that the values of "the world"/U.N. are inferior to American values]



Are you kidding me?


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 1, 2011)

My Brotha's............No need to bicker.
We are commoners who are suppose to stand on our own 2 feet instead of fighting over the scraps left behind by these false parties.

Word is out. Come to DC and practice your script reading and acting skills. The un disclosed pay is enormous as donors for future campaigns chip in millions to your favorite cause and you keep the Lions share.

Does anyone believe that the first week of " War " actually costs 330,000,000 USD...?
These fleets are already paid and in permanant deployments.
The only difference instead of the daily dummy warheads and bombs being used, real explosives are installed and activated.

This Humanitarian mission was paid for last year by China.
This is how both false parties play the never ending game of stealing our coin, and spending it the way their bosses at the Federal Reserve tell them too.

Really nothing new, except that the middle class who actually work for a living are catching on as the people see Liberals acting more and more like COnservatives.

They cant help it. If they want to get future funding and secret bank accounts offshore they play ball and read their scripts.

Just listen to Chuck Schumers recent script reading. He even says he is told to say what he's reading.......

But I guess its a personal choice or dream to believe that either of these false parties want to serve you.......

After decades of lies I know the game too well.
But I do want to become a Liberal and recieve hand outs and pay from hard working Americans.
I am tired of earning my own money,..............where's my cut...?


----------



## jsaras (Apr 1, 2011)

chimuelo @ Fri Apr 01 said:


> But I guess its a personal choice or dream to believe that either of these false parties want to serve you.......
> 
> After decades of lies I know the game too well.
> But I do want to become a Liberal and recieve hand outs and pay from hard working Americans.
> I am tired of earning my own money,..............where's my cut...?



You're absolutely correct. It's really one party with two faces.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2011)

No, it's two parties that are very, very different from one another - with some notable exceptions in the Democratic party (Lieberman for example) but none on the Republican side.

Everything in that letter is true, but I'd add one unfortunate point: the entire Republican vision for the country is completely grey and bleak. They claim to be the true patriots, but really they want to take the country back 100 years - before every stupid idea they had was tried.

The basic concept is to privatize Social Security and replace Medicare with inadequate vouchers so that we have lots of old people in total squalor, end public education so that we produce generations of tea bagging idiots, shift the tax burden down even lower so that we end up with a society of gated communities, eliminate all sensible business regulation - especially environmental regulation (and denying global warming is central to that), and basically gut all the public things that make our world one in which anyone with a soul wants to live in (the NEA, NPR, and on and on)...anything to make money now without regard for the consequences. And of course all this is sold with lies: we need to cut spending now, the economic crash is because of overpaid welfare queen school janitors and unions, the problem with the economy is uncertainty, anything not "free market" is totalitarianism, and so on.

I'm exaggerating, you say? Listen to the $(!!!s at the very top of the party any day of the week - Boner, McConnell...never mind the rest of the freaks! And by the way Gingrich is the most dangerous of all of them, because he talks like a freak but is actually a werewolf monster.

jsaras, you're crying about being victimized: "The right isn't just incorrect. They're BAD people, stupid, bigots, homophobes, xenophobes who should be sent to re-education camps. I'm tired of the character assassination."

Well, it's not assassination - their character really is dead. And the rest of that is totally true, or I should say that's how they behave - they actually know better but are disgusting greedy pigs, so rather than re-education camps I'd say we need to take all the money out of political campaigns and end the revolving door between government agencies and the industries they're supposed to be regulating. Then maybe rational politicians would have a chance.

So while I basically agree with that letter - that principled conservatives have been forced out - the current freak show is nothing new. My main man Robert Reich had a column recently...hang on, I'll link it and let him say it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2011)

http://robertreich.org/post/3243257446


Quiz: Which of the 2012 presidential aspirants delivered the following words at the Conservative Political Action Convention, now underway in Washington?

We have seen tax-and-tax spend-and-spend reach a fantastic total greater than in all the previous 170 years of our Republic.

Behind this plush curtain of tax and spend, three sinister spooks or ghosts are mixing poison for the American people. They are the shades of Mussolini, with his bureaucratic fascism; of Karl Marx, and his socialism; and of Lord Keynes, with his perpetual government spending, deficits, and inflation. And we added a new ideology of our own. That is government give-away programs….

If you want to see pure socialism mixed with give-away programs, take a look at socialized medicine.

If you guessed Jim DeMint, you could be forgiven. He talks a lot like this. But you’d be wrong. Newt Gingrich didn’t utter these precise words, either, although he uses much the same language and offers the same themes.

You’d also be wrong if you guessed Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Haley Barbour, John Thune, Mitt Romney, or Mitch Daniels. (Sarah Palin isn’t attending.)

But again, your mistake would be understandable because these words sound a lot like theirs. Any of them could have delivered this message – and all of them have, over and over again. It’s the Republican message of 2011.

The perfectly correct answer is Herbert Hoover.

Herbert Hoover didn’t deliver these words at this week’s Conservative Political Action Convention, though. He delivered them at the Republican National Convention in Chicago on July 8, 1952.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Apr 1, 2011)

Conservatives aren't bad people. They're just selfish.

They don't want to be taxed. They want to be able to pollute without consequences. They don't want anybody who is not like them to enter the country. They want to force women to bring pregnancies to term, but won't pay a dime for medical support of mother or child. People accused of crimes get three-strikes if not the death penalty. Anybody outside of our borders can be bombed and tortured. Drill baby, drill.

It's not evil or bad. It's just selfish.

And shamefully so.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 1, 2011)

Lets see now..............
So if Michele Bachmans daughter got pregnant by a Rap Artist of black descent, she would force her child to full term.......?
I dont think so.

This is just the way to get those who dream of her " vision " of America to vote for her and send her more money.
She's not a conservative she just wants your money, and if that means representing your " dream or vision " she will pose and read her scripts...

She has legislated for the same subsidies she collects from the taxpayers money as she helped other wealthier consituents benefit from. That is a Liberal program, so who's fooling who...?

You can donate or vote for whatever poser you think might represent you, but at the end of the day, they are all in a hurry to shake down whoever they need to set themselves up later in life for a noble retirement...

There are literally hundreds of examples of the fortunate ones serving themselves as they pretend to serve us.
One week Obama worshippers are Liberals, then they invade foriegn nations as the Bush boys did, and this hypocracy has no end.

The World Banks and the Federal Reserve have its officers and members for decades, not for a quick 4 or 6 year stint.
Watch these guys, and you will see your chosen party is meaningless, and while it might reflect your beliefs, these temporary occupants prove over and over they do as they are told.

On the other hand Michele Bachmans daughters child could be the future Obama, so I think nothing is wrong with the pregnancy coming to full term, but I can assure you, she would pay out of the Campaign funds to prevent this.
After all, John Edwards will get away with it, so why not her...??

The elite are above the law, and for reading their scripts they are handsomely rewarded.........


----------



## midphase (Apr 1, 2011)

jsaras @ Fri Apr 01 said:


> I find your lack of self-awareness to be almost comical.
> 
> You call Palin a wacko because...she's smarter than Joe Biden ever was?
> J



J.

To call Palin anything other than a wacko (regardless of your political views) would show either a severe lack of information on one's part, or complete denial about the nonsense that she's been spewing forth since McCain put her on the map.

This has got nothing to do with intelligence level, and everything to do with how that intelligence is put to use.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 1, 2011)

The above reply is a perfect example of the elites plan in execution.

If the peasants are fighting amongst themselves over the scraps left by the ruling class, they won't notice the truth and theft of the treasury, which cannot be audited even though it is owned by the peasants.... brilliant...

God Bless The USA.......... o-[][]-o


----------



## midphase (Apr 1, 2011)

Chimuelo,

I am genuinely interested in what you have to say...except that every time you post something I'm left scratching my head unsure as to what your posts actually mean.

From what I can gather, you hold a pretty stringent view that everyone at the top political spectrum are in the pockets of the wealthy and sustain agendas designed exclusively for the benefit of the corporate ruling class. 

I don't hold such a cynical view of our political system, rather it appears to me that the rational voices (some would call them moderates from either party) tend to be largely ignored by both media and public...while the most outrageous and divisive voices are not only given prime attention, but also allowed to represent the entire political spectrum.

In essence, what I am hoping for is that some of the masses who seem so easily persuaded by the loud voices of insanity (primarily the Fox usual suspects and some of the most blatant Tea Party liars), will at some point figure out that they're being manipulated and will do some research to obtain the actual facts (imagine that!).

While distorting the truth has never been the exclusive practice of any one of the parties, I don't think you have to be an extreme liberal to realize that in recent years, the delivery of misinformation (and hateful rhetoric) has been heavily tilted towards the right.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 1, 2011)

@ JohnFairhurst: I agree with your observation that taxation is a moral issue. As a matter of principle, I believe that I am the rightful owner of the money I earn and I have no right to expect someone else to give me their hard earned money. If you don't work, you shouldn't eat (that's in the Bible for those who are recent college graduates).

Further, I believe that when the government forcibly takes away more than half of what you legitimately earn, that is the very definition of slavery. If that isn't the definition of slavery, what percentage would you say is too much to take from an individual? 

It's especially terrible that the bulk of the money goes to 22 million government workers all of whom make MORE money than comparable workers in the private sector and they have guaranteed lifetime pension earnings (not subject to the swings of market) and gold-plated medical benefits. Combine that with the union thugs who give money to the Democratic party who always promise the unions more goodies and you have the Webster definition of "corruption".

I challenge you to find a mainstream elected Republican representative (someone who has actual power to implement their words) who has advocated forcing women to take pregnancies to term. That's a ò $   5T $   5Y $   5YI $   5Z $   5Z> $   5b $   5bN $   5t  $   5t- $   5 Ï $   5 ÿ $   5¼ $   5¼, $   5ÐC $   5Ð‹ $   5éY $   5éË $   6#Œ $   6#± $   6#Â $   6#ô $   6&œ $   6&¡ $   6·$ $   6·j $   6Ê $   6Ê7 $   7$˜ $   7$Ä $   7,¤ $   7-: $   7¬ $   7¬f $   7¬Ÿ $   7¬ë $   7É $   7Éc $   7ý¶ $   7ý× $   8 $   8# $   8Ë $   8Ô $   8# $   81 $   8MÙ $   8Mê $   8Nt $   8N| $   8ÄD $   8Ä» $   8ü $   8ü« $   9 $   9# $   9;  $   9;x $   9]þ $   9_ $   9…Q $   9… $   9¨M $   9¨ÿ $   9ðH $   9ð¯ $   :r£ $   :s  $   :Ø¶ $   :ØÛ $   :Ù $   :ÙF $   :Þÿ $   :ßW $   :åE $   :åÃ $   :çc $   :è¬ $   :é? $   :ëÿ $   :ìx $   ;Hä $   ;I¦ $   ;S{ $   ;S• $   ;|Œ $   ;|Ì $   ;£	 $   ;£ $   ;£† $   ;£É $   ;¼G $   ;¼‘ $   ;¿` $   ;¿g $   ;äm $   ;ä $   <ˆ $   <- $   <%½ $   <&q $   <Y8 $   <Y‰ $   <~ $   <~E $   <–Ž $   <–£ $   <Ÿb $   <Ÿª $   <ó\ $   <ô$ $   =ã $   =              ò $   =‰ $   =Q $   =‘ $   =r $   =Ä $   ='5 $   ='q $   =(ç $   =) $   =,¨ $   =,¸ $   =/d $   =/„ $   =¤í $   =¥£ $   =º $   =ºâ $   =¼q $   =¼¨ $   =½* $   =½Q $   =¾¦ $   =¾ø $   =À $   =À3 $   =Ý $   =Ýc $   >#? $   >#j $   >// $   >/? $   >A| $   >A— $   >Hý $   >I $   >¢° $   >¢Å $   >¤U $   >¤  $   >³Ë $   >³ý $   >¶ $   >¶= $   >·N $   >·’ $   >æ  $   >æ} $   >êÇ $   >ëG $   ? $   ?æ $   ?
 $   ?
ä $   ?& $   ?I§ $   ?I´ $   ?Á? $   ?Áb $   ?Âa $   ?Â† $   ?òH $   ?ò] $   ?ÿf $   ?ÿ{ $   @! $   @V $   @Lu $   @L— $   @\Ê $   @]Í $   @¶ $   @ŽM $   A?l $   A?— $   AU¥ $   AUÉ $   AWC $   AWY $   A·© $   A·ø $   B¹ $   Bê $   B; $   B;ç $   Bc $   B‚K $   BÕÄ $   BÖ‚ $   CQ $   C‹ $   C&ˆ $   C&ã $   C?. $   C?_ $   CU… $   CVL $   C®B $   C®‘ $   C¾w $   C¾‹ $   DˆÛ $   D‰ $   D‰R $   D‰© $   DÊM $   DÊm $   E"À $   E"Ê $   EŠ« $   EŠÈ $   E¤" $   E¤              ò $   E¦— $   F=A $   F=q $   Fd  $   Fda $   Fes $   Fe{ $   F©» $   F©î $   Fª+ $   Fª‘ $   Føe $   Føv $   G$I $   G$o $   G' $   G'A $   Gj~ $   GjÐ $   Gp2 $   Gpd $   Gq  $   GqW $   GrY $   GrÑ $   GôW $   Gôr $   H–k $   H–Û $   H¡" $   H¡À $   HÅÕ $   HÅí $   HÆX $   HÆ $   HÉ  $   HÉ× $   HÖP $   HÖ— $   I{ $   I¹ $   I9 $   I9% $   I®ÿ $   I¯_ $   Iñ $   Iñ) $   J]  $   J] $   J‘[ $   J‘ $   J•Ü $   J– $   K p $   K_ $   Kò $   Ká $   KjH $   Kj¥ $   Kk« $   Kkë $   K¸# $   K¸Æ $   Kôñ $   KõŒ $   L› $   L›Ý $   Mî< $   Mî© $   N-U $   N-` $   N†Ž $   N†Å $   Oae $   Oa $   P®é $   P¯ $   PØ± $   PÙT $   Pë $   Pë $   Pðà $   Pñž $   Pû $   Pûc $   Pýd $   PýÊ $   Q è $   QO $   Q$j $   Q$¾ $   Q,Ã $   Q,Ú $   QIƒ $   QIú $   QÞÚ $   QÞß $   R„ $   R” $   Rh $   RŠ $   R ¥ $   R Õ $   R¤P $   R¤| $   R§O $   R§w $   S<s $   S<“ $   S=G $   S=h $   SHD              ò $   SiP $   Si† $   Sšd $   Sš~ $   T”Ÿ $   T• $   T›• $   T›ö $   T $   Tž $   Tüï $   Týa $   Ua¢ $   Uaù $   U­4 $   U­« $   V2 $   V2: $   W= $   W=k $   W?¾ $   [email protected] $   WB $   WBb $   Wr½ $   Wrå $   W¤‘ $   W¤À $   W¨C $   W¨q $   W¨ï $   W©! $   Wª $   WªF $   WÂ  $   WÂÓ $   WÃ” $   WÃ¯ $   WÌâ $   WÍ# $   WÝ $   WÝ‘ $   XÆ $   X	 $   X"ª $


----------



## jsaras (Apr 1, 2011)

@ midphase: I challenge you to give me examples of the 'hateful rhetoric' propagated by an elite mainstream conservative politician or commentator. 

I'll give you some examples of left-wing hate. NPR producer Sarah Spitz publicly wished that she could watch Rush Limbaugh would have a heart-attack and die
: http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2010/07 ... own-words/

Howard Dean, former Democratic Party chairman, “In contradistinction to the Republicans, Democrats don’t believe kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

U.S Representative Alan Grayson (D., Fla.), said, “I want to say a few words about what it means to be a Democrat. It’s very simple: We have a conscience.”

How about accusing Sarah Palin as having ANYTHING to do with the tragic shooting of Gabrielle Giffords? Turns out that the shooter was a mentally unstable leftist. Ooops. 

Has any spokesman of the Republican party ever said anything similar about Democrats’ not caring about the suffering of children or not having a conscience? There's simply no comparison between the hate coming from the left.

I'd like to offer you another challenge to your self-awareness. Can you please name some politicians whom you would consider to be left-wing extremists? If there's a right-wing extreme it seems logical that there would be a corresponding existence of a left-wing extreme.


----------



## midphase (Apr 1, 2011)

J,

Where are you pulling your "facts" from?

People like you scare the shit out of me because you truly believe what you're saying...thankfully you live in a state where you're easily outnumbered by more rational voters.

Just to address a couple of points you made:

"As a matter of principle, I believe that I am the rightful owner of the money I earn and I have no right to expect someone else to give me their hard earned money. If you don't work, you shouldn't eat (that's in the Bible for those who are recent college graduates). "

Wow...aside from your bizarre interpretations of the Bible (I take it you're completely ignoring anything that a certain Jesus person said in it), I would assume then that "on principle" you'd be fine giving up such unnecessary luxuries as roads, schools, food safety inspections, libraries, traffic controls, police, firefighters, rescue workers, the armed forces, social security, and a countless number of tax-funded non-sense spending that you rely upon on a daily basis.

http://www.fbbc.com/messages/kohl_polit ... xation.htm

"It's especially terrible that the bulk of the money goes to 22 million government workers all of whom make MORE money than comparable workers in the private sector and they have guaranteed lifetime pension earnings (not subject to the swings of market) and gold-plated medical benefits. "

Yes, we all know that Government workers are swimming in cash. Not sure how many teachers, firemen, police officers or office clerks you know...but I know quite a lot...and I'm always finding myself driving by their huge mansions in frustration.....why oh why can't the private sector pay its members better? 

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/are-government-employees-overpaid-still-no/ (http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/11/ ... -still-no/)

Which leads me to...

"Combine that with the union thugs who give money to the Democratic party who always promise the unions more goodies and you have the Webster definition of "corruption". "

There's the answer!!! It must be because those pesky Unions only ask for minimal standards...if they could only ramp up their game then all lowly factory workers would make the same big bucks as the company's (non-unionized) top earners....gee why didn't I think of that?

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/02/efca_factsheets.html (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/i ... heets.html)

"I challenge you to find a mainstream elected Republican representative (someone who has actual power to implement their words) who has advocated forcing women to take pregnancies to term. "

A certain Rick Santorum comes to mind, thankfully him and other politicians who do get quite a bit of press are considered "wackos" even by their own constituents and despite their bizarre political goals they're being kept in check by the wee bit of sanity that still lingers in the Republican party.

http://my.firedoglake.com/somethingthedogsaid/2011/02/05/water-cooler-oy-rick-santorum-brings-the-dumb/ (http://my.firedoglake.com/somethingthed ... -the-dumb/)

"The death penalty can also deter some murders. Everyone acknowledges that punishments can deter all other crimes -- why wouldn't capital punishment deter some murders? Is murder the only crime unaffected by punishment? "

Time and time again statistics from countries who do not implement a death penalty have shown that capital punishment is a lousy deterrent for serious crimes.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-a ... th-penalty


Ok, that's all I have time for right now...I seriously gotta get back to my work...I might continue this later.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 1, 2011)

Our government is based on maintaining the status quo, just like the UN.
Even the newly elected " Tea Party " folks were met by lobbyists who explained the rules upon day one.
Do you see the game already being formed up....?

This cannot be changed until money no longer has value and humans have evolved as a society.
So why fight each other and fall into the centuries old shell games, and divide and conquer schemes.

Just be glad you can prosper enough to take care of your loved ones and maybe health care costs will eventually come down as the industry can be run by medical professionals instead of politicians and lawyers.
When you break your leg do you send a politician a payment..........?
You bet you do, and the insurance companies, and the lawyers, and many other legal leeches that plague our system since they pruchased the legislation to allow it...

So then you can watch the cable news shows that say the middle class should be angry as they pay the whole time and its the poor minorties fault for recieving astromically free service at the emergency room...........

I could follow that propoganda, but I look at the ball being kicked back and forth by the ruling class that created this shell game.

You and I should never fight or be bitter towards each other as we are all in this together.
But to believe you are somehow being represented by a person you never met who is wealthy and going to DC to save me from thousands of other greedy money driven corrupt bastards is just asking me to buy a dead fish.

I can catch my own ankyuvarymush..............


----------



## midphase (Apr 1, 2011)

"But to believe you are somehow being represented by a person you never met who is wealthy and going to DC to save me from thousands of other greedy money driven corrupt bastards is just asking me to buy a dead fish."

Sorry but I respectfully disagree. I refuse to allow myself to become so cynical and disenfranchised with the government as to believe that all politicians are like that. I strongly believe that there are those who do care, those who are fighting tooth and nail for small benefits to those in more need, those who hold out and refuse to be coerced into the corruption that is lobby-ism. I do think that there are not enough of these types of politician out there, but I do believe the ones who are in the trenches right now belong to both parties.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 1, 2011)

jsaras @ Fri Apr 01 said:


> @ midphase: I challenge you to give me examples of the 'hateful rhetoric' propagated by an elite mainstream conservative politician or commentator.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_FAJUFutyw

So if you don't think that the right at it's core is filled with hate, then there's no hope for you. You're just as bad as Palin, Beck, Limbaugh and the rest of those assholes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2011)

> If the peasants are fighting amongst themselves over the scraps left by the ruling class, they won't notice the truth and theft of the treasury, which cannot be audited even though it is owned by the peasants.... brilliant...



That is the Republican plan, not the Democratic one.

But you have it wrong. The strategy is to get unionized, non-union, public, and private workers fighting among themselves as a distraction from blaming the real villains.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 1, 2011)

> t's especially terrible that the bulk of the money goes to 22 million government workers all of whom make MORE money than comparable workers in the private sector



Demonstrably false.

http://epi.3cdn.net/8808ae41b085032c0b_8um6bh5ty.pdf


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 1, 2011)

I am a retired Union Concrete worker who starts collecting a pension in 4 weeks.
So I agree that unionization represents the people more than a politician. 
I actually enjoyed watching the elites come to our Union Hall selling laws to us, and " roll up thier sleeves " for a few photos, even if they can't hold an empty shovel more than 20 or 30 seconds

I am set for life, with no fear of the Ponzi scheme promised to me by the Feds.
Fair enough for us Union guys since we bought the politicians that helped us become exempt from the plan that the serfs and peasants will be getting.

I would love to see Joe Biden or Al Gore get off of their plane for a medical exam at Walter Reed.........They wouldn't be caught dead there unless that too was a photo op.
I can just see Al Gores' personal assistant come and wipe his hands for him after shaking hands with a wounded soldier.

Lets unionize the military so our brave leaders in both of these " parties " actually make the World Bank, OPEC and other various KIngs we protect pay Union wages.....
Why stop with the public school teachers, especially since the dropout rate gets higher every year.

Even better lets have Harry Reid or another limosuine Liberal or wealthy GOP leader put their children in a public school............that's absurd........having such elites forced to learn history alongside of peasants...

I guess at the end of the day the elites really do believe in the private sector, but cant show their true colors.
But you better believe they think public schools are great for us, just not for them......

Screw all of these mooches.
Lets unionize the taxpayers.
I would love to go on strike by not paying taxes, 200 million of us.
I bet you the elites would really freak out as they would have no more money to " spend. "

I shall now start the Taxpayers Union Local 69, AFL-CIO.


----------



## midphase (Apr 1, 2011)

"Screw all of these mooches. 
Lets unionize the taxpayers. 
I would love to go on strike by not paying taxes, 200 million of us. 
I bet you the elites would really freak out as they would have no more money to " spend. " "


By your own rationale it wouldn't really make any difference since the corporations would still make a bundle off of the population.

How about we all keep paying taxes...and buy less crap?


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 2, 2011)

That's exactly why I bought LASS and Kontakt 4.2.2.
I dont need an SSD RAID Array, or a 12 core MacPro or even a dongle.

I am downsizing so I can walk to the corner and take a Bus that burns Natural Gas driven by a Union Bus driver. I wont get any more speeding tickets from the Union Police officers, and can avoid paying the Union Valet workers a tip. The Union restroom attendants already get a buck everytime I have to piss during a break from drinking too much water under those 1000 watt lamps in the Union showroom, but a larger tip will probably keep the Union Lighting director happy as I beg for an Earth saving single one bulb special to help save the Planet.
The thought of me having a representative in Congress having to take a public train operated by Union Train drivers doesn't seem right, they need to help keep the private sector employed by having Private Jets and then when they gather in Acupulco to decide what to do with the rest of us at one of those lavish save the Planet gatherings, my extra steps of real conservatism might allow them to continue the higher energy consumption levels that are required by the elites.

Why be represented by a fellow peasant who has relied on Unions to guarantee his wages from a lack of a decent Union education.
I feel so much better being represented by an elite who eats at the White House where Union musicians perform.
We really should get the Secret Service Unionized though. 
The CIA could probably use some organizing too.

I wonder if the waterboarding seminars have Union torturist instructors yet...?
Depends if the Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay is a Union shop.
But that doesn't seem fair since Cuba is a communist bastion where equal pay has been the norm for 50 years. I still cant understand why Castro even allows us there.
We couldn't invade them during the Bay Of Pigs invasion, but what a sport he was.
We get our own private torturing facility run by the elites.
Obama is still waiting for permission from Castro to close down the prison.
Pretty sad when the leader of the free world cant shut down his own facilities.
Maybe we can ask the Chinese to send over a Union arbitration specialist.
Afterall, they are lending us the money to kill Libyans in the name of human rights.

God Bless The USA...............


----------



## jsaras (Apr 2, 2011)

Hi Midphase,

I'm sorry that I " scare you". That's probably because you live in a liberal bubble and don't actually know or associate with any conservatives. Just a guess. 

You are correct in pointing out that the Bible does say we should pay taxes. The link you provided also correctly indicates that Biblical law is consistent with a flat/fair tax system. God is O.K. with 10% of my income (which I donate to church and charities, pre-tax,) and I think that "Ceasar's" limit should be about 20% (twice as much as the Almighty). That would leave me with 70% of my earnings to take care of my own business. If this were implemented I guarantee that tax revenues would go up dramatically.

The report that you posted on the pay of public employees is demonstrably false. They are paid an average of 9-30% more than private sector workers: http://laborpains.org/2011/03/24/the-ec ... pensation/ Even if the study you cited is correct, public workers should be paid less. That's why they call it "public service".

For some reason, the left is vapor-locked in the past. It's still the 1950's when it comes to racial and gender issues and it's still 1911 when it comes to labor issues. 

Just for the record, the year is 2011 and there isn't a single union worker who works in conditions that remotely resemble a sweat shop. Unions have killed the American auto industry and PUBLIC employee unions are bankrupting many states. The reality is no matter what the pay rate is for any PUBLIC union worker, they always will want more. If a school teacher makes $60k/year, will they suddenly start teaching better if they make $65k/year? Of course not. We'll still get the same drop out a illiteracy rates.

The link you provided about Rick Santorum said nothing about forcing women to take pregnancies to term. Even the National Right To Life Coalition has never advocated this. As to what the story said about Santorum, I'll concede that he's not well spoken, but his general point is correct. The legislative branch should create law and we should not life under a system of judicial fiat. In any event, I'm not sure about the context of his comments are. Possibly this? :https://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-yakima/anti-catholic-resolution-upheld-by-9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-petition-filed In any event, the 9th Circuit is well known for its wacky decisions being overturned.

As for the death penalty, the website you linked to is problematic. When it cites a "study" of the "empirical observations" of criminologists you know you're in for a load of _rap. I'll stick with the wisdom of Moses and the Bible. The death penalty for murderers is the only law that is reiterated in all five books of the Torah. Even children, who have a strong innate sense of what's fair, sleep better at night when they know that the bad guys are dead. Let me ask you plainly; does anyone in your estimation deserve the death penalty?


----------



## jsaras (Apr 2, 2011)

@ joseherring: The link you post is indeed a "herring". How ironic  

This is taken from Wikipedia, "The magical Negro is an archetype which was first applied to presidential candidate Obama by movie and culture critic, David Ehrenstein, in a Los Angeles Times op ed column of March 19, 2007. According to Ehrenstein, the magical Negro is a non threatening black hero in the popular media, usually the cinema, who was invented to ease feelings of white guilt over slavery and racial injustice. He is noble and devoid of sexual motives, and appears suddenly, out of nowhere, to magically solve the problems of white people.

Ehrenstein opined that "Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two books, or even what he's actually said". Rather, Obama was a popular contender for the presidency because whites were projecting their "fantasies of curative black benevolence" on him."

If a Jewish liberal journalist (David Ehrenstein focuses primarily on issues of homosexuality in cinema, so it's a safe bet that he's liberal) says that Barack Obama is a 'magical Negro" it's NOT hate speech, but if Rush Limbaugh does a parody of Ehrenstein, it is hate speech? I'm trying very hard to understand this. I guess this is similar to how African-Americans can use the "N-word" with impunity, but if someone of a different race says it, it's time for the re-education camp? I would consider explaining humor, but the left is utterly devoid of it.

I haven't listened to Limbaugh for many years, but he is not a racist. I find him boring but he is a complete gentleman. Your hatred of him just reveals the hate within you. You call him an "asshole" for no valid reason other than he differs from your political view. So much for "tolerance" from the left. 

Peace and truth,
J


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2011)

I call him an asshole because he is an asshole. That's what he does for a living: get people mad so they listen to his entertainment program.

But he and his ilk have done the country a big disservice. Basically rational Republicans - the last one we had was Bush 1 - have no chance these days. And that's what Kays' post is about.

What's more, you're wrong that liberals like me "hate" Republicans just because they disagree with us. I have no problem with opinions that are different from mine; it's when villains and fools are dangerously wrong, as the Republican party is about every single issue, that I refuse to suffer them gladly.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2011)

Meanwhile that link just spiked the hateful bullshit you're spewing at public employees several feet into the ground, leaving a crater.

Why has that had no effect on your hateful outlook? After all, yower kahnd hates liberals just because we refuse to accept your lies. And of course you play the stop playing the stop playing the race card card all the time whenever we prove you wrong.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 2, 2011)

Hi Nick,

So anyone who believes that public employees should take a pay cut, as have the vast majority of Americans have in this economy, and pay for a portion of their own health care and retirement (which many have lost) is filled with "hate"? If so, then go ahead and label me a hater. I'm not afraid of you playing the "hate card".

ALL Republican positions are wrong (I'm not Republican, BTW) and therefore all Democrat positions must be correct? I thought that "dissent is patriotic". I guess that only applies to liberal dissent. And liberals have the gall to say that conservatives can only see life in terms of "black and white".

I find your accusation of me playing the race card to be utterly amusing. Firstly, I know that it's a lie and that kind of B.S. intimidation doesn't work anymore. At least you tried the race card "in reverse" on a conservative. I'll give you points for originality. I interjected the observation about the "N-word" into the discussion because of the false accusation of racism against Rush Limbaugh...which IS a genuine case of playing the race card!!!!! But that's OK by you because it's directed against someone that you hate. When you view your opponent as an evil villain, I guess it OK to use whatever means necessary to accomplish your objectives. The ends justify the means. I pointed that the accusation is a load of poop and then I'm playing the race card? OK, whatever. 

It is liberals who view the world through the lenses of race, gender and class, not conservatives. Back in the 60's, if you said "I don't care about the color of your skin, I only care about your character" you were a liberal. If you say that today, you are a conservative. 

For the record, neither you, nor anyone else has proven me wrong. I provided three examples of genuine hate speech from liberals, in their correct context. No one has yet said that I made that stuff up, took it out of context, or said, "you're right, that was outta line". I disproved the racist accusation against Rush (I don't care about him, but I care about truth) and I have proved that there is no conservative plot to make women carry pregnancies to term. 

Although I don't appreciate your name calling, I recognize that it may be a reaction to some of my sarcasm. I try very hard to resist, but at times it's nearly impossible. My goal isn't to create enemies. However, I do think it's important that all sides understand each other and where we differ. As Dennis Prager often says, "Clarity over agreement". 

Sincerely,
J


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 2, 2011)

jsaras, I'm half kidding - just feeding the same "hate" stuff back to you to show how silly it is.

- No, of course not all Democratic positions are right. That reversal is faulty logic, just like the big one that since Republicans profess to hate "big government," liberals want it no matter what.

- I have a thorough dislike for Dennis Prager, first of all. And I understand all the conservative positions very well; the reason I have no respect for them is that they are foolish, greedy, stupid, ignorant, insane (in Einstein's sense that they have been proven wrong by history), reckless, based on lies, based on base emotions (the worst in people), based on a soulless vision for the world...one or more of those.

- But I am serious that all radical conservative (i.e. 2011 Republican) positions are wrong. Strict libertarian positions are mostly wrong too, although I do agree with Ron Paul's comments about blowback during the campaign - at least from a different angle.

- The unions in WI did offer concessions. What's at issue is the big lie that it's because of their kind that our states are broke, when that's not it at all. We had an economic collapse and revenues are down.


----------



## Ed (Apr 2, 2011)

jsaras @ Fri Apr 01 said:


> Further, I believe that when the government forcibly takes away more than half of what you legitimately earn, that is the very definition of slavery. If that isn't the definition of slavery, what percentage would you say is too much to take from an individual? .



I don't live in the US, but what tax bracket are you in where the government taxes you "more than half" of what you earn? 

Over here in the UK the highest tax rate is 50% and thats only for earnings over £150,000 http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm 

I can't see how you would ever pay more than half of what you earn through tax. Does the US have a higher tax bracket? Roughly how much do you earn? Are you THAT rich?



> that is the very definition of slavery.



I think this is insulting to actual slaves. Kind of like how people tend to use the word rape in similar situations. 




> The number of strikes has no bearing in death penalty cases. the death penalty is the result of a legal proceeding for a specific crime, premeditated murders. IMO, It is a cosmic injustice to allow a murderer to keep his life. Killing murderers is society's only way to teach how terrible murder is. The only real way a society can express its revulsion at any criminal behavior is through the punishment it gives out. If murderers all got 10 years in prison and thieves all got 20 years in prison, that would be society's way of saying that thievery is worse than murder. A society that kills murderers is saying that murder is more heinous a crime than a society that keeps all its murderers alive.



Good lord...

I agree that the prison system is messed up, but I have to ask if you care about people who have been unfairly convicted. If we put to death every single murderer this would mean a lot more innocent people are being executed by mistake. You okay with that?

Now, what should happen is that we should be finding out why people commit crimes and see if we can rehabilitate them or at least study them to find out how to prevent crimes in the future. The problem is that revenge is the reason we stick a bunch of criminals in a crowded place and then wonder why they re-offend or progress to worse crimes later on. Revenge however makes little scientific sense, but I can't see away around it because people will always wan't criminals to suffer.



> . Everyone acknowledges that punishments can deter all other crimes



And yet we still have muggings, robberies, car jackings, rapes and arson etc.



> All the talk of solar panels and windmills taking care of our energy needs are pure fantasy



Hey did you know that they can make a car that runs entirely on hydrogen and only emits water vapour? Probably science fiction.

I do wonder where exactly you think we can go with oil. Its a game we can't win. Forget about Global Warming, oil itself is *going *to run out at some point. 



> I challenge you to give me examples of the 'hateful rhetoric' propagated by an elite mainstream conservative politician or commentator.



Are you someone that defends Glenn Beck by any chance?



> I'll stick with the wisdom of Moses and the Bible.



Are you freakin serious?

Do you really want to play lets quote the laws of the Old Testament? The game is, out of all of them which 10 are the most crazy. Its a hard game since there's some of the most ridiculously insane cruel and bizzare things there its hard to know which to pick.


----------



## midphase (Apr 2, 2011)

jsaras @ Sat Apr 02 said:


> Hi Midphase,
> 
> I'm sorry that I " scare you". That's probably because you live in a liberal bubble and don't actually know or associate with any conservatives. Just a guess.



No....actually what scares me is your ignorance coupled with your ability to vote. Thankfully as long as you live in California, you are significantly outnumbered by more rational and informed voters.

BTW, rejecting my sources just because you disapprove of what they say doesn't in any way, shape or form demonstrate that your points are valid.


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 3, 2011)

Ed @ Sat Apr 02 said:


> Over here in the UK the highest tax rate is 50% and thats only for earnings over £150,000 http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm



no one in their right mind is going to pay that though. with good accounting you would never pay that. remember, in the uk cgt is 18% at the moment.


----------



## robh (Apr 3, 2011)

Ed @ Sat Apr 02 said:


> jsaras @ Fri Apr 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Further, I believe that when the government forcibly takes away more than half of what you legitimately earn, that is the very definition of slavery. If that isn't the definition of slavery, what percentage would you say is too much to take from an individual? .
> ...



I'm not sure if this applies anywhere else, but here in Canada, there is a coined phrase called "Tax Freedom Day," which is the day in the year the average family is freed from working just to cover the various taxes they encounter (income, property, sales taxes, fuel taxes, etc.). It usually occurs sometime in June. You can read a bit about it here: http://money.canoe.ca/money/mymoney/canada/tax/archives/2010/06/20100604-111316.html
"The average Canadian family (with two or more individuals) will earn $92,754 this year and pay $39,141 in taxes, representing more than 42% of their income." So although it's not "more than half", I think that's the gist of what jsaras is saying.

Rob


----------



## jsaras (Apr 3, 2011)

midphase @ Sat Apr 02 said:


> jsaras @ Sat Apr 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully as long as you live in California, you are significantly outnumbered by more rational and informed voters.
> ...


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 3, 2011)

I think of Bell, California everytime I ask myself where California should concentrate it's budget trimming. This is only one example where the citizens finally got fed up with the political process. Sacramento is a giant feedbag for the Liberals who " serve " the public so well.
It's sad that the GOP has decided to use teachers as an example, as they are innocent pawns in a sick game where Liberal politicians and Union thugs insulate themselves from the accountability.
California has Pelosi and Boxer bringing home the bacon and undisclosed bailouts for all of their favorite fat cats, just like Obama has his CEO over at GE.
Whitman spent 80 million USD and lost her campaign.
These expenses are exactly what corrupts the process. Payback, even if it was a candidates own money must be recuperated at some point, and that's where we are these days.
DC Liberals spent the first year and a half returning favors to the AFL-CIO by handing Congress Andy Sterns Health Care bill, which was written a decade ago and quickly thrown together and forced on us.
What a waste of time as now the repeal proces will surely pass.
The simple fact that this was tried during the worst economic crisis in 50 years reeks of corruption and surely now its obvious why this was even brought to the table.

Real politicians would address the corrupted failed parts of the plan and amend it.
But the boys who really run the show in DC needed a distraction while trillions go to banks that aren't even American owned, to continue their sick paranoid resource hording wars.
Face the facts guys, we no longer own our capital, so clean these parasites out of your local communities as the citizens of Bell did, and just pray in 15 years our kids have a chance at a decent life.
Washington is gone, the power belongs to a group of Kings and rulers who place our soldiers wherever they want.
Just ask yourself why in the Hell we are at war in Libya..............??
If this isn't the proof you need, just try and make sense out the blatherings and confusion when an elite member is asked why are we there.....

Very Sad to see our soverignty and soldiers pimped out like this.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 3, 2011)

Interesting article. Not the Donald Trump birther crap. But, what Bill O'Reily says about the roll of him and Glen Beck at the end of the article.

Check it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/0 ... 44102.html

Here's a quote if you don't want to read the whole thing:

Beck: "The last thing the country needs is a showboat...I would hope we could get serious candidates who could shake things up by not saying provocative things, just by stating the truth of what's going on."

O'Riely: "But then you and I would be off the air," O'Reilly said. "Because we're provocateurs. We do that every day."


----------



## jsaras (Apr 3, 2011)

Chimuelo,

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with you 100%!


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 3, 2011)

jsaras @ Sat Apr 02 said:


> The link you provided about Rick Santorum said nothing about forcing women to take pregnancies to term. Even the National Right To Life Coalition has never advocated this. As to what the story said about Santorum, I'll concede that he's not well spoken, but his general point is correct. The legislative branch should create law and we should not life under a system of judicial fiat.



When is the line from a “symbolic link” to an actual link between religion and government crossed? In Britell v. United States, 372 F.3d 1370 (2004), the plaintiff-appellee sought reimbursement for an abortion under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS). A provision in the CHAMPUS statute limited abortion funding to situations where the mother’s life was at risk. In this case the plaintiff’s fetus was diagnosed with Anencephaly, a condition in which the fetus develops without forebrain, cerebellum, or cranium. The condition is fatal to the fetus. Nonetheless, CHAMPUS denied reimbursement because the mother’s life was not in danger. The plaintiff was forced to either proceed with her own funds, or carry the child to term and deliver a dead infant. The plaintiff filed suit claiming a violation of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. Although, the Court of Appeals stated, it along with “all humankind, feels great sympathy for any parent faced with the truly horrifying diagnosis of anencephaly, we find that the law is clear: the state has a legitimate interest in potential human life from the outset of a woman’s pregnancy, regardless of a diagnosis of a severe birth defect or fetal abnormality.”_

[1] Britell v. U.S., 372 F.3d 1370, 1384 (FedCir. 2004).


Is that clear enough an example for you? 

ML_


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 3, 2011)

I find case Law fascinating and never heard of this used as an example, thanks so much.
It actually shows how our society has evolved and how we really do have a unique society that other nations dream of.

Too bad most politicians passed the BAR exam and can twist the original meaning to achieve a political concluision.

Our society is worth fighting for, this is why when I see global leaders using " UN Laws " as a pretext to recreate the Middle East to suite their sponsors it sickens me. The fact our sons and daughters are sacrificed over and over in the guise of " Freedom " and " Human Rights " is taking advantage of a once proud American tradition our ancestors created.

Why do I feel like my beloved state of Nevada is just a Colony of the UN......?
I dont care what the Rasmussem or Gallup Polls say, I talk to people while I stand in line at the grocery store, at my kids sporting events, concerts, gigs, etc.etc.
I dont know any Americans who want to be involved in royal disputes in the Middle East.

I am so frustrated with our system a clown like Donald Trump seems logical.
The fact he is even considering shows us how much distrust we have. Hell the Tea Party wouldn't even be in DC, and then to hear the elites still mock these people is disrespectful to those who show up to vote..

I think a President who loves fine trim is a wise choice. JFK had great taste in women, Clinton and Jennfier Flowers were proof of excellent taste, they had to be having great sex. Perhaps this helps make a leader more decisive and strong.
I know Trump gets fine trim, I built his XWifes tower here and actually saw some really fine trim at the ground breaking ceremonies.

We should get Howard Stern to interview Trumps newest and ask questions about his sex drive.
Maybe a real man in DC might help, at this point we have nothing to lose, and the fact Trump HATES the UN and other Imperialistic rulers is most refreshing.
Right now we have a professor who does as he is told, and bows to the elites...........
This makes me sick...............bowing to a King who enslaves his people, and sends our kids to fight his battles................

I cant believe I am even thinking of a Trump iun DC...............things must be really bad.


----------



## robh (Apr 3, 2011)

MichaelL @ Sun Apr 03 said:


> jsaras @ Sat Apr 02 said:
> 
> 
> > The link you provided about Rick Santorum said nothing about forcing women to take pregnancies to term. Even the National Right To Life Coalition has never advocated this. As to what the story said about Santorum, I'll concede that he's not well spoken, but his general point is correct. The legislative branch should create law and we should not life under a system of judicial fiat.
> ...


_Not to me. That issue in your example seems to be about funding, not forcing a woman to term. Even if you argue the statement, "the state has a legitimate interest in potential human life from the outset of a woman’s pregnancy" could be perceived as a form of coercion, clearly the woman was not stopped from having an abortion, so I don't see how she was forced to take her pregnancy to term.

Rob_


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 3, 2011)

robh @ Sun Apr 03 said:


> [Not to me. That issue in your example seems to be about funding, not forcing a woman to term. Even if you argue the statement, "the state has a legitimate interest in potential human life from the outset of a woman’s pregnancy" could be perceived as a form of coercion, clearly the woman was not stopped from having an abortion, so I don't see how she was forced to take her pregnancy to term.Rob



Ms. Britell, who was devoutly religious had already carried her daughter to term. She and her husband wanted to baptize her in the moments before she died, and then have her buried. There were complications that resulted in termination during delivery. Ms. Britell sought reimbursement under her health insurance. 

The state clearly refused to reimburse the Britell's (under their health insurance) after the death of their child for ideological reasons no matter how absurd. -- "the state has a legitimate interest in potential human life from the outset of a woman’s pregnancy, regardless of a diagnosis of a severe birth defect or fetal abnormality.”


----------



## jsaras (Apr 4, 2011)

Facts ARE pesky things, especially when the entire story is told. I'll say it a third time. There is NO EVIDENCE that conservatives want to force women to carry pregnancies to term.


----------



## robh (Apr 4, 2011)

MichaelL @ Sun Apr 03 said:


> robh @ Sun Apr 03 said:
> 
> 
> > [Not to me. That issue in your example seems to be about funding, not forcing a woman to term. Even if you argue the statement, "the state has a legitimate interest in potential human life from the outset of a woman’s pregnancy" could be perceived as a form of coercion, clearly the woman was not stopped from having an abortion, so I don't see how she was forced to take her pregnancy to term.Rob
> ...


It sounds like you're telling me that she carried the baby to term of her own free will, but because the medical insurance denied her reimbursement for a procedure already done, she was forced to carry the baby to term. I don't follow your reasoning. I would assume if the state interfered and halted the procedure because, "the state has a legitimate interest in potential human life from the outset of a woman’s pregnancy, regardless of a diagnosis of a severe birth defect or fetal abnormality," then _that_ would be considered forcing a woman to take her pregnancy to term.
To me, it's like saying I forced you into sobriety because I didn't pay for your beer.

Rob


----------



## jsaras (Apr 4, 2011)

@ Ed: I am self employed and I make a little over $100K and my wife is a public school teacher who makes a little more than half of what I do (not counting her cushy benefits). We live in a small, old three-bedroom home in a neighborhood that is approximately 50% illegal aliens. If that make us "rich", then OK. 

The Federal tax rate is over 30%, California income tax is over 10%, Los Angeles sales tax is 9.75%. Gasoline has a tax of about 10%, utilities are taxed at 17% (I literally can't take a dump without getting taxed!!), my cell phone bill is nearly 10% taxes. Cigarettes are taxed, alcohol is taxed. 

Now these are the things that are clearly labeled as taxes. There are also innumerable hidden taxes imposed by the State and Local governments.

So, yes, I'm paying at least 50% in taxes.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 4, 2011)

@Jonas and @Rob,

I'm going to assume that neither of you is an attorney. I am. The Britell case is significant, not because of a funding issue. But because of the courts holding.

@Rob -- no the court did not intervene. Knowing the the baby would not live more than a few moments, the Britell's decided to have the baby, so that she could be baptized and then buried properly. There was a complication during the birth, that required cutting the cord, which resulted in the child's death. Now, bear in mind that there was absolutely no chance that the Britells' daughter would have lived. Her condition was 100% fatal. However, because the death occurred minutes sooner, as a result of the procedure, instead of because of the anencephaly, the insurance company called it an abortion -- which it wasn't. Mrs. Britell was there to give birth to a child that she knew would only live for moments. 

The court sided with the insurance company and refused to reimburse the Britell's. 
The court's holding in this extreme case that "the state has a legitimate interest in potential human life from the outset of a woman’s pregnancy, regardless of a diagnosis of a severe birth defect or fetal abnormality," -- which in that case meant a 100% certainty of fatality.

No, the court did not force Mrs. Britell to carry her child to term. But -- it's holding stands for the proposition that had Mrs. Britell come to the court while she was still pregnant the court would have exercised the state's interest in potential human life -even though in this case, there was no potential human life.

@Jonas is that forcing a woman (women) to carry a child to term? -- I guess that depends on what you consider force. The court clearly would prefer it that way --choosing ideology over compassion --even in such a hopeless situation. 

There are no simple answers or simple solutions to complex issues. You can't turn the clock back 100 years.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 4, 2011)

> Facts ARE pesky things



That's an overused conservative line, used to convince themselves that only they and right-wing talk show hosts are privy to what's really going on.

It's total deadweight in a discussion.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 4, 2011)

By the way, abortion is not a conservative/liberal issue. Yes social conservatives are opposed to abortion and most liberals are in favor of abortion rights, but it's the economic/role of government issues that the country is divided over...and that conservatives are dead wrong about.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 4, 2011)

chimuelo wrote:



> I think of Bell, California everytime I ask myself where California should concentrate it's budget trimming. This is only one example where the citizens finally got fed up with the political process.



I'm sure you could find a couple more towns like that in the country, and I agree that our system has become a mockery of democracy - a plutocracy/oligarchy.

But we're certainly not 100% that way! The idea that it's the norm for California or the country seems just a wee bit extreme. The Bell guys are in jail, for heaven's sake!


----------



## Ed (Apr 4, 2011)

[quote:3eb2d71c1c="jsaras @ Mon Apr 04, 2011 7û 4   îûã 4   îþp 4   îþÁ 4   îÿ/ 4   îÿ[ 4   îÿ” 4   îÿÎ 4   ïø 4   ï+ 4   ï· 4   ï 4   ïÀ 4   ïÑ 4   ï& 4   ï@ 4   ï3 4   ï² 4   ï ã 4   ï!x 4   ï-= 4   ï-U 4   ï<- 4   ï<ý 4   ï=K 4   ï=} 4   ï=Ä 4   ï>e 4   ï@< 4   ï@» 4   ïM™ 4   ïMÕ 4   ïŠU 4   ïŠƒ 5    j 5    k 5    |˜ 5    |™ 5    |š 5    ÷ù 5    ÷ú 5   Jë 5   Jì 5   Jí 5   Jî 5   [j 5   [l 5   [n 5   [p 5   CS 5   CT 5   Ãñ 5   Ãò 5   Aµ 5   A¶ 5   A· 5   º 5   º	 5   º
 5   «, 5   «- 5   «. 5   «/ 5   "Ð 5   "Ñ 5   š 5   š‚ 5   šƒ 5   š„ 5    5   	 5   
 5   } 5   ~ 5   ùÅ 5   ùÆ 5   ùÇ 5   	åU 5   
aK 5   ZŒ 5   Z 5   Ú" 5   Ú# 5   Ú$ 5   Ú% 5   Ú& 5   Q 5   Q	 5   Q
 5   Q 5   Ê 5   /n 5   /o 5   /p 5   /q 5   î† 5   îŸ 5    5   % 5   ’¢ 5   “> 5   Ä 5   ÅY 5   o 5   o 5   Ÿ7 5    P 5   Çö 5   È; 5   ] 5   ê 5    Y 5    ’ 5   [email protected]     û 5   () 5   (U 5   -7 5   -Û 5   R 5   R½ 5   ™¡ 5   š 5   õŽ 5   õÁ 5   t§ 5   u= 5   §Ñ 5   §ê 5   ä 5    5   @Q 5   @° 5   |H 5   |t 5   õÜ 5   öX 5   Í 5   Í“ 5   °î 5   ±4 5   …Ñ 5   …é 5   ó 5   óI 5   Î 5    5   yE 5   yZ 5   €È 5   I 5   ‚d 5   ‚â 5   U• 5   V 5   É 5   1 5   U 5   U9 5   Uc 5   U¤ 5   —Ñ 5   ˜	 5    ž) 5


----------



## Ed (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> #1. Ensuring that a woman can scrape out the brain of a baby at will (or just vacuum it out), but de-clawing cats is cruel.



I am actually against abortion, but only to a point. The idea that life begins at conception and a soul is created instantly a sperm and an egg join is a religious view. Technically then the morning after pill is also abortion. 

The question is at what stage in gestation do we afford the growing baby rights. Now as far as I am aware we already do have a cut off point for abortion legally, my question to pro-lifers then is at what point is abortion acceptable to THEM? Because like I said, if life begins at conception then women using the morning after pill is as much murdering their baby as a women who has a late term abortion or a women who suffocates her baby with a pillow. But we know that pro-lifers doesn't apply their reasoning equally in this way.

Where do pro-lifers draw their arbitrary line and why can they not see that it is arbitrary? What should happen to the women in those circumstances above if abortion is banketly made illegal? Should the women who suffocated her baby with a pillow get the death penalty along with a women who used a black market morning after pill?



> #2. Ensuring that ALL murderers live as long a life as possible. I asked Midphase if ANYONE deserved the death penalty. I will take his lack of response as a "no". If the U.S. is to follow the moral example of "the rest of the world" we should eliminate life sentences as well.



Did you see my reply to you?

I made the point that vengeance is pretty much the only reason for the death penalty. But vengeance makes very little sense scientifically, we should be finding out why people commit crimes, if its possible to rehabilitate people and learn how to prevent such crimes happening in the future. If you can provide good a reason to have the death penalty for a rational reason rather than vengeance I'll listen to it.

Also, I said that if we executed all murderers, that would mean a lot more people innocent people would also be executed by mistake. Are you okay with that? Is vengeance really worth that?

Its also not just about the death penalty. Putting lots of violent criminals together in a confined space for months/years is not a very rational way to deal with the problem. Again, people want vengence, they want criminals to suffer. 



> C. There is no amount of taxation that is too much and there it is impossible for government to become too big.



I never said that, I asked you where you got so upset about being taxed over 50% of your income and that this was so bad you compared it to slavery. Then we find out you are including cigarettes in that figure. Don't tell me, you smoke right? I also wanted to know just how low taxes need to be before you find it acceptable.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras, your last post summing up what you think the left believes proves my point that the American right is [insert my list of adjectives from earlier - basically wrong about every issue].

What you're saying about the left is all shallow, bullshit, wrong, and/or faulty for other reasons. That is not what "the left" believes at all. If I thought you were interested I'd take down every one of those points - including the social conservative issues that, once again, you have to separate from the economic/size of government ones.

Meanwhile my summary of what the right wants is absolutely not a caricature!

And that's why I have very little respect for today's Republicans.


----------



## Ed (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> Hi Ed,
> 
> Sadly, I am not parodying the position of the left on abortion. If you can find ANY statement from a leftist that indicates ANY restriction to abortion at will, I'd like to read it.



I'm not going to bother to go looking for one.

My question is to you since I have never seen a pro-lifer ever address it. 



> As it stands right now, a teacher can take a 13 year old girl across state lines for an abortion without the consent of the parents. Can the same girl get an aspirin from the school nurse without the parent's consent? No. Actually, the school isn't allowed to use the word "parents" anymore because it is "heterocentric". The term is just "guardian". So, if you are intellectually honest, it is the pro-abortionists that have the extreme position.



Look, I don't like abortion either but I recognise at some point you have to make an arbitary judgement in what rights a growing baby has. What I find "intellectually dishonest" is that pro-lifers aren't able to accept that they too are drawing the same arbitary line. 

Are you a pro-lifer? If so, please address my questions. Firstly what should be made illegal in regard to abortion in your opinion and secondly, what should the punishment be. Please also explain why the difference if there is a difference between someone having a late term abortion vs taking a morning after pill. You are making a distinction as well, please explain how it is NOT arbitary and just as arbitary as what we have now.



> So I will respectfully not answer your hypothetical question until you respond to my observations about the current reality.



My questions don't relate to how good the laws are now, it relates to what pro-lifers seem to generally want. If the government said ok I'll give you whatever you want you'll still have this issue to deal with.

You have still ignored my other points for some reason...


----------



## jsaras (Apr 4, 2011)

Hi Ed (again)

I don't think that the death penalty should be implemented 100% of the time for murders, but it should be implemented far more than it is. Given that it is implemented so infrequently, I think that any studies that say that it doesn't work has a woefully insufficient sample size. Just common sense tells me that people fear death. When a criminal stares at the barrel of the police officer's gun, more often than not, the "fear of the death penalty" cause the criminal to stop in his tracks. 

The motivation is not vengeance. Rather, it is that the punishment fit the crime. Are you against putting kidnappers in jail? Aren't we just as bad as they are because we're "kidnapping" them?

You mention wanting to rehabilitate them. I share your value there, but not the method. Violent criminals have an unlimited capacity for self-justification of their evil and/or an unlimited capacity to lie to themselves. Nothing concentrates the mind like the gallows. When one is confronted with then end of one's own life, there's is no escaping responsibility and reality.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 4, 2011)

Do we have to debate abortion or the death penalty? Both come down to a matter of perspective.

If you see no difference between abortion and murder, you're opposed to abortion rights; if (as I do) you're uncomfortable with the idea of the state putting criminals to death, then you're opposed to the death penalty. Neither has anything to do with the role of government/economics - even though they're both related to personal freedom - which is why these are called wedge issues.

And that's why jsaras shouldn't be allowed to change the subject.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 4, 2011)

Hi Ed,

I'll gladly defend the wisdom of Moses. I recognize that Western Civilization is no longer mandatory at universities and has been replaced with courses on "The Phallus" and "Blackness". Both are real courses at Occidental College where Barack Obama attended, BTW. We don't have his transcripts, so we don't know if he passed either course 

For starters, the Judeo-Christian value system and its interrelated Protestant ethic are responsible for the success of the most free and most prosperous country that has ever existed in history (the United States).

Specifically, Jewish law (really God's law) establishes stable monetary policies. Precarious practices like fiat money, fractional reserve banking and deficit spending are prohibited.

Jewish law provides the moral basis for elective representative government.

Jewish law provides for equitable taxation and forbids undue, abusive taxation of the rich. 

Jewish law calls for just restitution to be paid by criminals rather than establishing a prison system.

Jewish law insures criminal justice and capital punishment is a repeated theme is all 5 books of the Torah.

Jewish law prohibits malicious, frivolous lawsuits.

Jewish law protects unborn human life.

In addition to these macro-level societal rules, Ten Commandments provide an infinite supply of how to live as a happy and productive individual.

Even if you are not religious in any way, I think you can see the wisdom of these laws.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> So let's sum up this thread.
> 
> A. The left's moral authority is based on:
> 
> ...




I don't claim moral authority. I'm not even sure that I completely identify with "the left" side of the spectrum. However, I'm not raging against the machine, either. I don't live in the constant state of anger that you and like-minded individuals seem to be in.

With respect to abortion, I'm not arguing for or against. The court was not asked to prevent an abortion, and Mrs. Britell did not want an abortion. The point of my post was to show the extreme to which ideologues go in their thinking, even when it is not rational. I assume that you missed the point because the court's argument makes sense to you, and that you have no good countervailing argument. However, your reference to "scraping out brains" is typical of the over-emtional rhetoric of the extreme. 

You're one angry man, because you think that everyone has their hand in your pocket. No one is forcing you to live in CA or LA. There are states with no income tax (Texas / Alaska) and states with no sales tax (Delaware). There are cities where the wage tax is 4% (Philadelphia). No one is forcing you to smoke or drink. But, if you do, chances are, you will one day be a drain on the healthcare system, and someone's taxes will be taking care of you. And, I assume that when you hit 65, you will turn down Medicare, and return your social security check.

And BTW, do you run around your neighborhood checking green cards, or are you just guessing because 50% of the people look different than you? No one is forcing you to live among people that you don't like. Send them all back. Oh, but who would cut your lawn?

Did you actually notice that the letter that Kayes posted was written by a conservative calling his party back to it's philosophical roots?


----------



## jsaras (Apr 4, 2011)

Nick,

I am stating this with the utmost sincerity and without any sarcasm or intent to insult you; if you cannot see the moral difference between an abortion and the death penalty, you are a moral idiot.

Unfortunately, our difference here is truly unbridgeable. I sincerely do not understand anyone who could possibly hold that view and I'm sure that you feel the same about me.

Respectfully,
J


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> Violent criminals have an unlimited capacity for self-justification of their evil and/or an unlimited capacity to lie to themselves. Nothing concentrates the mind like the gallows. When one is confronted with then end of one's own life, there's is no escaping responsibility and reality.



Your capacity for delusion is remarkable. Violent criminals DO NOT think like you or me. In many cases they a psychopaths or sociopaths. They are not going to be concentrating their mind on their responsibility.

Why don't you just say what you really think...execute the bad people, send the different people back where they came from, do away with non-believers and let me keep my money?


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 4, 2011)

Yes, by all means,...let's get back to the bashing of the elites that claim they are members of the left/right endless shell game.

Today Jerry Brown promised spending cuts. I am quite sure his Union Bosses are upset, but not as upsetting as the working men and women who will now have even more taxation.
The upside is that more small businesses and working men and women will flee to Nevada where they can be free from failed social experiments like OctoMoms, and protecting certain species of flies in the desert.

Also uber Liberal Eric Holder announced his latest position as a Conservative Attorney General by having military trials for those that murdered so many of our citizens.

Obama has announced he is running in 2012, but as a Democrat. I am confused, but hope he gets re elected.
Liberals who turn Conservative for survival reasons are the best actors to have representing us.
Clinton had better write Obamas scripts.

And John BONER needs 2 or 3 copies of his scripts. The first time he cried all over the script he was suppose to read after becoming speaker last year, he had to wing it.
This really upset the lobbying firm from the Federal Reserve that wrote that script.
This election BONER will have at least 2 copies for when he starts crying all over these newest orders issued from the real rulers of DC.


----------



## Ed (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> Hi Ed (again)
> 
> I don't think that the death penalty should be implemented 100% of the time for murders, but it should be implemented far more than it is. Given that it is implemented so infrequently, I think that any studies that say that it doesn't work has a woefully insufficient sample size. Just common sense tells me that people fear death. When a criminal stares at the barrel of the police officer's gun, more often than not, the "fear of the death penalty" cause the criminal to stop in his tracks.



Then why not have the death penalty for all crimes? if not, why not?




> The motivation is not vengeance. Rather, it is that the punishment fit the crime. Are you against putting kidnappers in jail? Aren't we just as bad as they are because we're "kidnapping" them?



Yes I am against putting kidnappers in jail,* the current jail system *is not a rational way to solve crime in society as I think I explained twice now. The motivation IS vengence, there is no way you can defend what we do to criminals as anything other than vengence.



> You mention wanting to rehabilitate them. I share your value there, but not the method. Violent criminals have an unlimited capacity for self-justification of their evil and/or an unlimited capacity to lie to themselves. Nothing concentrates the mind like the gallows. When one is confronted with then end of one's own life, there's is no escaping responsibility and reality.



So how does it help society to put them to death rather than finding out A: If its possible to *rehabilitate *them. B. *Why *they are the way they are and C: *How *we can learn from them to stop society creating more people like them?

And lastly you still ignore my question about *how many innocent people* that will be put to death if the death penalty was used the way you say you want it to be used. Are you or are you not saying that innocent people being executed is justified/acceptable?


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> I am stating this with the utmost sincerity and without any sarcasm or intent to insult you; if you cannot see the moral difference between an abortion and the death penalty, you are a moral idiot. Unfortunately, our difference here is truly unbridgeable. I sincerely do not understand anyone who could possibly hold that view and I'm sure that you feel the same about me.
> 
> Respectfully,
> J




Assuming that both Murder and abortion are both the taking of a life, I believe that Nick is trying to point out the inherent hypocrisy in opposing one but not the other, if you truly believe that life is sacred. You're really only pro-life to a point.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 4, 2011)

@MichaleL

I am generally an optimist, but I am genuinely and rightfully angry at how taxation has ruined California. It's the 49th worst place in the country to do business. With Jerry Brown and the Democrats 100% completely in charge, I'm sure we'll make to to 52nd place in no time flat and it will be George Bush's fault!

I live just outside of Panorama City, CA. The majority of the signs in the Panorama Mall are in Spanish and the large department store "La Curacao" has all their signs in Spanish. Given that there are 2.6 million illegal aliens in California, I think that it's at least a remote possibility that some of them congregate in neighborhoods, probably not Brettwood. I'll grant you that I don't have a study from UC Berkeley scientists based on the empirical observations of graduate students, but I'll stick with my "racial profiling". The only reason I only mentioned my neighborhood, which I purposely chose to live in just 2 years ago, was to indicate that I do not live in a 'rich' area. 

I adore Mexican food, people, music and culture. Go ahead and call me racist...but my closest friend who was the best man at my wedding is Mexican. He actually has much more stringent views than I do on illegal immigration. I'm sure that you'll dismiss him as an Uncle "Tomas" and not a "real" Mexican.

If you think you're insulting me by stating that I think that bad people should be killed, you are not. I will gladly be in that camp!


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> Just common sense tells me that people fear death. When a criminal stares at the barrel of the police officer's gun, more often than not, the "fear of the death penalty" cause the criminal to stop in his tracks. .



Uh, "just common sense" tells me it might be the fear of getting shot.


----------



## Ed (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> Hi Ed,
> 
> You're asking your question sincerely...and my response is, "I'm not entirely sure".



Well I would say this is a critical aspect for the pro-life position so I suggest you think about it now. 

If you ever want to get what you want in the actual law, it seems to me you should have answers to these obvious questions available. Again, if life begins at conception and abortion is murder and murderers should be put to death then the penalty for having a morning after pill or an abortion *should *be death. 

If that is *not *what the pro-lifers would want, then I suggest to you that their position is intellectually and morally bankrupt. 

At least I will freely admit that any laws I support or not support on abortion are largely arbitrary.



> For starters, I think that most rational people would say that parents should have authority over their own children.



Should they *always *have authority over their children? Are parents always right? There is a reason we take some people's children away from them because they aren't fit to raise them. Should a drug addict be allowed to make decisions for their child? Should a mentally ill parent be allowed to make decisions for their child?

Also, lets spin this around and see if you still like it. If parents *want *(even if the child *doesn't*) their child to have an abortion, should this allowed or not? After all, if the parents should have authority over their own children, why not? If it should not be allowed, then parents having authority over their children is meaningless in your world since the state still has the rules and the parents *have *to follow, right? Parents having authority over their children doesn't just mean only doing what the state wants.



> I'm not sure where I stand on outlawing the procedure altogether, but I certainly believe that abortion on demand for no other reason than inconvenience is wrong and that abortion should be the last option offered at "family planning" clinics.



Frankly I agree with you, abortion should not be a way to have as much unprotected sex as you like and just get it aborted later. The issue is still a real one, but the way I see it the religious pro-life right ruin the debate by making it about some perceived absolute morality. I would like to have rational ways to deal with this rather than some pro-lifer marching in with a sign saying that abortion is murder and that life begins at conception. This is nonsense and doesn't help anyone actually come to any logical debate in it. 




> As a society, we are better and healthier when things are slanted towards "life" and more children. It seems obvious to me that we'd have a better society if there were fewer abortions, not more.



Well while the world has too many people societies do need more young people to replace the old. Society cannot function if there is no new people being born, its worse now when you consider that people are living longer in retirement and not working.

But all things are not equal and I would also say to your point above that it is clear that if people had to have their babies and that baby get brought up in families that did not have the ability (emotionally, intellectually or monetarily) to care for them many would not generate very good functioning members of society. 




> As far as the penalty for "illegal abortions", I sincerely think that anyone who has undergone an abortion will suffer the penalty in their own psyche. If one has a conscience, it takes a lot of beer to make that memory go away.



This is the answer I *have *heard from pro-lifers.

I am confused as to how you rationalise this difference. You say abortion is murder, right? And you say murderers should be put to death and advocate much stricter laws in this regard, you say that execution is a great deterrent. Yet for some reason a pro-lifer that would have such firm views on the death penalty the penalty for abortion should just be to..... suffer on their own? 

Why should this strict idea of eye for an eye you seem to have on the death penalty and murder and any other crime not also apply to abortion? Can you give *any *reason why you think its different? 

If a murderer or a thief is genuinely sorry for their crime, would you say they shouldn't be punished? Are you suggesting that all women who have abortions are sorry about it in the same way and that they would never do it again and wish they never had? What about all the ones who just don't care, or have multiple abortions? Should THOSE be put to death? 

No, you show here that you DO see a difference between murder and abortion just like the rest of us.

I see pro-lifers with all their moral outrage to abortion and I just find it amazing when it all comes down to it they have absolutely no idea how they would deal with it legally if they actually got their way. 




> I recognize there is no way to ultimately settle the question of when life begins to everyone's satisfaction. However, logically, when else, other than at conception, could human life begin?



The question is basically meaningless because when pro-lifers refers to life they are really talking about a religious idea, the soul.

We can keep people on life support indefinitely even when their brain has turned to soup, with science we can potentially tell how much of a "person" is still around in there, religion cannot, even hypothetically.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Apr 4, 2011)

Summarizing the conservative position...



MichaelL @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> ...Why don't you just say what you really think...execute the bad people, send the different people back where they came from, do away with non-believers and let me keep my money?



Nicely put! 

To which you might add, "and procreate according to my rules."


----------



## jsaras (Apr 4, 2011)

Ed @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:
> 
> 
> > And lastly you still ignore my question about how many innocent people that will be put to death if the death penalty was used the way you say you want it to be used. Are you or are you not saying that innocent people being executed is justified/acceptable?



The real question is how many innocent people have been killed and will continue to be killed because of your foolish assumption that murderers, child molesters, etc. can be rehabilitated and are currently allowed to walk freely. I can assure you that THAT number is at least 1000 times greater than the number of innocent people have been executed. 

So to be clear, we should be as sure as we possibly can that we don't execute innocent people, which is the purpose of a justice system. Will mistakes happen? Yes. Will the net result be that far fewer innocent people in society will suffer? Unquestionably yes!


----------



## jsaras (Apr 4, 2011)

Ed @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:
> 
> 
> > But vengeance makes very little sense scientifically



Science has no answers for questions of morality. I think that is probably our fundamental 'disconnect'.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 4, 2011)

> ="jsaras @ Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:29 pm"] Go ahead and call me racist...but my closest friend who was the best man at my wedding is Mexican. He actually has much more stringent views than I do on illegal immigration. I'm sure that you'll dismiss him as an Uncle "Tomas" and not a "real" Mexican.



No -- I wouldn't do that because it would be deferring to extremist rhetoric. 




> If you think you're insulting me by stating that I think that bad people should be killed, you are not. I will gladly be in that camp!


[/quote]

No. It's not my intent to insult you. You have a right to your political views and your religious beliefs. 

But, as I said, it is a complex world. There are no bumper sticker solutions.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> Ed @ Mon Apr 04 said:
> 
> 
> > jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:
> ...




OK. you want to go moral/scriptural? You are making a choice between "an eye for an eye" and "forgiving 70 X7."

YOU and like-minded individuals are choosing "an eye for an eye" rather than leaving punishment to a higher authority -- as such you are playing God. 

The basis of your political philosophy is punitive. If you truly believe, then the bad guys will get punished in the afterlife. Killing them now is merely for your satisfaction.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras, of course I see the difference between abortion and the death penalty. Where did you get that I don't? What they have in common is that both are moral issues rather than objective ones - and you've changed the subject after having your entire conservative outlook spiked into the ground so hard that you're now forced to become liberal.

By the way, our Judeo-Christian heritage is central to who we are. But anyone who uses it as justification for his beliefs - especially when they're wrong - is the real moral idiot. Religion is separate from ethics, and American law is different from religious law.


----------



## Ed (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> The real question is how many innocent people have been killed and will continue to be killed because of your foolish assumption that murderers, child molesters, etc. can be rehabilitated and are currently allowed to walk freely. I can assure you that THAT number is at least 1000 times greater than the number of innocent people have been executed.
> 
> So to be clear, we should be as sure as we possibly can that we don't execute innocent people, which is the purpose of a justice system. Will mistakes happen? Yes. Will the net result be that far fewer innocent people in society will suffer? Unquestionably yes!



So then....How many people being executed unfairly is too much? Is *any *number enough because the ends justify the means, or do you draw the line at some point?

While we're at it why don't we put to death all _attempted _murderers as well? They could easily go out and kill successfully and many do, and that would save a lot of lives. Sure many wouldn't but then you're not saving anyones life by letting them go free. Why don't we lock up theives and robbers indefinitely, many of them reoffend, so we could save a lot of people loosing their stuff. What about people that commit violent crimes, we should probably put them to death as well or at least lock them up indefinitely, right? After all, if we let them go they could go out and do it again. 

Is all that justified as well? Can you not see the slippery slope? Why can you not see that you will not apply your rationale consistently?



jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> Ed @ Mon Apr 04 said:
> 
> 
> > But vengeance makes very little sense scientifically
> ...



No the fundamental disconnect is that you have such strong opinions on the death penalty and abortion but your righteous indignation over abortion when actually hypothetically put into practice just amounts to the "murderer" feeling bad for a little while because you are unprepared to admit there is a big difference.

In the last post you showed exactly what my point was. Pro-lifers such as yourself DO see a difference between murder and abortion, just like people they criticise. The problem I have with them is that they won't admit that. Again, if abortion is murder and murderers should be put to death then those that have abortions should be executed - no questions. It doesn't matter how bad a murderer feels, right? You'd still have them executed. Why the difference? I dont think you've ever considered it. 

The thing with having extreme beliefs is that you can have these inconsistencies and contradictions and it doesn't matter because the likelihood of it ever becoming mainstream law is pretty small. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Oh and I didn't say science can provide answers for questions of morality but it is the only objective demonstrable and verifiable way to know anything. If you have a guy on life support and scientifically his brain is mush the fact that his body is being kept alive is meaningless. Likewise there's no objective reason to think a zygote is anything other than a clump of cells. We have to make an arbitrary distinction, whether you're pro-life or otherwise, of how old a growing baby has to be before you afford it any rights. Without science to *help *you, and it can't do that well here, all you have is this arbitrary line to draw. But some people choose to reject science, use a religious reason AND THEN draw that arbitrary line anyway BUT claim they aren't. 

Also vengeance is about wanting to punish the person who harmed you. Not the idea of stopping them from harming anyone else so locking them away, but rather harming them *because *you're angry about what they did to you, then there is no rational reason for doing so. If your response here is to admit that there is no rational, logical, scientific reason for the death penalty then we can at least agree on this but something tells me you didn't really mean to imply that.

Btw when we're done with this I *will *be coming back to your understanding about the morality of Old Testament laws... Usually Christians are coming up with reasons why we can ignore them.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 4, 2011)

Hi Ed,

I don't claim to have all the answers on abortion. I didn't explicitly say that abortion is murder, and the bible may or may not indicate that either. However biblical law does indicate that even an unintentional "abortion" during the course of a crime, deserves capital punishment. Read Exodus 21:22-23. At minimum, it clearly places a very high value on nascent human life. 

This may sound a little 'over the top', but if one puts into a personal context, your feelings. If a violent criminal beat your pregnant wife, wouldn't you want him to be responsible for the life that he took? Or let's take it one more step. If that criminal killed your pregnant wife, wouldn't you want him to be be responsible for the taking of two lives? Further, I'd bet you'd want him executed.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 4, 2011)

MichaelL

It is apparent to me that you don't know the first thing about scripture, and you'd be wise to not quote things that you do not know the context of.

Allow me to fill you in on this. The "eye for an eye" text is found in three places in the Old Testament, Ex. 21:23, 24; Lev. 24:19, 20; and Deut. 19:21. The context in all three texts is judicial, not personal. In other words, in court, the punishment should fit the crime and not be excessive.

On the other hand, Jesus statement about forgiving 70 x 7 times is about personal life, not a court/judicial setting.


----------



## midphase (Apr 4, 2011)

Typical Jsaras, focus on one issue and ignore all the other ones. Rick Santorum is an example of how bizarre the right wing has gotten. He might not have stated what you say word for word, but the meaning is definitely there. If he was in charge he would try his hardest to see that women will never be able to get abortions regardless of the reasons for wanting them (hence forcing them to carry pregnancies).

Further:

" If that criminal killed your pregnant wife, wouldn't you want him to be be responsible for the taking of two lives? Further, I'd bet you'd want him executed."

You'd lose that bet, and I can probably speak for Ed and say that he would also not want the criminal to be executed.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 4, 2011)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere (sorry to talk past you, Kays).

jsaras, the problem with the "fair tax" is that it isn't fair. It would shift the tax burden down even lower than it is now. And the reason we're in the financial mess we're in is precisely because of a middle class without the spending power to propel the economy out of it - and that's why we got into it in the first place (because all the growth went to people at the top and the middle class was forced to borrow). We need to shift the tax burden way up again, but even the baby steps Obama wanted to take - ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich - were shrieked at.

People at the very top consume a far lower percentage of their income, because they already have everything they need. Instead they invest it wherever in the world it gets the most return. (Which is why trickle-down is a lie.) That's not ideology, it's proven fact.

So what you and Mike Huckabee want to do would ruin the country even more. It would be an unmitigated disaster.


----------



## Ed (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> I didn't explicitly say that abortion is murder, and the bible may or may not indicate that either.



And yet you've said as much and you go on to say as much with this example you think proves it. And you also defend the pro-life position which you know DOES say abortion is murder.

The problem with being so firm on the death penalty and abortion is that with abortion in regards a punishment you turn extremely liberal on the issue. She can just feel bad about it. What is so different between abortion and any other crime you can think of? You seem very adamant that all murderers should be put to death, that criminals should be punished and yet with abortion while you seem just as morally outraged your idea of punishment is to essentially shout a lot and say "now go home and think about what you've done!". :lol: 



> However biblical law does indicate that even an unintentional "abortion" during the course of a crime, deserves capital punishment. Read Exodus 21:22-23. At minimum, it clearly places a very high value on nascent human life.



You want to do this now? Ok...

Firstly it is more likely the opposite of what you say it means. It says if you cause a women to give birth prematurely you'll be fined. How many times do you think you can cause a pregnant women to give birth prematurly and it result in a successfull healthy birth today with all the modern medical care we have? Caring for premature babies is something we have only achieved relatively recently. Thosuands of years ago? It would most likely result in death. Even so apologists and pro-lifers try and get around this by suggesting that the next part which says that if there is "serious injury" the person will be put to death refers *also *to the premature baby. But think about it practically: If a baby is near enough to be born the risk of death to the the mother would be very high even at the best of times. If a pregnant women could survive a miscarriage the chances are it was very early in the pregnancy and so a premature birth could never result in a healthy baby.

Secondly we can ignore this passage and debate completely and simply look at anothers that are not so ambigous, which also sheds more light on how to interpret the passage above.

In Leviticus 27:6 we see it places no monetary value on any human younger than one month old. In Numbers 3:15 it says only male babies over a month old should included in the cencus. How about the question of whether a new born baby is always innocent, or does it deserve punishment for its parents crimes/sins? Well in 2 Samuel 12:14 we can see that god thinks it does deserve punishment, or doesn't care, and kills a new born baby to punish its parents. In Numbers 5 we have a curse that is to be performed when a man suspects his wife of being unfaithfull. After peforming the ritual and you haven't been faithfull god will curse you and it will cause your "_belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot_" (KJV) and not be able to concieve. Newer translations like the NIV have this as "_her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away_" and in the footnotes adds "_she will have barrenness and a miscarrying womb_". To intentionally cause a women to miscarry *is *an abortion. It could also be interpreted that it establishes that God doesn't want babies to be raised in a sinful enviroment. 

The fact is also that God endorses and orders the killing of what we would today consider innocent children, babies and the unborn* in the thosuands* in the Old Testament. Entire civilisations were wiped out carried out by Moses and the Israelites and ordered by God. Such as in Numbers 31:15-17 which has to be one of the most horriffic events described by the Bible. God orders a revenge attack on the Midianites, after the battle Moses gets upset that his officers had not killed enough people, he reminds them that they are to kill all the male children, unborn, pregnant and women who have known a man. He also says they can save all the virgin girls for themselves. Right after in Numbers 31:25-30 we see God doesn't seem to have a problem with this as he then describes the rules of how to divide up the "spoils" of the war among those who fought in it. And who can forget when God kills all the Egyption first born males in Numbers 33:4

Really whether the Bible is for or against abortion is ambiguous and open to interpretation. The fact of the matter is that the Bible shows little concern for the unborn as I have discussed. 

However your earlier point is that the Old Testament's laws are still good enough that we should follow them today. For some reason you neglected to point out the Test for the Unfaithfull Wife as described in Numbers and you also neglected to mention that Leviticus 20:13 homosexual men should be put to death. Do you agree with that? Right after telling Moses what's known as the "10 commandments" at the start of Exodus 20, God then dictates more commandments to the Israelites. In this it is explained that God needs animals sacrifices in order to bless them and sets out specific procedures to go about doing this. Gods says this is to be done because it pleases him and many times says he likes the smell of burnt animals. Eg. [Exodus 20:24 and Exodus 29:10-22]. This is given more time in Leviticus where God provides more rules for animal sacrifices which spans Chapters 1-9! Examples of such procedures involve sprinkling the blood around the alter, cutting the animals into pieces and burning it because God finds the smell is "sweet".

In the same long list of commandments, Exodus also deals with rules of slavery. In it it says that when a master beats a slave so hard they die, the slave owner will be punished. However as long as the slave can recover after a day or two after the beating this is fine because the slave is his "property". [Exodus 21:20-21]. 

God says he is going to give Israelites land. The other civilisations that already live there are to be totally defeated and then afterwards totally destroyed with no mercy and no treaty must be made with them. [Deuteronomy 7:1-2] This is to be done because God is giving the Israelites their "inheritance". The Israelites shall not not leave alive anything that breaths. The Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites are all to be totally wiped out. [Deuteronomy 20:16-17] God also tells the Israelites to kill all inhabitants in neighbouring towns including their livestock and burn down their towns if they worship other gods . God says he will reward them for doing this. [Deuteronomy 13:13-19] And then there is the attack on the Midianites as I said earlier.

Deuteronomy provides rules of marriage and rape, here's a few of examples from the same section: When an Israelite wants to marry a captive woman from an defeated enemy they should bring her to their house, shave her head and cut her nails. After giving her a month to mourn her lost family (that they killed) they can make them their wives (presumably against their will). If it turns out they're not pleased with the women after they marry them they can let them go but says they can't sell them or make them slaves because they have "dishonoured" her. [Deuteronomy 22:10-14] If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged and rapes her she must pay her father, marry her and may never divorce her. [Deuteronomy 22:28-29] If a man marries a women and on their wedding night claims she is not a virgin, if she cannot prove that she is, she will be killed.[Deuteronomy 22:13-20]

You okay with all those laws as well? There's plenty more I could mention...

I don't know how anyone can say the laws and morality of the Old Testament is something to look up to. *EDIT*: What you are really doing is what you have been doing with everything and that is *arbitrarily *deciding what you agree with and what you don't and pretending you aren't.



> This may sound a little 'over the top', but if one puts into a personal context, your feelings. If a violent criminal beat your pregnant wife, wouldn't you want him to be responsible for the life that he took?



It doesn't matter what* I want* as an individual, it may well be vengeance but on the level of a society it doesn't matter. What if someone severely beat and raped your wife? Wouldn't you want him to die? Even *your *law says he can't and your emotional response is irrelevant.



> Or let's take it one more step. If that criminal killed your pregnant wife, wouldn't you want him to be be responsible for the taking of two lives? Further, I'd bet you'd want him executed.



See above. 

PS: thanks for proving again that your reasoning on the death penalty is based entirely on vengeance.

And doubly thanks for once again proving you are arbitarily deciding that if someone kills a pregant women, that person is responsible for murdering *two *and deserves harsher punishment than killing one, compared to a women that abortes her baby where nothing should happen and she should just be allowed to feel bad about it.

To answer your question though, even as a revenge I'd want them to suffer but that means killing them is too easy. Once you're dead you can't suffer anymore, you're just a couple of hundred pounds of ape meat.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 4, 2011)

Ed,

You are not taking texts in their context nor are you considered in the context of their time. It's very easy for those who do not know scripture to twist it.

I don't have the time to respond specifically regarding every OT judgment about unfaithfulness (which is not directly related to the issued of abortion) other than to say that God is not obligated to explain his judgments to me or to you, but it IS just and more just than you or I could possibly be.

Leviticus 27:6 is an assessment/tax issue. It has nothing to do with the value of person. Simply put, babies don't pay tax. Context!

In Number 3:15 the exemption of young babies of priests in that census had a similar purpose. Numbers 1:3 states that those who are under 20 years old were exempt from the military census. Context!


----------



## Ed (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> Ed,
> 
> You are not taking texts in their context nor are you considered* in the context of their time.*



Oh I'm sorry i was under the impression you were advocating the "law of Moses" and acting like it was something we should be looking up to. 

Now you're telling me I must reject some beause of the time they were written. Quite right, those books were written by a savage violent tribe. 

Goal posts are being moved... predictably. 



> I don't have the time to respond specifically regarding every OT judgment about unfaithfulness (which is not directly related to the issued of abortion) other than to say that God is not obligated to explain his judgments to me or to you, but it IS just and more just than you or I could possibly be.



What you mean is you can't think of or find an apologetics excuse for all of them, so you're going to pick two you think you can handle and just blankelty apply the "out of context" excuse to everything. 

The Old Testament has disgusting rules about rape and how a women is to be forced to marry their rapist, it says homosexal men should be executed, it shows that women are second class citizens much worse than anything in the last 2 hundred years, it endorses slavery and says you can beat them so they can't get up for two days and its fine, it endorses taking female captives from war and forcing them to be your wife and shaming them by cutting their nails and shaving thier head and if you don't like them just let them go even though it admits that you have "dishonoured" her by doing so *and thats just to name a few. *
*EDIT: * I should also mention another great law I pointed out in the previous post which is that if a girl can't prove she is a virgin on her wedding night she will be executed. Try and rationalise that with the part about dishonoring the female captives while you're at it.

Are you happy with those laws or are you going to pick and choose which you like and which you don't?



> Leviticus 27:6 is an assessment/tax issue. It has nothing to do with the value of person. Simply put, babies don't pay tax. Context!
> 
> In Number 3:15 the exemption of young babies of priests in that census had a similar purpose. Numbers 1:3 states that those who are under 20 years old were exempt from the military census. Context!



These are really terrible rationalisations and that's saying something. If it doesn't want you to count people under 20 years old in a military census, okay I can dig that... but then why *does *it count babies* a month or older* in a military census? 

Those two passages were never meant to prove anything on their own, merely to build a picture that shows that the Old Testament laws and moralities doesn't really care too much about unborn. You are the one not reading things in context which is why you have to ignore everything else I said. 

What about all the times god has children and the unborn murdered by Moses and the Israelites? What about all the times god kills children to punish the parents? What about the curse god puts on unfaithfull women which causes them to miscarry? What about the man that god kills his son to punish? 

You ignore all that because it doesn't fit your own beliefs, yet you still say you believe the Old Testament laws and morality is something to look up to, amazing.


----------



## robh (Apr 4, 2011)

Ed @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> In this it is explained that God needs animals sacrifices in order to bless them and sets out specific procedures to go about doing this. Gods says this is to be done because it pleases him and many times says he likes the smell of burnt animals. Eg. [Exodus 20:24 and Exodus 29:10-22]. This is given more time in Leviticus where God provides more rules for animal sacrifices which spans Chapters 1-9! Examples of such procedures involve sprinkling the blood around the alter, cutting the animals into pieces and burning it because God finds the smell is "sweet"..


 Dunno what's wrong with that. I like the smell of a good steak on the BBQ!  

Rob


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 4, 2011)

They did have PETA back then too.
But it was a different meaning.

People Eating Tasty Animals..........


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 4, 2011)

jsaras @ Mon Apr 04 said:


> MichaelL
> 
> It is apparent to me that you don't know the first thing about scripture, and you'd be wise to not quote things that you do not know the context of.
> 
> ...




Actually, Jonas, we have been talking about Judicial things -- capital punishment AND personal things -- abortion. Your response is a perfect example of the selective use of theology -- you can twist it to justify whatever suits your point of view.

Your answer is a non-answer which does not address your judgment of who is and isn't worthy in this life. Neither does it address the fact that money and your resentment of others, who your perceive are taking your money (perhaps giving it to the undeserving) is your underlying motivation and anger. 

You're right. I know nothing of scripture --at least not your version of it. 

But, now I understand why you think the way you do. And I know that further discussion is pointless.

Peace,

Michael


----------



## jsaras (Apr 4, 2011)

Ed,

You're very adept at misconstruing my statements as well as the Bible. I'll address as many texts as I can, but that'll be the end of it.

Firstly, to properly interpret the Bible one must take into account the context of the passage within that particular paragraph, that particular book and how those words were understood by the original intended audience at that time. The cultural context is also important. one cannot judge ancient cultures by our current cultures. They have to be judged in the context of their own time. Also, when one starts jumping around from isolated text to another you quickly can combine "Judas hung himself" and "go ye therefore and do likewise" and/or become a Jehovah's Witness.

The census in Numbers 3:15 is not about a military census. It is about a priestly census. In fact, the census is kinda the enitre point of the book of Numbers. Just read the chapter starting at verse three and then read verse 39. How you interpret this to have any bearing on the value of young human life completely befuddles me. 

2 Samuel 2:14 is a difficult passage. I'll link to this: http://townhall.com/columnists/andrewta ... y_of_death In brief, David actually deserved the death penalty himself on two counts. However, according to Jewish law, "the annointed" was above the law...which is why David did not kill king Saul in spite of several opportunities. In any event, a human life was required as a result of his sin. The death of his own son was an even greater punishment to David than if he were to die himself. 

Numbers 5:21 is not about abortion, unless you have a very active imagination. It's about suspected adultery, which is in contradistinction to witnessed adultery. Witnessed adultery had a specific penalty, but in cases where it could be corroborated by witnesses, God himself would either curse her with thigh falling away and making her body swell. If she was innocent, she would bear children (v 26). Whatever you have in your footnotes is not part of the text. Even if it were, a miscarriage is not an abortion.

Numbers 31 is a difficult passages, but I'll take a crack at explaining it to you. The inhabitants of Midian were destroyed because of their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-14). They were so evil that their Creator no longer could abide their corruption. That they had numerous opportunities to repent is evident from the prophetic books (Nineveh did repent, for example, and for a time stayed the day of destruction). A parent who warns a child of the consequences of disobedience, threatens an appropriate punishment, and then is true to his word at the event of infraction, generally is considered to be a firm-but-loving parent. 

I don't have any problems with the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament. I know that "meat is murder" for the contemporary liberal in 2011. Again, in the context of their time, you must compare that to the prevalent human saò ;   Óæ ;   Ó ;   Óæ ;   Ó" ;   Ó#… ;   Ó#· ;   Ó(Ø ;   Ó) ;   Ó4× ;   Ó4û ;   Ó9ƒ ;   Ó9‰ ;   Ó<v ;   Ó<¬ ;   ÓE© ;   ÓEÍ ;   ÓI ;   ÓI ;   ÓJê ;   ÓK ;   ÓK. ;   ÓKO ;   ÓKa ;   ÓKs ;   ÓU\ ;   ÓV' ;   Ó]q ;   Ó]… ;   Ó_n ;   Ó_— ;   Ófá ;   Óg% ;   Óg  ;   Óg§ ;   Ópo ;   Ópã ;   Ó~0 ;   Ó~ˆ ;   Ó~» ;   Ó~ï ;   ÓÂ ;   ÓÍ ;   Ó”( ;   Ó”< ;   ÓŸ% ;   ÓŸ³ ;   Ó­i ;   Ó­þ ;   Ó·– ;   Ó·Ÿ ;   ÓÒï ;   ÓÓ# ;   ÓÕ ;   ÓÕ› ;   ÓÙM ;   ÓÙ_ ;   Óßð ;   Óàõ ;   Óéµ ;   Óêf ;


----------



## Ed (Apr 5, 2011)

Jsaras,

I could respond to all that in detail but really whats the point? You just entirely discredited yourself. You're actually arguing against yourself by giving all the reasons why we shouldn't follow the law of Moses, but at the same time arguing we should follow the law of Moses. You also bizzarly talk of animal sacrifices being okay because vegetarianism is a liberal idea, but this quite obviously has absolutely nothing to do with vegetarianism. Its very detailed instructions that go on for pages and pages and pages regarding the law on how we have to burn animals and sprinkle their blood around an altar to appease God if you've sinned. Why? Because it says God likes the smell of burnt animals. 

You have once again completely ignored the laws in regards slavery, homosexuals, rape and marriage and how women are treated. What about the laws in regards to war? You follow the laws of the Old Testament? No, you really really don't and you would never follow them anyway, you'd just find bizzare excuses to ignore 90% of it.

And what of Numbers 31, you just spent time telling me they deserved it. Ignoring the absurdity of this suggestion.... considering it also specifically says that Moses should wipe out various *OTHER *nations *JUST BECAUSE *god wants to give them the land as their inheritance... the entire point of me bringing it up was to show that God doesn't care about unborn babies and children. 

Obviously children and babies should be killed DUH! /\~O ... but what about the unborn babies? *Are unborn babies innocent Jsaras? Apparently not*. According to your rationalisation of this passage they are just as guility as their parents and all deserve to be killed without mercy, apart from the virgin girls of course, they can keep them for themselves. Should America adopt such wonderful morality in Iraq perhaps? They should force female enemy combatants to be their wives, shave their heads and cut their nails but if they don't like them, doesn't matter, just let them go. They can't make them their slaves though, because they dishonoured them, which sucks. Such great morality to aspire to!

And btw, if you intentionally cause a women to miscarry what practical difference is there between that and her having an abortion? There is none. The developing baby dies. 

And here is a great example of why no one rational takes you guys seriously.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 5, 2011)

@ Nick,

The fair tax can be made progressive through the use of "prebates". See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

As it stands now, 47% of American households pay no Federal income tax and 40% actually receive a check. Every working American should have some skin in the game. Period. 

I know this flies in the face of Marxist values, but I for one do not believe that it's OK to steal from the rich. That too, is greed.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 5, 2011)

@ midphase,

Let me see if I track with your logic. Rick Santorum is such a "wild and crazy guy", that he's probably in favor of making women carry pregnancies to term against their will. Is that right?

OK, if that passes for air-tight logic that nullifies my specific claim to the contrary, allow me to make another argument using YOUR method of "indirect" reasoning. In fact, I think that the causal link I am proposing is actually much stronger than yours. 

Rather than educating children about American History and take the risk that they might grow up to become "Tea Baggers", it's best that we skip over all that and have them become fel_hers instead: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 1209.story

I'm sure this is the answer to the 40.6% graduation rate in Los Angeles High Schools.

BTW, please don't feign any indignation about my vocabulary. If the term 'tea bagging" isn't offensive to you, then neither is the other term.


----------



## midphase (Apr 5, 2011)

"Rather than educating children about American History and take the risk that they might grow up to become "Tea Baggers", it's best that we skip over all that and have them become fel_hers instead"


Wow...so that's how you read that huh? Unbelievable...and really sad how you can take information presented to you, completely deconstruct it and rearrange it to mean something completely different (like you have been doing with all of the Bible quotes you've brought up).

I'm arriving at the same conclusion as everyone else around here...and I will quote Barney Frank by saying "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to have an argument with the dining room table."


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Apr 5, 2011)

> I know this flies in the face of Marxist values, but I for one do not believe that it's OK to steal from the rich. That too, is greed.



It's not "stealing". If anything, the rich have been "stealing" from everyone else (not that I would use that word.) The richest people in America have become far richer far faster than the lower and middle classes. Real wages have stagnated for decades and more income has concentrated in the top 1% since Reagan become president than in any of the years prior. We're seeing this right now in the Republican budget proposals. Give the richest people the most money via tax breaks, leave corporate loopholes wide open (GE paid no taxes in 2010), then cut Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

This much is not debatable. Wealth and income in this country is more concentrated among the very richest people than it ever has been before. It is not debatable that real wages have stagnated, or that wages during 2004-2007 (supposedly a prime period of economic growth, post-Bush tax cuts) for the average American actually decreased. Republicans know this; but they pretend it doesn't exist. Without bending reality, nobody would vote for them.

The moral argument against taxation is completely bunk. Even the revolutionaries that founded this country weren't fighting against _taxation_, they were fighting against _taxation without representation_ and the unfair monopolistic practices of the East India Company. Nobody is arguing that you're not entitled to the fruits of your own labor. But even the most staunch libertarians understand that some level of public services are necessary, such as a system of courts, roads, military, etc. 

Nobody ever argues that taxes for these things are immoral. And unless you think all of that is immoral, and that any public services and any government is evil and wrong, you have to then accept that not all taxation is immoral either. Thus, since not all taxation is immoral, we (Democratic citizens of a free country) can vote on what services we want and what we are willing to pay for them. Simple as that.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 5, 2011)

midphase @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> I'm arriving at the same conclusion as everyone else around here...and I will quote Barney Frank by saying "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to have an argument with the dining room table."



+1 Kays

Sadly rational discourse, based on reason, is not possible. And that is what's truly scary....and dangerous.

It is hard to take anyone who argues on that level seriously, other than the threat that they pose to our society.


----------



## Marko Zirkovich (Apr 5, 2011)

Is it just me, but somehow those Moses-style laws remind me a lot of the Taliban style of justice. Instead of waterboarding them in Guantanamo or Aegypt, how about putting them to better use in the US justice system?
Just teach them to kill in the name of God/Jesus/Jahwe instead of Allah. It shouldn't be too difficult.
Anyways, boy, am I glad that my values and morals are different - even though inferior to US values. (o)


----------



## jsaras (Apr 5, 2011)

Marko Zirkovich @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> Anyways, boy, am I glad that my values and morals are different - even though inferior to US values. (o)



Can you please tell me where I can read your values? On what authority is it based? Is it just what makes you feel good?


----------



## jsaras (Apr 5, 2011)

zircon_st @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> > We're seeing this right now in the Republican budget proposals. Give the richest people the most money via tax breaks, leave corporate loopholes wide open (GE paid no taxes in 2010), then cut Medicare, Medicaid, etc.



I agree with you completely about closing the corporate loopholes. 

Paul Ryan has outlined a budget with great specificity. The proposed Democratic budget....uh, there isn't one!! They didn't put one forth last year, nor are they putting one out right now. So when Republicans spend us into oblivion that's BAAADD, but when Democrats spend us into oblivion (they insist that they cannot find even just 1% to cut in the Federal budget) and involve us in even more costly wars that's just wonderful.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 5, 2011)

[quote="jsaras @ Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:51 pm"
Can you please tell me where I can read your values? On what authority is it based? Is it just what makes you feel good?[/quote]


"This is the oddest thing I've ever heard of. Let's hope we don't catch it. I'd hate to wake up some morning and find out that you weren't you."

"They're here already! You're next! You're next, You're next...! 

Dr. Miles J. Bennell from _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_


----------



## jsaras (Apr 5, 2011)

midphase @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> Wow...so that's how you read that huh? Unbelievable.."



I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm an ignorant conservative. Since you agree that it is imperative that we spend the money to ensure that school children get the re-written Bolshevik textbooks, please tell me about the Great Transgendered American contribution to the economic, political and social development of California and the United States of America. I attended religious schools, so they either didn't teach it to me or I stepped out to the bathroom when they talked about it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 5, 2011)

jsaras, the Marxist shit is why these conversations go nowhere.

Stealing from the rich. Geddout.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Apr 5, 2011)

> Paul Ryan has outlined a budget with great specificity. The proposed Democratic budget....uh, there isn't one!! They didn't put one forth last year, nor are they putting one out right now. So when Republicans spend us into oblivion that's BAAADD, but when Democrats spend us into oblivion (they insist that they cannot find even just 1% to cut in the Federal budget) and involve us in even more costly wars that's just wonderful.



I wonder why conservative policies have done more to increase spending and increase deficits than liberal ones, then. eg. Under Reagan, massive tax cuts and slashed entitlements led to a ballooning of the national debt. The Bush tax cuts, even excluding recessions (so limiting the years to 2004-2007) increased our deficits considerably... interesting.

As for Democrat budget proposals, you mean ones like this?

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/37 (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/vo ... enate/1/37)

Or this?

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ne ... ex.html?hp

Or this?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/153717-boehner-digs-in-on-spending-cuts-saying-33b-not-enough- (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/15371 ... ot-enough-)

etc?

Again, why do conservatives feel the need to lie or bend reality? This is an honest question. Can you explain how you can say that Democrats have not put forth budget proposals when they obviously have? I mean, do you expect that people won't check facts like that?


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 5, 2011)

jsaras @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> midphase @ Tue Apr 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...so that's how you read that huh? Unbelievable.."
> ...




Do you have any idea how people reading what you say are responding to you?

"Ignorant" is not the word that comes to mind, because even an ignorant person can be rational.

Do you honestly believe this "Bolshevik" and transgender-phobic / homophobic 
vitriol?

We're all in trouble.


----------



## Marko Zirkovich (Apr 5, 2011)

jsaras @ 4/5/2011 said:


> Marko Zirkovich @ Tue Apr 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyways, boy, am I glad that my values and morals are different - even though inferior to US values. (o)
> ...



You didn't need to read my values before making the blanket statement about the "inferior to US values" in your initial post. Whatever those elusive US values are, considering a population of 300 million+ individuals with apparently different outlooks.
What does it matter now?

So sorry, I'm not into posting my personal mission statement and set of values here on this board, it's not the right place. But yes, it does make me feel good to follow my values - isn't that the case with anyone who at least tries to live with integrity?


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 5, 2011)

@Zircon

You're apparently like-minded and live about 10 minutes from me. This is worth a brew.

Michael


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 5, 2011)

Marko Zirkovich @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> [
> You didn't need to read my values before making the blanket statement about the "inferior to US values" in your initial post. Whatever those elusive US values are, considering a population of 300 million+ individuals with apparently different outlooks.
> What does it matter now?



Marko please do not lump all 300 million+ US citizens into the same category.

jsaras views represent a VOCAL minority, but a minority nonetheless of Americans, who are unable to cope with the world in which we live, and respond with anger and hate. 

It is simply embarrassing to have the rest of the world think that he is representative of most Americans -- he is not.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 5, 2011)

@ zircon_st

If you call emergency procedural votes to kick the bucket down the road a "budget", then OK. The Democrats did not pass a Federal budget last year in spite of their complete control of all branches of government. They decided to kick the can down the road...which leads us to today...and we STILL have no budget. Turn on CNN for about 5 minutes and then talk to me about bending reality.

edit: Here's a link to a news story dated today regarding the budget/lack thereof: http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11580


----------



## Udo (Apr 5, 2011)

*Jsaras*, you're a vivid example of what research has concluded (incl. research funded by the conservative former Bush govt):
- Conservatism is a neurotic condition.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox


----------



## midphase (Apr 5, 2011)

I was thinking about the primary differences between liberals and conservatives relating to the population.

I arrived at the conclusion that Conservative (and Republican) ideals seem to follow the path of rationalizing that all humans are fundamentally good, and because of that they should be able to police themselves (i.e. less regulations, less oversight, etc.) since people and corporations will ultimately behave in a humanistic way that benefits the world (i.e. less government programs since churches and corporations will donate to good causes, less unions since corporations will make sure that the lowest workers are always justly compensated). Despite this apparent philosophy, Conservatives and Republicans alike seem to behave in the exact opposite way, driven in high numbers by greed and self interest, and unwilling to help the fellow man.

In the case of Liberals (and Democrats), the situation is kinda the opposite. They seem to believe that all men are essentially pretty selfish and evil if left to their own devices, so they need constraints and regulations to "keep them honest" and force them through taxation to provide a helping hand for their fellow man. Ironically, Liberals and Democrats also tend to behave the opposite of this philosophy, by generally showing more concern for the less fortunate, and more caution and concern for things like the environment.

I suppose technically it would make a lot more sense if the two philosophies were reversed, in essence Democrats should argue for less regulation and taxation since they wouldn't be needed as much, while Republicans should be the champions of strict government regulation and high taxation (which they tend to be...just not for the right reasons).


----------



## Udo (Apr 5, 2011)

jsaras @ Wed Apr 06 said:


> Udo, that's just tired B.S. it's not even funny anymore. The fact that the psychiatric profession has been ruined by its politicization cannot be denied. The funny thing is that it's actually about a psychological phenomenon called "projection". http://www.thepartisandialogues.com/political-discussion-topic.cfm?topic_id=87&p_num=0 (http://www.thepartisandialogues.com/pol ... 87&amp;p_num=0)


Jsaras, if you care to look around, there's plenty non partisan, objective research available on the subject worldwide (incl. by researchers with conservative beliefs). It will help you understand yourself ....

.... and, to be clear, there are plenty of non-conservatives with a neurotic condition.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 5, 2011)

jsaras @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> Udo, that's just tired B.S. it's not even funny anymore. The fact that the psychiatric profession has been ruined by its politicization cannot be denied. The funny thing is that it's actually about a psychological phenomenon called "projection". http://www.thepartisandialogues.com/political-discussion-topic.cfm?topic_id=87&p_num=0 (http://www.thepartisandialogues.com/pol ... 87&amp;p_num=0)



Just as I ask that others not judge Americans by Mr. Saras' extreme views, you should not judge Christians by his example either.

This article from Bill Moyers explores the negative link between politics and religion, and the toxic affects. 

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=ma ... cle=040810

No wonder they want to silence NPR and PBS. It's not about the money. It's about censorship.


----------



## Ed (Apr 5, 2011)

Hey jsaras,

I would still like to know, considering your recent defence of Numbers 31, whether unborn babies are always innocent or if they deserve to be punished for the sins/crimes of their parents. Considering you have such a strong death penalthy/pro-life stance I think it is quite relevant. According to the pro-life mantra abortion is murder, a soul is created at conception - and - the unborn are innocent.

Yet here in defense of that Bible passage you are arguing the opposite, that the unborn are *not *innocent of their parents crimes and *deserve *to be killed without mercy. But this is just one of many gaping contradictions in your arguments. The other is, as I have pointed out many times before which you keep bypassing, if you have as strong an opinion on the death penalty as you have made out in this thread then if you are against abortion because you believe that killing a fetus is equal to killing a baby or adult then the penalty for all abortion should be death as well. But on this you again argue *against *your own position, according to you they should just be made to feel bad about it. No punishment. This is an *extreme *liberal idea, how about we apply it to other crimes as well, would you like that? Of course not.

See my main problem with people like you is not so much your position on abortion or the death penalty. I can respect it if you believe xyz about abortion or the death penalty, but if you can't even be consistent and not instantly contradict yourself when even a modicum amount of analysis of your position is done, then there's really no reason anyone should take you seriously. Do you ever wonder why people mock conservatives so much? 

Of course speaking of contradictory stances, there is also the whole claim you made that the law and wisdom of Moses is something we should aspire to, yet when shown examples of what that would mean you either ignore them completely (eg. slavery, role of women, rules of war, homosexual punishment, animal sacrifices) or you come up with reasons why they don't apply today and we can ignore them - or - which brings me full circle... you defend it anyway which just ends up contradicting something else you said ie. the innocence of an unborn baby and if it deserves punishment to pay for the sins of its parents. The amazing thing for me is, like I said, that you can't even see you are doing this.

*EDIT: *

And I almost forgot the wonderful thing you said before, you said parents should have authority over their children and so therefore you believe in restricting abortions for minors. 

But what you *really *mean is parents should have to do what *you *want *the state* to *enforce*. As I pointed out before, if the parents *want *the child to have an abortion and the child *doesn't*, you would not be in favour. Therefore your idea that parents should have authority over their children is complete nonsense. For some reason you just assume that parents would only do what you want them to do. Have you even thought about any of this at all or do you know deep down you don't have to because you'll never have to deal with these issues in any practical way in the actual law?

Stuff like this is what extreme conservatives like you say all the time because it sounds good to other conservatives, but when you apply the slighest amount of critique to the ideas you realise it all falls apart.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 5, 2011)

@ Ed,

Perhaps there's a musical explanation for contradictory logic. ::

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_hyT7_Bx9o


----------



## Ed (Apr 5, 2011)

MichaelL @ Tue Apr 05 said:


>




hahah great video :lol: when Jack Black came out as Jesus I realised there were loads of people I recognised.

fixed your link btw 

I can already imagine the words "out of context" being typed.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 5, 2011)

Still have to use the link. Youtube isn't accepting the embed.

BTW, Jonas, if you're out there, before you go all homophobic on me, I've been married for nearly 30 years --straight as an arrow.

WOW...there's at least ONE middle-aged-caucasion male in America, who isn't filled with anger, hate and resentment-- hope springs eternal!


----------



## Ed (Apr 5, 2011)

Yes but this way there's a nice picture to look at :D

Jonas can't go homophobic since we'll have to ask him if he approves of the "divine law of Moses" which states that homosexual men should be put to death.

He won't support that of course, he'll probably ignore the issue entirely the same way he ignored all the other laws I pointed out that he didn't like, and that was just a fraction of the crazy stuff.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 5, 2011)

Ed,

Your seething antisemitism speaks for itself. I will continue with your education of the Torah. The following comes from a rabbi.

The penalty of stoning has stopped since it is impossible because of the requirements attached to it. Firstly, let us look at the requirements to implement the death penalty:
1) The Sanhedrin has to be sitting in the Chamber of Hewn stone in the Temple. If they are not, then NO Jewish court can impose a death sentence! immediately that shows that in the modern era we cannot utilize the death penalty. Thus the rest of the requirements are based on a time when that will be possible- i.e. the messianic era or in the past when the temple stood.
2) The action has to be done with the knowledge that it is forbidden, and with the intent to do it regardless of it being forbidden. If it was done accidently or without intent, the person brought a Korban Oleh v’yored (a variable sin sacrifice). If the person had killed someone accidently, they had to go and live in one of the cities of exile until the death of the current Kohen Gadol (if he happened to do it at a time when there was no Kohen Gadol, he stayed there for life even if one was appointed, and then subsequently died while he was in exile).
3) The people have to be warned beforehand by two kosher witnesses. They warning has to include the fact that the action is punishable by death (some authorities are stricter and say not only must they state it is a death penalty offense, but state which form of death penalty is involved- a wrong form or leaving it out invalidates the warning). So- think about it this way- you are about to commit a forbidden action- two people who are known to be upstanding citizens are standing and watching you and tell you that what you are about to do will earn you the death penalty… which leads to the next point
4) The person has to ACKNOWLEDGE the warning! So continuing the example above, you have these two people warn you- and you tell them you have hard the warning….
5) The person then has to immediately perform the forbidden action. This is defined as doing it within the time it takes to say “Shalom lecha Rebbi”- in other words around 3 seconds. So, as we continue our example, the person is warned, acknowledges the warning and then, in front of these two upstanding citizens that have warned him, he immediately does the forbidden action! Not a highly probably sequence of events!
6) The court has to have a minimum of twenty three judges. (In Jerusalem there were three courts- but only the great Sanhedrin of 72 judges heard capital cases). In front of the judges sat three rows of disciples with the most seniour disciples at the back, closest to the judges. They had to be there for the entire case and if a judge died, one would be elevated to replace him.
7) The witnesses were asked two sets of questions- one which established the facts such as when, where, how etc, the other based on their observations. Any discrepancy would render their testimony invalid.
8.) Witnesses could be called to either defend the accused or to claim the other witnesses were lying (eidim zomemim)
9) The judges would deliberate- While deliberating a judge that argued for innocence could not then raise an argument to find them guilty- a judge who had argued they were guilty, could raise an argument that they were innocent (after which he could not raise further arguments for their guilt)
10) The most juniour judge would put their arguments across first and then it would continue in order of reverse seniority so that people would not be worried about contradicting the more seniour judges after they had spoken
11) ) The disciples could raise an argument to find the defendant innocent, but could not argue for his guilt. A disciple that raised an argument would be temporarily elevated to the position of judge.
12) when a vote was finally taken only a majority of one was needed for innocence, but a majority of two needed for guilt (A note here- those judges who had argued for innocence, while not allowed to raise arguments for guilt, could vote for the person to be found guilty)

In all, it was exceptionally difficult for a court to sentence someone to death- there is thus a statement made in the Talmud that a court that sentenced more than two people to death in 7 years was bloodthirsty, an alternate opinion states it was 70 years. Rabbi Akivah stated that if the courts had the power to sentence people to death in his day (they didn’t as the Temple had been destroyed), no one would ever have been convicted as he would have asked such questions as to make sure the witnesses were invalidated.
Source(s):
So, if it was so difficult to sentence people to death according to the Torah, then why does the Torah utilise it so often? The answer here is that it is to illustrate the seriousness of a particular action. It is letting us know that certain actions are serious enough for us to lose our lives, and that these actions are hard to atone for.

Sources: Orthodox Jew; acting Rabbi, Torah Talmud masechta Sanhedrin; Talmud masechta Makkos; full article at http://messianicsexposed.com/2010/08/05/…


----------



## Ed (Apr 5, 2011)

jsaras @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> Ed,
> 
> Your seething antisemitism speaks for itself. I will continue with your education of the Torah. The following comes from a rabbi.



:| ..... Are you serious? Anti-semitism?? :roll: Wow.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Jews... lets think about this for a moment...

Jews haven't been following the laws of Moses recently, have they? Do they have slaves? Are they beating their slaves so they can't get up for 2 days? When was the last time they invaded other countries and masacred all inhabitants including women, children, babies and the unborn without mercy? When did they kill everyone but keep the vigin girls for themselves? Are they taking these young virgin girls and making them their wives against their will, shaving their heads and cutting their nails and if they don't like them just kick them out? Sure there's the confict with Palestine but even then we never see anything like the atrocities as described in the Bible. Even Hitler and the Nazies weren't *that *bad. Do they follow the law of rape that the women has to marry her rapist and pay a fine to her father? Do they follow the the law that you can be executed for not honoring the sabbeth? Or.... when you curse your parents, or when you blaspheme, or when you commit adultery, or if you're a rape victim that fails to scream loud enough, for disobeying your parents, for worshipping another god, for having homosexual intercourse, for not having an unbroken hymen in your wedding night etc etc. you get the idea.

If you can find some Jews that still do that, yes they *are *utterely violently insane and add to that if you can find any Christians that still do that I would say the same thing. The fact is that Jews don't follow the laws of Moses and neither do you, you can say you think its great all you like when it comes down to it all you can do is ignore all the laws you say are so great to aspire to.

EDIT: haha I just realised! The Jews are biologically related to the violent tribe lead by Moses, but you see Jsaras I don't blame them for the sins of their ancestors like you apparently do. 



> Although allowing for the death penalty in some hypothetical circumstances,* scholars of Judaism are broadly opposed to the death penalty *as practiced in the modern world. The Jewish opposition is not based on a literal reading of the Jewish Bible, but rather on Judaism's Oral Law. In 30 AD,* forty years before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment*[citation needed]. As God alone was deemed to be the only arbiter in the use of capital punishment, not fallible people, *the Sanhedrin made stoning a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment*


- Stoning In Judaism

We don't see Jews actually living by the laws set out in the Old Testament, do we? 

*You however* are saying that we *should *follow the "laws and wisdom of Moses". I am telling you/showing you, that you really don't want to follow the laws of Moses. You even tried giving me some reasons why we can ignore most of them. 




> The penalty of stoning has stopped since it is impossible because of the requirements attached to it. Firstly, let us look at the requirements to implement the death penalty:
> 1) The Sanhedrin has to be sitting in the Chamber of Hewn stone in the Temple. If they are not, then NO Jewish court can impose a death sentence! immediately that shows that in the modern era we cannot utilize the death penalty. Thus the rest of the requirements are based on a time when that will be possible- i.e. the messianic era or in the past when the temple stood.




Bureaucracy is a bitch. Apparently the divine law of god still has to deal with paperwork. 

It seems to me that this guy has just come up with a load of reasons why they can't stone people anymore, I suggest its because he knows its stupid and immoral and just doesn;t want to admit that.

I feel I should again point out you have not answered my question. Are unborn babies innocent or not? Do they deserve punishment for the crimes/sins of their parents or not?

The problem for you is that you cannot answer this question either way without arguing against yourself. You've tied yourself in so many knots the only way to get out of this is to either stop replying or ignore everything.


----------



## dpasdernick (Apr 5, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Fri Apr 01 said:


> Conservatives aren't bad people. They're just selfish.
> 
> They don't want to be taxed. They want to be able to pollute without consequences. They don't want anybody who is not like them to enter the country. They want to force women to bring pregnancies to term, but won't pay a dime for medical support of mother or child. People accused of crimes get three-strikes if not the death penalty. Anybody outside of our borders can be bombed and tortured. Drill baby, drill.
> 
> ...



Jon,

A few answers to your comments:

1) I am fine with being taxed. I want to pay my way. I don't want to pay for Pelosi's $18,000 a month office but I want to pay for schools and roads etc. In fact I would pay more if I new it was going to help pay the deficit down and not to a politician.

2) I don't want to pollute. I recycle as much as I can and try to help out with car pooling etc.

3) Absolutely people from other countries can come to America. As long as it is legal for them to do so. (I did, from Canada, and am happy to be a permanent resident in this great country.)

4) Women can make a decision based on the laws as to whether they want to keep their baby (moral issues aside) However if the woman chooses to have the baby then they can pay for their benefits like I pay for my babies benefits.

5) The three strikes comment is interesting. So if someone made you a victim 3 times in a row for a crime you would turn the other cheek and say "no problem"? What if the crime was rape? Murder? What do we do with habitual offenders? Rehabilitation? Definitely a good option. Who pays for that? Tell me your solution dealing with a 3rd time rapist. 

6) Why would anybody want to bomb and murder people anywhere? It's 2011. Haven't we evolved to realize that this gets us know where? And if this is strictly a conservative habit then why is Mr. Obama doing it?

7) Do you own a car? If so stop driving it now. That way you will lessen our burden on oil... period. Since they moved my office I now have an 21 mile commute each way. If you can get me to work in under an hour without oil I am all ears my friend.

I don't know if this defines me as a conservative. I do hope it defines me as a human being.

With all due respect,

Darren


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 5, 2011)

dpasdernick @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> [
> I don't know if this defines me as a conservative.
> Darren




No ...not to the extreme as exemplified by Jonas. Sorry, you're just one of us.

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 5, 2011)

@Ed,

Time to end this thread. We've all got better things to do.

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 5, 2011)

"Paul Ryan has outlined a budget with great specificity."

Yes, and it specifically prescribes painful sex for the country (the forum software wouldn't let me post the specific type of sex). He's a bad, bad man.

It's frightening that *I* know more about economics than the top Republican "intellect."


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 5, 2011)

Nick you would be surprised at an alliance behind closed doors where Dick Armey and Bernie Sanders want Bernanke fired....
I love Bernie, he's a Socialist and I don't agree with everything he stands for, but the way he wants to keep the Corporations in line is actually what I want as well. Thats exactly why we need regulations and Government arbitration.
But I am quite sure you know that Armey actually hijacked the Tea Party and brought in massive cash the very week after the Supreme Courts decision in 1/10 passed where undisclosed and foreign contributions became legal.
I cannot believe that law wasn't even mentioned or went to a committee. One day it just passed, and while a SUPER DUPER Majority too...??

This is why I believe the last 5 years of legislation has been controlled entirely by the Fed. Right down to that born to fail health care plan, that was so corrupt and poorly written, it was easy to turn around 4 years later and lobby for a new group of fall guys. The Tea Party was perfect....Paul Ryan has been getting major support from somewhere undisclosed, and I truly believe that the Federal Reserve and its " board members ", like the Pentagon, are all in on this one.

Haven't red the bill yet, but let me take a guess.
All social programs and emntitlements will be cut and the Military and Pentagon budgets are also mentioned, but at the end of the day once the bribes start getting passed around to negotiate the cuts down to a realistic instead of draconian amount, the military will not be touched. How can we possibly cut the military when the Middle East conveniently is on fire....??

This budget will never pass, but just like the health care bill....it wasn't meant to.
If Dick Armey ever becomes Chairman Of The Fed...we will surely become slaves in the midst of another " crisis."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 5, 2011)

Penis Armey is really bad news.

But why do you say the Fed is in charge of it all? Bernanke knows what he's doing. The Fed is actually being too cautious in my opinion, but at least they're doing some QE.

(I don't think it's going to work very well, since the politics we really need - meaning fiscal spending - didn't happen. But at least they're doing the right thing.)


----------



## snowleopard (Apr 6, 2011)

I don't trust the Democrats, and find them nearly as corrupted as the GOP. But no one can deny that over the last 30 years the super wealthy and connected have made off like bandits, while the working class has really taken it on the chin. 

What so many who scream about cutting government don't realize is just what a large portion is for the elderly. They want to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and think that is mostly just a bunch of lazy people. But I would challenge anyone of this persuasion to take a walk through any nursing home, and know that nearly all those people worked all their lives, and none chose to end up there like they did. Most of these so called conservatives also seem ignorant of the fact that we now spend more money on defense as a percentage of the budget than even the height of the cold war. 

To me there are a few true conservatives out there I find myself agreeing with on many issues. Andrew Bacevich comes to mind. But the screaming "conservatives" won't give someone like him a second of time it seems. 

I'm not sure how to even respond to Jsaras. The best statement I can come up with regarding the _no government _rhetoric is from James Madison, "If all men were angels there would be no need for government."


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 6, 2011)

You only need to read how the Chinese just helped us out with another currency adjustment. They need Libyan Oil, we guaranteed that delivery for them by aiding rebel controlled port cities.
The Pentagon backed by the Fed and the guarantee of debt bought by the Chinese is what drives our decision making, and not one of us, whichever party we think represents us had a single say in these matters.

Then we claim that NATO is taking over, which means we still pay for everything anyway. 
This is why the Federal Reserve and its global banking board members can no longer call such shots without drawing attention. But here we are talking about human rights and watching the people we elect get brushed aside as if their voice doesn't count. 

What happens when China invades Taiwan and the NKoreans simultaneously invade SKorea....? Probably will never happen, but from a financial standpoint, we must borrow the money from China just to fight them.
If it was up to the American people who we should be in bed with, none of this would be allowed.

It started under Bush and Cheney who are Big Oil boys, we gave the Chinese Long Beach so they could have access to the worlds largest consumer markets. the middle class, and under Obama the borrowing has increased exponentially. But the DC players aren't concerned where the money comes from, as long as they get it.

So to take care of this unholy union we have with such lovers of human rights, we need to cut back on health care for the elderly which they earned and were promised, just so our armed forces can be spread around the globe to appease those we borrow from.............

If that's not having the Federal Reserve calling the shots, I would love to be corrected. I really wish I was wrong but I have been following this nonsense ever since Califronias largest port became Chinese property. My Uncle is now a retired Longshoresmen as this betrayal hastened his retirement. Where was AFL-CIO and Obama then...?

The Chinese have a saying that actually is a back handed admiration of our Middle Class lifestyle, which they are taking..............

The Wisest Men and the Stupidest Men Never Change..


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 6, 2011)

Along with a lot that I agree with, that analysis has a lot of fishy stuff in my opinion, Chimuelo. I don't buy that the Chinese are helping us out by devaluing their currency. It's undervalued by almost 25% if I remember right, and the tiny adjustments they made are to help stem inflation, not to help us by making their exports more expensive.

And Europe gets oil from Libya.

***

"If all men were angels there would be no need for government."

I like that quote, but it's a whole lot more than that!


----------



## JonFairhurst (Apr 6, 2011)

Darren, it sounds like you have exceptionally well rounded values. And yes, I see you as more "human" than "conservative." 

However, one thing you wrote stuck with me.



dpasdernick said:


> ... I don't want to pay for Pelosi's $18,000 a month office...



My guess is that you haven't bought into the overall conservative platform (no taxes for the wealthy and large corporations, big military, etc), but you might have bought into "identity politics" or "team politics" which is based largely on character assassination and cartoon depictions of a party's most extreme supporters.

Pelosi rents 3,075 sq. ft. of office space in a downtown San Francisco federal building. She pays the same rate as other federal agencies and tenants in that building. This isn't a penthouse on the Ritz. It's a federal office building. 

Representatives all get an allowance of between $1.4 million to $1.7 million for MRAs (Members' Representational Allowances). Pelosi, Boehner and Cantor are all on the high end because of their leadership positions. If Pelosi chooses to spend more on rent, that means she has less money for staff, travel, etc.

But the $18k plays well in painting her as an elite, out-of-touch liberal. (We also hear that Obama is a Socialist and Muslim who wasn't even born here. And Democrats are all tree hugging PETA members who want to take away your guns. FEAR THEM!)

I recommend that we all do our best to recognize when the political operatives try to manipulate us with identity politics. (And yes, both parties try to do it. Against popular belief, most Republicans don't live in bunkers with their caches of guns, ammo, and books about how the Earth is less than 6,000 years old.)

Identity politics are used when a party wants popular support, but won't get popular support based on their platform.

It's all about political actions people - not just what they say, but what they do - and who they do it for.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 6, 2011)

Yes it's a theory of mine and no one elses, so I understand the fishy aspects of it. But after a lawsuit I was involved in showed how our falsely created bubble in the housing market was literally transferred to Shanghai, the missing pieces of my paranoid puzzle make more and more sense everyday.

With that topic set aside, one thing is certain.
Congress hasn't voted on the trillions we print and recirculate to banks around the globe.
I have to painfully watch Senate and Congressional hearings on C-Span, and instead of reading blogs or watching these ratings driven Cable News " shows " I have learned just how little our elected officials really participate in these " global " decisions.

I also learned to respect many politicians like Bernie Sanders, D. Kosinich, McCain, P. Ryan and yes the stalwart Nacy Pelosi, who I think is the most effectice speaker we ever had. Of course I dont agree 100% with any of these people as they are only parts of the whole of the 2 warring " factions " that actually get sidestepped more than we know.

I was especially discouraged during the health care legislative period. Yes, I want reform, but what we saw, or didn't see, was most frightening to me. It reeked of lies and corruption, and I actually believe it was created to give the insurance companies a 4 year period to consolidate and raise rates just in case the American people actually raise enough Hell to revise it.

But the process is exactly what infuriated Americans, and we are now ready to comprimise and fix the parts that need fixing, and we don't get a say so in that metter either as the new Tea Party fall guys are instructed to repeal it entirely.......

This reeks of outside control and manipulation from money.
The only people with money like that are banks and the Federal Reserve.
Jesus the AFL-CIO has 440 Million invested and that wasn;t enough to consolidate a win....??

And Nancy Pelosi can fly all of the planes she wants, I am cool with that. She's the finest looking 70 year old I ever saw.
But the stimulus funds that built the new " needed " railroad to her lavish Napa Valley Winery was a little more than I cared to chip in on.
But hey Californians shouldn't be bothered by that, it brought temporary jobs, and the Banks at the Federal Reserve table of world elites made us pay for it........
Hats Off 2 Her...


----------



## JonFairhurst (Apr 6, 2011)

Yeah, there's the concept of the "virtual senate". It might be in a small country's best interests to raise or lower the value of their currency or accept or refuse a loan. But if an outsider (or insider for that matter) threatens to move a large sum of money out of that country, who can risk upsetting them? Capital flight can bankrupt a country overnight.

Frankly, no country is immune from the virtual senate. Some voted against the bank bailout and complain about it, but we still wrote the check with a gun to our heads. It's not like Bush vetoed the thing.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 6, 2011)

Yes and back in 2000 " Conspiracy Theorists " said Bush Sr. got Jr. elected to finish the job in Iraq because of the failed assination attempts of Bush Sr. in Kuwait during the Clinton tenure. Funny how that story ended 'eh...?

Thankfully for Bush the New York Times ran with the Weapons Of Mass Destruction headlines and fooled America. Good thing such a Liberal paper follows orders at the right times or we'd be in big trouble.

Our Strategic Oil Reserves were filled past the max levels and then they filled Yucca Mountain.............You know the place that never gets finsihed being built and decades of debate,etc.etc... That was a good war I guess.

I live smack in the middle of the Countrys' largest holdings of Federal Land......92%.
Yet you can carry a gun, buy a woman, smoke and drink anywhere, walk down the street with an open container.......But these are different Feds out here in Nevada.... 8) 

I hope before I part this world I find out the truth about DC, if we are just Ancient Aliens descendants, which religion really was meant for humans..........
Confusion is a great motivator for the quest of knowledge.
Now back to Bidule, I am on a quest 4 far more importantthings than the lies and deciept we are fed everyday. It is fascinating though.


Peace....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 6, 2011)

chimuelo, QE isn't the same as printing money and distributing it around the world, it's adding reserves to banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System. While they could convert that to currency, they don't (because they collect interest for holding excess reserves); the effect is that they simply have more firepower.


----------



## Udo (Apr 6, 2011)

Wouldn't things work a lot better, if politicians (and "opinion makers" like journalists, talk show hosts, etc.) were put under oath by default when making public statements (with an option to opt-out, but only for individual appearances/statements).

If you think it wouldn't work, at least for politicians within parliament, ... why not? 

(Maybe it would also help the climate; a lot less "hot air"  ).


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 6, 2011)

jsaras @ Fri Apr 01 said:


> If you don't work, you shouldn't eat (that's in the Bible for those who are recent college graduates).



"The young man said to him, "All these things I have observed from my youth. What do I still lack?"
Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sad, for he was one who had great possessions. Jesus said to his disciples, "Most certainly I say to you, a rich man will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven with difficulty. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."

Matthew 19:16-30

Jesus commanded, "Love your neighbor." When asked to define "neighbor," Jesus expanded the traditional meaning of the word--defining our neighbor as anyone who is in need, including social outcasts: "But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed." (Luke 14:13)

In his portrayal of the day of judgment, Jesus pictured people from all nations gathered before him, separated into "sheep" and "goats." (Matthew 25:31-46) To the "sheep" he says, "Come you blessed of my Father, for I was hungry and you fed me..." In their astonishment they ask, "When did we do that?" And he answers, "When you did it to the lowliest of my brothers (and sisters)." Conversely, to the "goats" he says, "Out of my sight, you who are condemned, for I was hungry and you did not feed me..."


Prov. 21:13 He who shuts his ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in his own time of need. 


Prov. 28:27 If you give to the poor, your needs will be supplied! But a curse upon those who close their eyes to poverty. 

There's a lot more, of course. And that's just one 'Bible'. Selective reading and interpretation are wonderful things.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 6, 2011)

Amen NYC Composer.

It's amazing to me that all these Bible thumpin' conservatives seem to miss the most important parts of the Bible.

I often think that if they really understood what Jesus was all about they'd think he was a pink communist lefty.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 6, 2011)

(btw, I'm Jewish-heh.)


----------



## Ed (Apr 7, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Wed Apr 06 said:


> There's a lot more, of course. And that's just one 'Bible'. Selective reading and interpretation are wonderful things.



No man, you're taking it out of context :wink:


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 7, 2011)

Theory-economic safety nets that protect the poor, the sick, the elderly, the children, and that are supported by taxes, are both necessary and in line with most of the goals of most major religions. The fact is-if charity and compassion are not compelled , they WILL NOT happen in sufficient amounts because by nature mankind is selfish and hoarding.

Now the fact that we in America can't do anything collectively at a reasonable cost and in an efficient manner-that's another discussion.


----------



## robh (Apr 7, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> Well Rob..hold on.
> 
> You're assuming that whatever money you give to the church is going to make its way to the poor?


Ultimately, that is one of the church's mandates (the church as a whole and I mean as a group of people, not an impersonal institution as we tend to think of it). I suppose it depends on which church as to what proportion goes to serving the poor (and also how much the congregation is giving). I know our church does it. Not only within our city (and on the property), but support for other organizations that serve the poor. My 2nd born son is currently sponsoring a child through Compassion International as well as tithing the little money he makes from a part time job. So, I think if you really dug deeper, there is a lot more charity happening from the church folk than what appears on the surface.

I could throw that question back at you: You're assuming that whatever money you give to the government is going to make its way to the poor?

Me? I'll hedge my bets on the church doing a better job!  

Rob


----------



## Thonex (Apr 7, 2011)

chimuelo @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> I might convert to Islam though.
> The idea of virgins waiting for me when I die is most alluring.



The problem with virgins is they don't have any experience. If we're talking about heaven... wouldn't you want a top-of-the-line expert? :mrgreen: 

Ok... Back On Topic...

Cheers,

Andrew K


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 7, 2011)

robh @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> [You're making the false assumption that "all these Bible thumpin' conservatives" aren't doing anything to help the poor. Perhaps they just don't think the government is the best or most efficient place to invest in taking care of the poor.



I come from a long line of "thumpers" (I am not). My experience is that they are more likely to use the Bible to rationalize and justify the condition of the poor. Some are pretty punitive.

@Kays --you are quite correct. I have been a member of a 'mainstream" denomination. Where I live there are far more churches of this denomination than there are people to fill the pews. Yet, those churches remain open. I have seen vast amounts of money spent on the upkeep of aging buildings, heating and air conditioning etc., for the benefit of relatively few, somewhat affluent people. Not a lot of trickle down.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 7, 2011)

Thonex @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> If we're talking about heaven...



Wouldn't LASS be playing in the background? 

OK...NOW back on topic.

Michael


----------



## midphase (Apr 7, 2011)

robh @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> I could throw that question back at you: You're assuming that whatever money you give to the government is going to make its way to the poor?
> 
> Me? I'll hedge my bets on the church doing a better job!
> 
> Rob



The problem that I'm concerned about is not who is more efficient at dispensing money and services to the poor, but the discretionary spending of said money based on religious/moral motivating factors. For instance, would the church be more likely to donate to a homeless shelter which provides religious guidance for its members, or a homeless shelter that does in no way shape or form impart any religious guidance? Would the church be more likely to donate to a group who purports to "redeem" gay and lesbian kids and counsel them towards "straightness" or a group who proposes to empower gay and lesbian teens with counseling which reinforces their lifestyle?

See how quickly we get into serious problems with that argument? (and I haven't even touched on organizations like Planned Parenthood, or sex awareness classes)


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 7, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> robh @ Thu Apr 07 said:
> 
> 
> > I could throw that question back at you: You're assuming that whatever money you give to the government is going to make its way to the poor?
> ...



My thinking on this issue has changed over the years. The traditional 'bread and Jesus' style of missionaries used to horrify me because of what i saw as the coercion
of that approach. It seemed to me that 'saved souls' were a form of spiritual currency for missionaries.

Nowadays, bread and Jesus is ok with me. Bread for the starving is ok at practically any cost.


----------



## robh (Apr 7, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> robh @ Thu Apr 07 said:
> 
> 
> > I could throw that question back at you: You're assuming that whatever money you give to the government is going to make its way to the poor?
> ...


I didn't realize sex awareness classes was a form of ministry to the poor.  

Rob


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 7, 2011)

FYI, The homeless shelters here in Nevada live off of the help from the Federal government, but the best meals and actual true concern by providing temporary work come solely from the Catholic Charities.
St.Vincents even provides various layers of help.
I was on the working mans program after my first divorce.
I pathetically turned to drugs and drinking and was actually fired from my gig.
I immediately on return from Europe got on the out of work list at the Union Hall, and then stayed in their 5 dollar a night barracks, knowing in the morning I could get breakfast, and a sack lunch and then go do an odds and end job for one of the many THOUSAND of charitable people, mostly elderly and the kind hearted, which only gave us 40 bucks, but it really helped restore a sense of self pride, and in all honesty the fellow bedmates were so foul that alone was a motivation to excell.
After 6 weeks the Union accepted my transfer, and I have used that experience to excell to where I am today.
I even sent my youngest son to private school until I felt he would excell in public school.
He gets excellent grades since he already learned what they're teaching while in middle school.

This was an example of how Government who built the facility, along with extra charity really works well. I have no shame what so ever and considered it a valuable experience.

I also will take the time and thank my AFL-CIO Concrete workers Union as they actually save the Feds from having to spend alot of money protecting workers in the private sector from unfair practice, which is another reality whether you like it or not.

Wisconsin is an example of failed policy in DC since these issues should never have been handed off to the States, but partially subsidized. The arbitrators gave back some benefits, but after that the unkown Governor with Billionaire backing reeks of lobbyists on a Federal level.

Public schools are like the Post Office, sure they are inefficient, and poorly run, never seems to be enough money, but without them, private schools would be much higher than they are, so take my money and at least try and fix things.
Imagine how friendly UPS and FedEx would be if we had no Post Office.
Many Veterans take jobs in the USPS after serving their nation, so lets give these guys a break and a decent pension.......


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 7, 2011)

So while we're still bouncing all of this around...

What is it that conservatives have against the environment?

Clean air and clean water cost too much?

Is it ever about anything but money?


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 7, 2011)

MichaelL @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> So while we're still bouncing all of this around...
> 
> What is it that conservatives have against the environment?
> 
> ...



That's easy. They believe the whole thing is a liberal boondoggle to increase the size of government.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 7, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> That's easy. They believe the whole thing is a liberal boondoggle to increase the size of government.



Hmm..so when you and I are drinking toxic water, because of the gas drilling that's about to occur in our states, they'll say our objections are just a ploy to increase the size of government?

That makes complete sense. And given the choice between big government and toxic water I'd have to choose toxic water. o[])

I feel better now.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Apr 7, 2011)

The Republican Party seems mostly driven to protect get-rich-quick schemes. They want to privatize Social Security. Why? Because when the government runs it, it can't be exploited for large, personal gain. Send the money to Wall Street and the investment bankers can dip their buckets into the stream of cash.

Same with Medicare. Right now, nobody gets rich. Taxes are paid. People get service. Those who provide the services are paid - at a bit under the market rate. Transfer that cash flow to a cabal of insurance companies and you get stock options, huge salaries, golden parachutes and dividends. Add marketing and legal costs and efficiency falls. Add an ethos of squeezing clients to pay shareholders and the patients get screwed from all angles.

Yet the big business PR teams have no qualms about the lie that big business is a paragon of efficiency. One thing for sure: It's efficient at syphoning cash away from the people who pay and from the people who work.

Another example is that the GOP wants to cut agents from the ranks of the IRS. They don't just advocate low taxes - they advocate cheating on your taxes. If the deficit were really important, they'd double the number of IRS agents so us honest people don't have to pay the fraudsters. 

So, yeah, toxic water is good - it helped make some sociopaths rich(er)!


----------



## midphase (Apr 7, 2011)

robh @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> I didn't realize sex awareness classes was a form of ministry to the poor.
> 
> Rob



That's part of the problem. A strong (and government funded) sexual education courses, particularly for low income areas...but not limited to that, is fundamentally important. And so is the ready availability of birth control, and unfortunately, when necessary, abortion and counseling.

Generally speaking, people with religious intentions don't see the sexual discourse as a necessity.


----------



## robh (Apr 7, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> robh @ Thu Apr 07 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't realize sex awareness classes was a form of ministry to the poor.
> ...


Definitely not as necessary as food, drink, clothing and shelter. If people die due to lack of those things, sex doesn't really matter.

Give a starving man a choice between a loaf of bread and sex with a beautiful woman, he'll probably take the bread (after asking sorrowfully why he can't have both!  ).

Rob


----------



## midphase (Apr 7, 2011)

Rob, you're oversimplifying. Things are not as black and white as that. The bottom line remains that I don't trust religious organizations to make the right choices when it comes to how to manage and disperse money to the needy. Sure one could make an argument that the church is better than nothing, but I think in the richest country in the world we can do a little bit better than nothing...don't you think?


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 7, 2011)

The Church allows anyone in its doors as long as you work in some capacity and dont drink.
You will still get fed, but they will not let you sleep in their bunks.
Where as the Government will enable you by giving you free money which naturally has zero accountability, just a sustained life of misery.
One only needs to go to the Wharf in San Francisco the second week of every month and see the sidewalks clogged with beggars.
The first week many pool thier funds for room and then drink and drug thier way back to the Wharf.

So while the elites feel all good inside and better as oh well we tried, they are not anywhere near the scene to see the pitiful results of some of their failed social experiments.
Scomas and Aliottas resturaunts have been there for decades, and actually had to lobby the Mayor to get someone with common sense to come and see, and yes they did try and change things, but as most social experiments go, if the funds are cut, you're killing innocent people and depriving the poor, etc.


P.S. Brotha' Man Thonex...
I hail from Nevada where the experts are making great money, the money is so good that Harry Reid is shaking them down for money as we speak. He'll never ban Prostitution and everyone knows this, including his Union bosses who frequent these establishments.
Harry just needs a little more money as he just never has enough to cover his lavish lifestyle, but he really does care about the little guys......
In the DSP world many of our plug ins are made with signature names on them and need permission to be re sold.
I have a few with names of " experts "........Praise The Lord.....
This is why I really would love to be surrounded by beautiful virgins. Besides when I croak I will be to old to do anything, but it does sound holy.
Anyone know if when we go to Heaven we can pick the age we want to be, or are we like 90 forever...?
Before I try and buy a seat in Heaven I want to know what I get before I buy.
Maybe a downloadable demo-video of the palace or place I am suppose to float around in..?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 7, 2011)

chimuelo, just curious: prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas, so how do they get away with all those ads for it? You know, those pathetic immigrants on the sidewalk handing out those porno cards (including to my then 15-year-old daughter), the ads promising a girl delivered to you in ten minutes, etc.

I've only been there once - we stopped on the way driving to Utah - and it was...overwhelming to say the least.



> The Republican Party seems mostly driven to protect get-rich-quick schemes.



Exactly. The way I always put it is that they're the party of making as much money now without regard for the consequences.


----------



## robh (Apr 8, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> Rob, you're oversimplifying. Things are not as black and white as that. The bottom line remains that I don't trust religious organizations to make the right choices when it comes to how to manage and disperse money to the needy. Sure one could make an argument that the church is better than nothing, but I think in the richest country in the world we can do a little bit better than nothing...don't you think?


 And IMO you're over-complicating. I'll give you another few examples and hopefully give you something to think about: My Dad. He partnered with an organization to help poor areas in various areas around the world to deliver clean water through a filter system designed to be simple and be able to use the resources at hand to construct. Because of my Dad's work, it was estimated that in the Philippines alone, 60000 people will have access to clean water and avoid death caused by water born diseases. That was just my Dad. There are many more. Do you think he made the right choice? Our assistant pastor essentially stepped down and took his family to Zambia, and using his agriculture background, helped a village learn how to grow food lifting them out of poverty. Do you think he made the right choice? What about organizations like Compassion International, or World Vision? Don't you think providing really poor children with food, clothing, and education is a right choice? I typically loathe TV evangelist types, but whenever I flipped through and caught James Robison's show, he would mention a project for drilling wells so villages could have clean water - again preventing illness and death - and would encourage his viewers to donate. Is saving lives not a right choice? Do you still believe you can't trust the church to make the right choice?
I wonder if you have been jaded by to much media attention on the moral failures of prominent church leaders or fringe idiots with "God hates gays" signs.

Rob


----------



## jsaras (Apr 8, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Wed Apr 06 said:


> jsaras @ Fri Apr 01 said:
> 
> 
> > "The young man said to him, "All these things I have observed from my youth. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor......."



I do not disagree with a single word here. However, you are equating taxation as "giving to the poor". Having done mission work with those who live in true poverty in the Philippines, I can tell you plainly that there's no comparing the "poor" here in the U.S. who have good health, an apartment, cable TV, etc. with those who literally scavenge through burning trash for food. En masse, we do not have true poverty here in the U.S. 

Similarly, when Jesus spoke of giving to the poor, he was speaking who lived in true desperation and he spoke about giving by one's own free choice.

I have friends and family who work with the poor in Africa (AIDS clinic), Kenya, Tanzania and Honduras (orphanage) and even Afghanistan. If anyone cares to put their money where their mouth is I'd be glad to pass along information as to how to make donations.

As to the distrust of religious charities getting the relief to those who need it, I can assure you that it's more likely that your dollar will make it to the poor than your taxes are likely to "end up in the classroom". Seriously, if you want to evaluate any charity go to http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... orgid=5646


----------



## jsaras (Apr 8, 2011)

midphase @ Tue Apr 05 said:


> I was thinking about the primary differences between liberals and conservatives relating to the population.
> 
> I arrived at the conclusion that Conservative (and Republican) ideals seem to follow the path of rationalizing that all humans are fundamentally good.....
> In the case of Liberals (and Democrats), the situation is kinda the opposite.



I think you're close. Conservatives are able to call good people "good" (even those liberals we disagree with) and murderers, rapists, etc. as "bad". 

Conversely, it seems that liberals hate conservatives more than they hate evil, if they even acknowledge the existence of evil. If you hated murderers, rapists and radical Islam half as much as you hated conservatives...well, you don't. You seek to 'understand' evil. 

Given this unwillingness or inability to judge someone's behavior as evil, it comes as no surprise that liberals go extra-crazy when confronted by the idea of an Almighty who judges with unfailing accuracy, including those judgments in the OT.

J


----------



## Ed (Apr 8, 2011)

jsaras @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> I think you're close. Conservatives are able to call good people "good" (even those liberals we disagree with) and murderers, rapists, etc. as "bad".



I would say I am a liberal and I am perfectly able to call people evil, the problem is I tend to not want to use that word because of what you guys claim evil means. If you give me a non supernatural/religous definition of evil I'll gladly call people evil. For example Moses was clearly an evil charatcer, but you would say he was good. Hence this disconnect we have here.



> it comes as no surprise that liberals go extra-crazy when confronted by the idea of an Almighty who judges with unfailing accuracy, including those judgments in the OT.



Come on jsaras we've been over the OT, no one follows the OT laws. Not the Jews, not you and no one in their right mind would ever want to. They are barbaric, cruel, violent, oppressive and absurd.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 8, 2011)

Ed,

Initially I specifically advocated:
Ending precarious practices like fiat money, fractional reserve banking and deficit spending, promoting elective representative government, equitable taxation, just restitution to be paid by criminals and capital punishment for murders.

You NEVER responded in any way to these ideas whose foundations are in the Bible, so am I to assume that you stand in opposition to all those ideas? Or perhaps more accurately, you do not favor capital punishment of anyone under any circumstance and that drives you so crazy that you make arguments against something that I never suggested.

Your assessment of OT laws is wildly off base. If you want to try to equate God implementing his judgment as an abortion of an innocent, go ahead. But that's not what it was/is and your problem is not with me. 

I also provided ample information as to how Judaism, following its own laws, makes it amply sure that when capital punishment is handed out by human courts, is extra-sure that the accused is dealt with justly.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 8, 2011)

jsaras @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> I think you're close. Conservatives are able to call good people "good" (even those liberals we disagree with) and murderers, rapists, etc. as "bad".



I would include the gas companies who are trashing the environment in my state on the "bad" list.

What does the Bible say about destroying God's creation for profit?


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 8, 2011)

jsaras @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> [As to the distrust of religious charities getting the relief to those who need it,



The problem with religious charities is not a distrust in whether or not the money will get there, but a recognition of their primary agenda, which is to proselytize.

That has worked out really well for the indigenous people of North and South America.

But I guess from the perspective of a zealot, saving heathens is what it's all about.


----------



## robh (Apr 8, 2011)

MichaelL @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> jsaras @ Fri Apr 08 said:
> 
> 
> > [As to the distrust of religious charities getting the relief to those who need it,
> ...


Your perspective on a religious charity's motivation is a bit skewed. You make it sound like they just want to earn points with God. I don't doubt it does happen, but in my experience, it's much more compassionate. And would that really stop you from contributing so someone's life would be saved?



> That has worked out really well for the indigenous people of North and South America.


I think I understand what you mean by this, but could you elaborate just so I can make sure?

Rob


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 8, 2011)

My main man Robert Reich:

"Obama must show America that the basic choice is between two fundamental views of this nation. Either we’re all in this together, or we’re a bunch of individuals who happen to live within these borders and are mainly on their own.

This has been the basic choice all along — when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, in the Civil War, when we went through World War I and World War II and the Great Depression in between, during the Civil Rights movement and beyond.

The President needs to remind us that as members of the same society we have obligations to one another — that the wealthiest among us must pay their fair share of taxes, that any of us who loses our jobs or homes or gets terribly sick can count on the rest of us, and that we have collective obligations to our elderly, our children, and the rest of the planet.

This is why we have government. And anyone who wants to shut it down or cut it down because they say we can’t afford it any longer is plain wrong. We are the richest nation in the world, richer than we’ve ever been. We can afford to remain a society whose members are in it together."

http://robertreich.org/post/4371884779


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 8, 2011)

robh @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> I think I understand what you mean by this, but could you elaborate just so I can make sure?
> Rob



Pizarro and the Inca, manifest destiny, the trail of tears, etc., etc.,

The stuff the comes come thinking that yours is the one true religion.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 8, 2011)

Interesting, chimuelo.

But I must admit to having a second reaction to what you're saying: how much of your cynicism is because you're constantly seeing the dark side of life so close up?

Or is my being just a little less cynical due to my living in paradise? The only time I've seen a prostitute here was a few years ago, and it was incredibly depressing (a pretty young girl at a gas station called me over to the SUV she was riding in...and then gave me her card when she saw I was with my daughter and a friend).


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 8, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> Or is my being just a little less cynical due to my living in paradise?




WHERE do you live?


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 8, 2011)

Nick...
Having a daughter can really change a mans view on issues. I raised a step daughter until she got married and moved to France. We still keep in touch especially when I was gigging there with the NYC cats. But she always use to tell me " you aren't my father " and it really frustrated me. Her father was an absentee landlord for some odd reason. I actually remember watching Al Pacino in the movie Heat and could totally relate, only Natalie Portman wasn't my step daughter.
I even chased off anyone who pulled up to the house with really loud music, or revved up their engine. I was such a jerk as I remember what I wanted to do when I was 17....
Its so comforting once a child finally gets attached to a decent person as they never tell you how much a man worries about a daughter.
Boys, no problem. I am not like a Baboon that teaches their offspring how to mate, but I made damn sure my boys knew and know right from wrong, and now that my oldest is back from Afghanistan and has given me 2 grandchildren, I sleep so much better.
My youngest is 15 and I let him take the cards of foxy prostitutes from the immigrants and collects them like baseball cards. He says he trades them at school.........???$*$*$)
What's a guy to do..?

Glad 2 know you are a concerned parent, we share the same anger over dismantling of our public schools while building the finest Drones and missiles in the world.

God Bless America.......... _-)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 8, 2011)

I live in a canyon in Sherman Oaks, Michael. It's a section of Los Angeles, and even after 18-1/2 years I still wake up thinking I'm lucky to live here.

chimuelo, I would have found that young girl depressing even if I didn't have a daughter, of course. The idea that she was just a few years older than her added a little, but it was still really sad.

My daughter had the same reaction, by the way.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 8, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> I live in a canyon in Sherman Oaks, Michael. It's a section of Los Angeles, and even after 18-1/2 years I still wake up thinking I'm lucky to live here.



I was going to ask if you live in Wasilla. :lol: 

However, the canyons really are very nice. Like everywhere else though, I'm sure that "downtown" LA has it's issues. 

I think "Lost Wages" NV is a different story.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 8, 2011)

chimuelo @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> My youngest is 15 and I let him take the cards of foxy prostitutes from the immigrants and collects them like baseball cards. He says he trades them at school.........???$*$*$)
> What's a guy to do..?



Not a good thing to admit, in the world of thought police. JSaras is likely to turn you in.


----------



## robh (Apr 8, 2011)

MichaelL @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> robh @ Fri Apr 08 said:
> 
> 
> > I think I understand what you mean by this, but could you elaborate just so I can make sure?
> ...


 That comes from people who cloak their greed and lust for power in religion, not because of religion itself. Don't blame Christ for the atrocities and failings of those who pretend to follow him.

Look at the examples of my Dad, and our former assistant pastor again. That's the stuff that really comes from true religion.

Rob


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 8, 2011)

robh @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> That comes from people who cloak their greed and lust for power in religion, not because of religion itself.



Which is precisely the strategy of the political conservatives who claim to be REAL Christians and REAL Americans. 




> Don't blame Christ for the atrocities and failings of those who pretend to follow him. Look at the examples of my Dad, and our former assistant pastor again. That's the stuff that really comes from true religion.



I don't. Good for you for recognizing the difference.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 8, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> The President needs to remind us that as members of the same society we have obligations to one another



I agree with you here. The reality is that all we ever hear noise about is "rights" and never about obligations. I think that mandatory enlistment in the military, even in a non-combatant capacity, would do our society a world of good.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Apr 8, 2011)

jsaras @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> ...I think that mandatory enlistment in the military, even in a non-combatant capacity, would do our society a world of good.



Rah, rah, sis boom bah. Go...... Empire!!!

(The military. A place to enjoy life as a powerless underling within an authoritarian hierarchy.)


----------



## jsaras (Apr 8, 2011)

MichaelL @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> I would include the gas companies who are trashing the environment in my state on the "bad" list. What does the Bible say about destroying God's creation for profit?



For starters, the vast majority of gas companies do not do what you are suggesting, and there are appropriate legal penalties and remedies for bad actors. It's simply not profitable for them to damage the environment, which is as it should be. 

Assuming that you are asking your question sincerely, the basic answer is unpacked in this way:
#1. The earth belongs to God because He created it.
#2. God is separate from nature. This a distinctly Jewish idea, BTW.
#3. Nature has value in and of itself because God created it.
#4. Man is a creature, but he separate in that he is also created in God’s image.
#5. Mankind's rule and dominion over the earth is that of a caretaker, not a reckless exploiter. Man is not sovereign over the lower orders of creation. 
#6. Mankind will be held responsible for it actions.

Some bible texts that speak about care for the land include Leviticus 25:1-12, Isaiah 5:8-10. Respect for animals/wildlife is likewise mentioned in Deuteronomy 25:4 and 22:6.

J


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 8, 2011)

The military is a fine way to raise young Americans.
It teaches them discipline, mechanical and technical skills.
They get to travel to exotic lands and meet new people, then kill them..


----------



## midphase (Apr 8, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> The only time I've seen a prostitute here was a few years ago, and it was incredibly depressing (a pretty young girl at a gas station called me over to the SUV she was riding in...and then gave me her card when she saw I was with my daughter and a friend).



Are you sure she wasn't just trying to pitch you her script?


----------



## robh (Apr 8, 2011)

chimuelo @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> The military is a fine way to raise young Americans.
> It teaches them discipline, mechanical and technical skills.
> They get to travel to exotic lands and meet new people, then kill them..


LOL!


----------



## robh (Apr 8, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> jsaras @ Fri Apr 08 said:
> 
> 
> > ...I think that mandatory enlistment in the military, even in a non-combatant capacity, would do our society a world of good.
> ...


I think Germany has mandatory enlistment. Can any of our German friends confirm that?

Rob


----------



## JonFairhurst (Apr 8, 2011)

The Swiss Army has mandatory enlistment (or at least it did years ago), but it's set up more as a defensive militia. You keep your guns at home at the ready - just in case. A friend from a small Swiss town one described it as "going to monthly meetings to chat with the local guys."

That seems quite different than being in a hierarchy where the Constitution doesn't apply while stationed in one of over 100 countries or in one of multiple active wars.


----------



## snowleopard (Apr 8, 2011)

Don't quite a few of these countries have a system that is a choice between military enlistment, and civil service (which usually means picking up trash, or cleaning toilets and soiled bedding in nursing homes, etc.)? In exchange you get the vast majority of your education paid for. 

Need people from Europe to come here and clarify.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 8, 2011)

jsaras @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> For starters, the vast majority of gas companies do not do what you are suggesting, and there are appropriate legal penalties and remedies for bad actors. It's simply not profitable for them to damage the environment, which is as it should be.



Did you get that from a gas company stock prospectus? 

In my state, the newly elected Governor (GOP) refuses to tax the drillers, because they put $1,000,000.00 into his campaign (even though they are willing to pay). Come on, they even pay in Texas and Alaska. At the same time, he is cutting funding for education by 1.5 Billion, which will result in higher real estate taxes. 

As far as the environment goes, our Governor has also announced that any alleged violations will go through his cabinet, NOT the state Department of Environmental Protection -- too many nit picky violations. The cabinet person in charge has gas industry connections. How much enforcement do you think there'll be?

And, whether or not there are violations ... thousand of acres of pristine forest are being destroyed. I guess they didn't read Deuteronomy 25:4 or 22:6.

On a human level, lower income families in drilling towns are being displaced because local landlords are charging, and getting, sky high rent from the drillers. Very few of the jobs created are benefitting local residents.

The fact is, when it comes to politics, religion is just a ploy to get people to vote against their own interests.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 8, 2011)

> Are you sure she wasn't just trying to pitch you her script?



Could be!


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 9, 2011)

Our highways are littered with flattened rodents that were unable to make decisions...
Most of these rodents were studied and found to represent thier community which explained why they were larger in size than their fellow cadre, and once they found themselves in this area they shouldn't have been, were killed trying to decide who's fault it was why they were there.
The other rodents that were content with what they had are still smaller insize and are taking care of thier families just fine instead of waiting around for their extra portions promised that just never seem to arrive....


----------



## Marko Zirkovich (Apr 9, 2011)

snowleopard @ 4/9/2011 said:


> Don't quite a few of these countries have a system that is a choice between military enlistment, and civil service (which usually means picking up trash, or cleaning toilets and soiled bedding in nursing homes, etc.)? In exchange you get the vast majority of your education paid for.
> 
> Need people from Europe to come here and clarify.



With the necessary qualification, University access used to be free - regardless of military/civil service. But that's not sustainable and there are much more important things to spend the budget on than the education of citizens. You know, stuff like bank bailouts and bonus payments and golden handshakes for incompetent, yet party-loyal managers.

In Austria there's currently a discussion going on about whether it's feasible to switch over to a professional army. One of the main arguments against the switch is the loss of cheap access to civil service recruits. 

The irony is: back in 1990/91 I even had to pass a jury commission asking questions about my reasons and motivations before I was allowed to do civil service instead of the mandatory military service. So while most of my friends played hide and seek in the woods, got screamed at by some moronic drill seargent, drunk themselves senseless and felt like having almost a year of their life robbed from them, I spent my time working for the Red Cross.

I didn't have to clean toilets or soiled bedding in nursing homes, but I've held barf bags for the sick while we drove them to the hospital. Once I picked up an old, neglected man, who apparently didn't have a family looking after him, who must have had fallen and was lying in his own excrements for 2 days.

Scraping people out of their car after an accident wasn't pretty either.

I've had non exciting days of just washing all the ambulance cars and I had days of 14 hours almost non-stop driving around from one hospital to the other.

But at least my time was spent in a meaningful way and I gained a lot of appreciation for life in general.


----------



## wes37 (Apr 9, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> (The military. A place to enjoy life as a powerless underling within an authoritarian hierarchy.)



Probably a joke, but remarkably ignorant and insulting to professional military personnel (which I am).


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 9, 2011)

Thanks For your service..


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 9, 2011)

> No, this has nothing to do with who is smarter!



Of course it does. It's not true that both sides of a debate are equally worthy of respect just because they've both held by lots of people.

The Republican party is ruining our country. We'd be much better off with the f-ers.

http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/news- ... heism.html


----------



## Udo (Apr 9, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> > No, this has nothing to do with who is smarter!
> 
> 
> Of course it does. It's not true that both sides of a debate are equally worthy of respect just because they've both held by lots of people .......



Nick, I put that line in, hoping people who are most in need of learning to understand their motivations/behaviour wouldn't immediately skip the article.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 9, 2011)

You have to be an extremely educated fool to believe that load of _ _. Liberalism is as much of a religion as anything else, and "a study says" is the equivalent of "the pastor said", especially when it contradicts common sense. 

The article specifically said that smart men value sexual exclusivity, but women not so much? I may not know much, but I certainly know male sexual nature. Variety is king to the male animal brain (not that that is an excuse for immoral behavior). Likewise, female nature is bent towards exclusivity. If the study somehow wants to promote the myth that party sluts are more evolved....well, that does explain liberal chicks with hairy armpits. 

Smart/evolved people don't value family? Count me in the the 'less evolved' who take responsibility for their family and take care of them. I guess you're "more evolved" if you let the state take care of all your responsibilities. 

The quickest way to destroy civilization is to destroy the family unit and the left has been extremely adept at promoting that agenda. The decimation of the intact African-American family because of the generations of welfare policies that encouraged fathers to leave and the resulting chaos should be evidence enough for anyone with real wisdom to see that this road leads to nowhere.

Higher intelligence? No. Foolishness of the highest order? Yes.


----------



## Udo (Apr 9, 2011)

Udo @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Apr 10 said:
> 
> 
> > > No, this has nothing to do with who is smarter!
> ...





jsaras @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> You have to be an extremely educated fool to believe that load of _ _. Liberalism is as much of a religion as anything else, and "a study says" is the equivalent of "the pastor said", especially when it contradicts common sense ......


That's not what I was referring to (although I agree with many of the observations (and you are misreading/misinterpreting some of the things you quote)), it was my earlier post with this link: 
http://tinyurl.com/686s6ue


----------



## jsaras (Apr 9, 2011)

Well, if the 96% accuracy rate of E-verify isn't reliable enough system for the left to determine the citizenship status of potential employees, then surely a 75% accuracy rate to determine one's political inclinations is an utterly miserable failure!

Seriously though, the shape of one's brain parts or one's IQ score has zero correlation as to whether or not the person is good. I'd rather be in the business of promoting goodness in society and individuals rather than mere intelligence.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 9, 2011)

Then let me put it this way: how can someone intelligent be Republican when everything that stupid party advocates is so obviously idiotic?

The Democrats and especially Obama are eunuchs, but at least they aren't wrong about every single issue.


----------



## Udo (Apr 9, 2011)

jsaras @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> ..... Seriously though, the shape of one's brain parts or one's IQ score has zero correlation as to whether or not the person is good. I'd rather be in the business of promoting goodness in society and individuals rather than mere intelligence.


Unfortunately, less intelligent, or insecure people are more easily manipulated and influenced by sensationalism, etc.

Note that I said "more easily". I think plenty of intelligent USA citizens have also been "sucked in", e.g. they still believe they live in a Democracy  . The US was reasonably democratic until the early 1970s, but it has been downhill ever since.

There are plenty of obvious factors (and also not so obvious ones), e.g.:

- Money talks far too much, lobby groups have far too much influence, etc, etc. The USA is a Plutocracy (and, by implication, a "marionette society" - guess who/what is pulling the strings).
- Voting procedures and policies (and even equipment, in some areas) leave a lot to be desired. What's democratic about the way the Electoral College operates and functions? I'd call it "anti-democratic". There are democratic ways to compensate smaller States.

I'm not going to elaborate, but there are many, many more issues.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 9, 2011)

Good assessment Udo. 
Our tax dollars are spent to garnish more votes, and when you mix that with Corporate contributions its just insane, and in any other society is illegal.
Recent example of folks who have been in DC too long and cant fathom being removed by a law like term limits, or by voters.
Here's Harry Reid, a proclaimed lefty and champion of the little guys.
He says no money will be cut from the budget, then he caves into the expected pathetic amount.
Then the Federal Reserves new fall guys ( Tea Party ) say no, we want more money and stop funding Planned Parenthood. This was a brilliant move IMHO as they knew that most single mothers want that organization around and vote democratically all the time since the Government helps single mothers. So now the Democrats are suddenly forced to try and preserve that voting block, so they start throwing Billions of taxpayer negotiated dollars into the deal just to save a 300 Million dollar a year organization.......Bad Move.
Now the Democrats have bartered away their original rhetoric on how there are not Billions to cut.
Its all downhill for them now as their options are to keep these funded organizations afloat, and cut Billions that were not suppose to be there. 

And also, lets be fair and point out the GOP hypocracy. I see the Tea Party as a small homegrown uprising taken over by the Federal Reserve Group of lobbyists. They really became a big power due to the big money, which didn't even start until a law allowing undisclosed sources, even foreign, to remain as unknown contributors.
The Democrats had a super majority in Jan. 2010 when this bill passed. Nobody had the issue in a committee, it was an unknown little law that made its way to the supreme court unnopposed...........??? How can this possibly happen unless some seriously powerful lobbying firm had access to the process. At any rate, the birth of the Tea Party.
They have been very loud but only speak of cutting spending which obviously needs to be done, but only recently have we heard Michelle Bachman try and pass a law that says the Pentagon can longer be involved in debt ceiling legislation, and is funded even during a Government shutdown...............Well, guess who might agree with her.

Yes, this is what happens when money and the elites of the world have access to our " representatives."
This is also why I say there's no party, just a group of elite who use issues and anything they think the public would love to have in exchange for votes.
Shakedown artists who never practice what they preach.
Al Gore has made billions and where's the useless wind mills or fleets of electric cars for cheap................? Nadda.
But he obviously isnt afraid of the rising waters he claimed would engulf California. He now owns a 9 Million home on the beach............
Praise The Lord. And Tippy his wife is getting tons of cash for her silience and now she can crusade on the evils of the world by censoring Rock Albums and Rappers/
She is so kind and perceprtive, and knows whats best for us too..
We just cant along in life without the scraps left by the elites.....

God Bless The USA.................... o=?


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 9, 2011)

MichaelL @ Thu Apr 07 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Apr 07 said:
> 
> 
> > That's easy. They believe the whole thing is a liberal boondoggle to increase the size of government.
> ...



I'm glad! :wink: 

I answered your question literally. My own views regarding hydro-fracking are pretty vehement. I grew up in the Susquehanna Valley area, and folks in my old hometown are leasing their mineral rights gratefully, as if Jesus has personally delivered the pork chops unto them.(© George Carlin). There are a lot of unemployed and underemployed people in upstate New York and Pennsylvania. While I feel for their problems, they don't get that if you poison the water table, there's no going back. 

Before the movie Gasland, there really was very little awareness of the issues involved in fracking. Now there's some movement up there, but it may be too late. The Marcellus Shale has been parceled out and leased to the gas companies already, millions of acres. Governor Andrew Cuomo may be the last hope.

All that said,crappy government is to blame here. "The Clean Water Act"-what a joke. Thanks, Dick. And thanks to T. Boone as well, the champion of the oil and gas companies who would have us believe gas is 'clean energy'. I wonder if Obama will have the spine to halt this rampant despoliation. I sincerely doubt it.

I'm all for jobs and American industry flourishing-but the cost of fracking is way too high in terms of poisoning aquifers.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 9, 2011)

jsaras @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Apr 08 said:
> 
> 
> > The President needs to remind us that as members of the same society we have obligations to one another
> ...



I agree with the concept of required public service-from everyone.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 9, 2011)

jsaras @ Fri Apr 08 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Apr 06 said:
> 
> 
> > jsaras @ Fri Apr 01 said:
> ...



jsaras, not to toot my own charity horn, but I "minister to the poor" 5-6 days a week, and I can double dog assure you that there are hungry people in New York City. As to HOW hungry or HOW desperate, while I agree with you that there are certainly worse levels of starvation and desperation in other places, I suggest it is not very Judeo-Christianic of you to put yourself in the position of judging if someone is hungry ENOUGH for you to help them. Sometimes it's simply a matter of trying to help as you can in the place you are.

As to "Thousand Points of Light" charitable solutions, well, they work well as a supplement, but as a total solution? No way. For many people, if they aren't compelled to some degree to be charitable, they won't be....and I am in favor of charity. I will continue to vote for people who reflect my point of view. As I cannot choose to contribute or not contribute to our many overseas military initiatives, nor should anyone else be able to choose whether or not to contribute to helping the cyclical poor, the elderly, the sick, children, i.e. those who cannot help themselves to a sufficient degree.

My Jewish upbringing emphasized T'sdokko and humanism. I don't think there's all that much that's charitable or humanistic about bombing civilians in Ira, or continuing a fruitless war in Afghanistan.

There will always be taxation. I think the bulk of my taxes should go to humanistic causes, and while I agree that government is corrupt and inefficient, so is religion, so is everything. Go after the waste, sure, prosecute wastrels and corrupt bureaucrats, tighten up and combine government agencies for efficiency, I'm for all these things.
I'd prefer not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, however.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 17, 2011)

For those of you who believe that the death penalty has no impact on the behavior of criminals: http://www.suntimes.com/4828757-573/man-accused-of-stalking-woman-before-killing-her-in-oak-brook.html (http://www.suntimes.com/4828757-573/man ... brook.html)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 17, 2011)

"government is corrupt and inefficient"

It has corruption and inefficiency, but that's not the totality of it.


----------



## snowleopard (Apr 17, 2011)

Meanwhile AP is reporting that the super rich had their taxes drop dramatically in the last couple of decades, to where they now pay 17%. Back in 1992 they were paying 26%. You go further back than that, and it's even higher. Back in 1976 the capital gains tax was 48%, now it's 15%.

So, where's the economic boom? If these people are the "job creators" as Bush called them, were are all the jobs? 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5goFQ2Rbo80YrKDXZ9wyQ3YWuESmA?docId=de5ad99b46b74b879c98a72ea522b4cb


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 17, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Apr 17 said:


> "government is corrupt and inefficient"
> 
> It has corruption and inefficiency, but that's not the totality of it.



Nor did I say it was.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 17, 2011)

snowleopard @ Sun Apr 17 said:


> Meanwhile AP is reporting that the super rich had their taxes drop dramatically in the last couple of decades, to where they now pay 17%. Back in 1992 they were paying 26%. You go further back than that, and it's even higher. Back in 1976 the capital gains tax was 48%, now it's 15%.
> 
> So, where's the economic boom? If these people are the "job creators" as Bush called them, were are all the jobs?
> 
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5goFQ2Rbo80YrKDXZ9wyQ3YWuESmA?docId=de5ad99b46b74b879c98a72ea522b4cb



Forget $250,00. make it $500,000 Pick a number where you think people are living quite well, then ask yourself why 2-3% more taxes would affect their lifestyles. Not taxing the rich (or at least the upper upper middle class and above) at a higher rate is just nonsensical. Trickle down has been disproven.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 17, 2011)

jsaras @ Sun Apr 17 said:


> For those of you who believe that the death penalty has no impact on the behavior of criminals: http://www.suntimes.com/4828757-573/man-accused-of-stalking-woman-before-killing-her-in-oak-brook.html (http://www.suntimes.com/4828757-573/man ... brook.html)



That's quite a strong case you make, one example culled from one newspaper article. It has changed my entire point of view.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 17, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sun Apr 17 said:


> jsaras @ Sun Apr 17 said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you who believe that the death penalty has no impact on the behavior of criminals: http://www.suntimes.com/4828757-573/man-accused-of-stalking-woman-before-killing-her-in-oak-brook.html (http://www.suntimes.com/4828757-573/man ... brook.html)
> ...



I know. I was thinking the same thing. I won't say that I'm for or against the death penalty. But, I will say that this is so typical of conservative thinking. And, of course they fail to overlook that the states with the highest crime rates have the death penalty in place.

http://www.walletpop.com/2010/04/05/mos ... -for-2010/

So how much of a deterrent can it be?

Plus it kind of goes against the whole "though shall not murder" clause in the Bible those people profess to have such divine wisdom of. :roll: 

Imo, the problem with conservative "thinking" in America is that they replace reason with a few outmoded moral precepts, then can't think beyond that, then think that everybody that doesn't think like them is somehow a morally defunct liberal. Double! :roll: :roll:


----------



## Marko Zirkovich (Apr 17, 2011)

josejherring @ 4/18/2011 said:


> Plus it kind of goes against the whole "though shall not murder" clause in the Bible those people profess to have such divine wisdom of. :roll:


You mean it doesn't make sense to teach somebody that you shouldn't kill by killing them??? /\~O

P.S.: Had to edit the post due to nested quote late-night stupidity on my part. Sorry about that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 17, 2011)

Those without the capital get the punishment.


----------



## snowleopard (Apr 19, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sun Apr 17 said:


> Forget $250,00. make it $500,000 Pick a number where you think people are living quite well, then ask yourself why 2-3% more taxes would affect their lifestyles. Not taxing the rich (or at least the upper upper middle class and above) at a higher rate is just nonsensical. Trickle down has been disproven.



Yes, I always find it fascinating that when someone like Obama says the wealthiest should have their taxes go from 35% to 39.5%, a measly 4.5% increase, conservatives and TP members scream "socialist". But if we look back in time to what I mentioned above about tax rates in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, being much higher than now, they don't seem to think we were socialist back then.


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 20, 2011)

anymore debt downgrades and that could be interesting.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 20, 2011)

Marko Zirkovich @ Sun Apr 17 said:


> You mean it doesn't make sense to teach somebody that you shouldn't kill by killing them???



The sixth commandment does not prohibit 'killing'. It prohibits murder, i.e., the shedding of INNOCENT blood. If you cannot make this basic moral distinction I consider you to be deeply morally confused.

The reason I posted the link to that article was just to make the obvious point that before anyone breaks any law, one takes into consideration the penalty that will be meted out. I'd jump into the carpool lane every day if the fine were $3. At the cost of $271, I choose to stay out of it. To suggest that this does not apply to the crime of murder (especially premeditated murders) is either dishonest, deluded or foolish.

I reject the argument that capital punishment is done just for the sake of "revenge". That could be said about every sentence handed down by the criminal justice system. 

As harsh a sentence as death is, the penalty fits the crime. Murder is a crime for which the victim cannot come back and say, "I refuse to press charges." The victim has no voice.

No "payment" by the criminal will ever fully satisfy the debt incurred. If one robs a store, the captured thief can pay back the debt and, in fact, under biblical law (which is better than today's law) would be tasked to work for the man he robbed until the debt was satisfied seven times the value of the goods stolen. With such a bounteous payback, the thief is then freed and, by his honorable labor, restored to a position of trust.

But a murderer can never bring back life. Thus, no matter how hard he labors, he can never regain society's trust. His victim is dead and will remain dead. 

As for the effectiveness of capital punishment, I can assure you that it is 100% effective when it is applied. Much is made of the various crime rates, but the fact of the matter is that with life imprisonment, murderers continue their careers by killing other prisoners which is despicable and it's next to impossible to get an accurate count of those deaths. It's even worse when murderers are released into society only to kill again. Norman Mailer and Jack Henry Abbott anyone? Mailer has innocent blood on his hands, and I bet he's never apologized to the family of the innocent murder victim.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 20, 2011)

jsaras-the reason you posted the link to the article was to bolster your point of view. Sadly, that point of view has been disproven and widely rejected. Your one causal example does not counterbalance the millions of non causal ones-it seems that in the vast preponderance of cases, the death penalty is no deterrent.

As you seem to be an intelligent, fairly well-read person, you already know this, and also know that the real reason to use the vehicle of the state to kill is more biblical-the 'eye for an eye' theory.

If the system was able to apply that without any possibility of error, it might in some way be able to be justified, but as there is always possibility of error, it is an inhumane and extremely dicey punishment. When the state makes a mistake, it has indeed murdered-not killed, murdered.


----------



## Marko Zirkovich (Apr 20, 2011)

jsaras @ 4/20/2011 said:


> Marko Zirkovich @ Sun Apr 17 said:
> 
> 
> > You mean it doesn't make sense to teach somebody that you shouldn't kill by killing them???
> ...



I don't jump into the car pool lane regardless whether the fine is $3 or $271. Should I now assume you to be deeply morally confused since your actions seem to be determined on the $$ amount of the fine and not whether the action is right or wrong?

And maybe I should reword my statement to "...it doesn't make sense to teach somebody that you shouldn't murder by murdering them???"

I reject your rejection of the argument that capital punishment is just for the sake of revenge. It's barbaric and on the same level as murder.

You'll probably brush this off, but there have been cases of people being convicted of murder that they didn't commit. So some schmuck gets executed for nothing - who'll pay the price? Do the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the poison injector/electrical chair button pusher follow next for murdering an innocent person?


----------



## JonFairhurst (Apr 20, 2011)

jsaras @ Wed Apr 20 said:


> Marko Zirkovich @ Sun Apr 17 said:
> 
> 
> > You mean it doesn't make sense to teach somebody that you shouldn't kill by killing them???
> ...



Wait... aren't we all sinners? Nobody is innocent in that world view. So if I get angry and kill somebody whom I think deserves it (due to their sins), then maybe I should claim it's not murder. It was a justified killin'.

And aren't we all imperfect - including our courts? People are often wrongly convicted. And if they are killed by the state, then have they been wrongly murdered, not just killed?

I feel that the state should man up and demonstrate by example that killing people is not the best way to solve our problems.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 20, 2011)

"anymore debt downgrades and that could be interesting"

Nobody is paying any attention to S&P's *threat* to downgrade the US. The interest rates haven't moved, and the market is right back where it was.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 20, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 20 said:


> "anymore debt downgrades and that could be interesting"
> 
> Nobody is paying any attention to S&P's *threat* to downgrade the US. The interest rates haven't moved, and the market is right back where it was.



I don't think S%P or Moodys have any credibility, but I think the world takes the status of American credit very seriously.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 20, 2011)

Sure. And the status of American credit is that the 10-year treasury bond is hovering around 3.5%, the same as it has been for the past few years.

In other words we have a government NOT spending crisis, not a spending crisis. We need a public works program to reduce the unemployment, not cutting back.

What I don't understand is why the Democrats can't turn the tea bagging idiots on their heads. If you don't lower the Medicare qualifying age to 45 and sort out healthcare costs the following ways http://robertreich.org/post/4559031328 then we're going to crash the world economy. That's the way to tackle the real deficit problem we have, not firing school janitors.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 20, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Wed Apr 20 said:


> When the state makes a mistake, it has indeed murdered-not killed, murdered.



That's true. However that argument is even stringer in reverse. When the state releases a murder or a rapist who repeats the offense, it has committed murder as well. Given the high recidivism rates, I think that that it's far more likely that a murderer will murder again than the state is likely to execute an innocent person. AFAIK, the average death row prisoner has killed 3 times before they ever got to death row. By most people's estimation, they're long overdue to receive real justice. 

Since you are so sure about the death penalty having being "disproved", can you tell me how many innocent people have been executed? 

Assuming that the legal convictions are accurate, do you believe that ANYONE deserves capital punishment? When the state of Israel executed Adolf Eichmann, did the state commit "murder" in your estimation?

I am sincerely trying to understand your mindset.

Regards,
J


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 20, 2011)

jsaras @ Wed Apr 20 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Apr 20 said:
> 
> 
> > When the state makes a mistake, it has indeed murdered-not killed, murdered.
> ...



I'm glad you are sincere. I am as well. I am uninterested in mindless exchanges with people who will never consider any other point of view than the one they are married to. Before I go into chapter and verse, do you think you are (as I think I am) open to other points of view?


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 20, 2011)

Oh-and one more thing...do you have children?


----------



## JonFairhurst (Apr 20, 2011)

jsaras @ Wed Apr 20 said:


> When the state releases a murder or a rapist who repeats the offense, it has committed murder as well.



Wait a minute... How can the state predict the future? Should they give everybody a life term to ensure that nobody will ever repeat an offense? That would the the 100% risk averse solution.

That's like saying I should never have children to be 100% sure that I will never raise a criminal. Total risk aversion isn't always a good thing.

One thing about conservatives is that they often want extreme punishments for the poor, but rarely want to punish the rich, or people "on their team." They tend to want to bring down the hammer on petty theft, drug possession and so on. In Texas, they wanted the death penalty for a retarded man. But Enron executives walk free. Officers that allowed Abu Graib torture don't go to court. Launching an unprovoked war that results in tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of deaths is lauded as honorable, rather than criminal.

Conservatives call liberals soft on crime. I call conservatives soft on torture, war crimes, and graft. In fact, not just soft, but complicit.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 21, 2011)

Hi Larry,

I was a liberal in my college days, so I consider myself open to hearing other positions and I have had major shifts in my thinking in many areas of my life. 

That said, I simply cannot understand why anyone would think that a person who has taken an innocent life still has the right to live, much less walk the streets again. I think that the moral, ethical and religious issues are very clear here. 

There ARE economic and legal issues that aren't as clear cut, IMO.

I do not currently have children, FWIW.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 21, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Wed Apr 20 said:


> jsaras @ Wed Apr 20 said:
> 
> 
> > One thing about conservatives is that they often want extreme punishments for the poor, but rarely want to punish the rich... Conservatives call liberals soft on crime



Jon,

At the most basic level, I agree with you. Justice should be justice. Period. 

Exodus 23:3 "Do not show favoritism to a poor person in his lawsuit." 

Leviticus 19:15 "You must not act unjustly when rendering judgment. Do not be partial to the poor or give preference to the rich; judge your neighbor fairly."

The Dems were in complete control for 2 years. How many of the hedge fund raiders went to jail?? Where did all that money go? The reality is that BOTH dominant political parties are bought and paid for, whether it's by unions and attorneys, corporate interests, etc.


----------



## Ed (Apr 21, 2011)

jsaras @ Thu Apr 21 said:


> Jon,
> 
> At the most basic level, I agree with you. Justice should be justice. Period.
> 
> ...



How about quoting some great laws about how you must marry your rapist? Or how we should stone to death.. pretty much everyone? No?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 21, 2011)

> was a liberal in my college days, so I consider myself open to hearing other positions and I have had major shifts in my thinking in many areas of my life.



Well, the shift that made you conservative is a loss of reason, regardless of the thought behind it.

Everything conservatives believe is wrong. There hasn't been a single major conservative proposal in the past 30 years that isn't based on a fundamental lie.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 21, 2011)

Three main grounds -- apart from the unpleasant fact that the US is one of the few developed countries still using the death penalty -- are often advanced as objections to the death penalty. The arguments do not fit neatly into conservative or liberal plots, either. At least one of them is actually just financial:

1. Innocent people are executed. Illinois reinstated the death penalty in 1977; the governor in 2000 instituted a moratorium, pointing out that 12 on death row had been executed but 13 had actually been exonerated. So, more than half had been wrongly convicted;

2. The ABA says that "In determining who gets the death penalty, all too frequently, it seems to be not the person who has committed the worst crime, but the person who has the worst lawyer." So, it's not fair, according to their study. And this is the American Bar Association, not the American Civil Liberties Union.

3. Paradoxically, the present value cost of executing someone (including the cost of the appeals which are often borne by the state and federal governments) may well exceed the cost of keeping someone in a cell, even for 30-40 years. And that's even allowing for more than a half million dollars for appeals for the life-in-prison case. (These estimates are hard to be certain about, to be fair. But what's definitely true is that it should be done as a present value, not just adding up the figures. A dollar decades in the future should not be made equal to one spent tomorrow.)


Illinois press release: http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/S ... RecNum=359

ABA: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... oratorium/

Costs -- look where you like. There are lots of estimates. I looked at a pro-death penalty estimate here to calculate figures; the argument at this site ignores present value, which is undoubtedly a mistake: http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Executions_are_no_more_costly_than_life_in_prison (http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index ... _in_prison)


----------



## madbulk (Apr 21, 2011)

Thanks John.

I didn't wanna do that work, and wouldn't have done it as well as you anyway. But there's the argument that doesn't require anyone to call anyone else a moron.

If you aren't interested in revenge, argue life without parole, not death. It costs less and it provides for the possibility that they'll be exonerated.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 21, 2011)

[quote="Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:20 am]Everything conservatives believe is wrong. There hasn't been a single major conservative proposal in the past 30 years that isn't based on a fundamental lie.[/quote]

You sound just like Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 21, 2011)

Ed @ Thu Apr 21 said:


> [Hoe about quoting some great laws about how you must marry your rapist? Or how we should stone to death.. pretty much everyone? No?



I'll do that immediately after YOU explain Plato's and Aristotles advocacy of slavery.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 21, 2011)

Only if you ignore the actual words he and I speak - and forget that I'm not a fat bloviating asshole, and that I deal with reality rather than shit ideology.

I'm dead serious. Ryan's disgusting proposal is just the latest in a long string of proposals based on lies - hideous ones that will hurt people.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 21, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 21 said:


> Only if you ignore the actual words he and I speak - and forget that I'm not a fat bloviating asshole, and that I deal with reality rather than [email protected]#t ideology.
> 
> I'm dead serious. Ryan's disgusting proposal is just the latest in a long string of proposals based on lies - hideous ones that will hurt people.



I was also disgusted by Ryan's proposal, which I mentioned in another thread, but not because of the various justifications for it-just the end result, which is aimed at the poorest among us. I don't see how any person of good conscience could advocate for it rather than, say, cutting the defense budget and raising taxes on the wealthy. It flies in the face of any kind of ethics or morality I'm aware of. 

On an OT but interesting note, I've been fascinated by the fact that Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand acolyte, literally part of her worshipful circle. Talk about your neo-con religion, designed to replace morality with unobstructed capitalism! Whew doggies!


----------



## JonFairhurst (Apr 21, 2011)

...and then consider that Alan Greenspan believes that all of the Bush tax cuts should be repealed.

But Greenspan is looking out for the long-term economic stability of the nation, rather than trying to gain political power through class warfare.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 21, 2011)

> On an OT but interesting note, I've been fascinated by the fact that Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand acolyte, literally part of her worshipful circle



Yup. And look where it led. He was shocked that the financial people weren't rational.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 21, 2011)

By the way, while I'm no fan of his, he did make a point on...I think it was Meet the Press last week: why does Congress have to vote to raise the debt limit when they've already approved the budget that they knew would cause it to require raising in the first place?


----------



## Ed (Apr 21, 2011)

jsaras @ Thu Apr 21 said:


> Ed @ Thu Apr 21 said:
> 
> 
> > [Hoe about quoting some great laws about how you must marry your rapist? Or how we should stone to death.. pretty much everyone? No?
> ...



Kindly first tell me one person who claims Plato and Aristotles opinions and morality were 100% absolute infallible perfection and inerrant and worthy of utmost respect in all circumstances.


----------



## madbulk (Apr 21, 2011)

Ed @ Thu Apr 21 said:


> jsaras @ Thu Apr 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Thu Apr 21 said:
> ...



Or skip past that and tell me why it's relevant.


----------



## madbulk (Apr 21, 2011)

madbulk @ Thu Apr 21 said:


> Ed @ Thu Apr 21 said:
> 
> 
> > jsaras @ Thu Apr 21 said:
> ...



No, wait. Don't. I just remembered where this leads. 
Sorry. Return to what you were doing.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 21, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Apr 21 said:


> ...and then consider that Alan Greenspan believes that all of the Bush tax cuts should be repealed.
> 
> But Greenspan is looking out for the long-term economic stability of the nation, rather than trying to gain political power through class warfare.



For a sarcastic and damning look at Greenspan that might affect your point of view, you might want to try Matt Taibbi's depressing, hilarious 'Griftopia'. It's a good read, though I take it with a grain of salt. Also, Greenspan's autobiography reads like a starf-cking manual.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 21, 2011)

jsaras-John Graham did a lot of this work already, but here's a chart. culled from the FBI's crime statistics. You're welcome to try and refute.

I do not believe in parole for murder. I believe that life without parole is a better solution. I have a problem when it comes to the killing of prison workers by inmates-in that case, there is really no deterrent at all in non death penalty states. I admit to struggling with that. However- I believe that state sanctioned killing is immoral, mistake-laden and a slippery slope. Why not the cutting off of hands for thievery, public beheadings, etc etc?


----------



## JonFairhurst (Apr 21, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Apr 21 said:


> For a sarcastic and damning look at Greenspan that might affect your point of view...



I was giving Greenspan a BIG pass when I wrote that. 

But I think it's true that Greenspan isn't running for office, and he's free to say what the heck he wants these days, so he doesn't need to join the taxes=death bandwagon. Now, his buddies are bankers and traders, and to them he is still loyal. But I think he honestly wants a healthy economy and he knows that you don't get that by choking the middle class out of existence. 

The economy isn't about the money you have; it's about the money that circulates. And the faster it circulates, the more money ends up in the ladle when the banker dips it in the stream.

And that's the problem with economic policies that reward the wealthy and harm the poor. It supports hoarding. It lets the rich profit when they sleep. I say we should drain the coffers of the sleepers and reward the entrepreneurs, creators, and workers. Those are the people who keep the economy humming.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 21, 2011)

"Greenspan's autobiography reads like a starf-cking manual."

Andrea Mitchell?


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 21, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 21 said:


> "Greenspan's autobiography reads like a starf-cking manual."
> 
> Andrea Mitchell?



Read it and see. You'll be fascinated by the glitter and impressed with the deep humility. Then, when you awake....


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 21, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Apr 21 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Apr 21 said:
> 
> 
> > For a sarcastic and damning look at Greenspan that might affect your point of view...
> ...



He was he PRESIDENT of the FED and he said he DIDN'T KNOW what was going on during the biggest financial boondoggle ever perpetrated on the American people. 
In the long run, it turned out he was pompous and incompetent, filled with hubris.


----------



## snowleopard (Apr 21, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Apr 21 said:


> I'm dead serious. Ryan's disgusting proposal is just the latest in a long string of proposals based on lies - hideous ones that will hurt people.



Nick, while I fully agree that Limbaugh is a gasbag of demagoguery, and Ryan's proposals are foolish (even he heard plenty of boos at at GOP gathering when talking about tax cuts for the wealthy), I think the blanket statement that all conservatives are liars is a bit much. 

I seriously suggest you look up Andrew Bacevich, who considers himself a conservative. 

Sadly, that term has been badly bastardized by the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc. stretched and contorted to mean something beyond whatever it's original definition was. Instead, today it is interchangeable with the radical Tea Party.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 21, 2011)

I didn't say all conservatives are liars. Most just believe the lies they've been fed.

And I'm fully aware that there are principled conservatives who are totally different from the idiots who have taken over the party. But even the principled ones tend to look stupid, because everything they believe in has been tried and failed miserably. Listen to George Will for example - he used to be an intelligent conservative, and now the stuff he says is just pathetic for precisely that reason.

Sorry, I'm not going to pretend that they have a point. They're wrong about everything - and that's being charitable, because many of them are just plain mean as well.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 21, 2011)

I should add that most of Obama's policies...not even his policies, his starting points before folding and letting the hyenas have their way...are pretty conservative.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 22, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Apr 22 said:


> I should add that most of Obama's policies...not even his policies, his starting points before folding and letting the hyenas have their way...are pretty conservative.



A single payer healthcare system is not conservative.
Bank regulation is not conservative.
Removing "don't ask, don't tell" is not a conservative position, nor is bringing down DOMA.
A woman's right to choose is not a conservative position.
Shutting down Guantanamo as he promised to do-not the conservative position.
Extending unemployment benefits-not conservative.

Obama started with all of these things, and many more 'liberal' stances.
I'm not sure I take your point.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 22, 2011)

snowleopard @ Fri Apr 22 said:


> JonFairhurst @ Thu Apr 21 said:
> 
> 
> > And that's the problem with economic policies that reward the wealthy and harm the poor. It supports hoarding. It lets the rich profit when they sleep. I say we should drain the coffers of the sleepers and reward the entrepreneurs, creators, and workers. Those are the people who keep the economy humming.
> ...



My wife and I have been involved in micro loans for a while, not profiting but getting involved in lending on a small level, and as the loans are paid back, they money cycles to a new loan. The Grameen Bank started in Bangladesh giving money to small groups of women. They are now doing the same in the U.S. It's a wonderful organization, and I believe the founder won a Nobel prize.

I would like to see funding for government backed small loans for sure. Institutions like Grameen can only do so much-and interestingly, the repayment rate on those loans is extraordinarily high.


----------



## jsaras (Apr 22, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Apr 21 said:


> Institutions like Grameen can only do so much-and interestingly, the repayment rate on those loans is extraordinarily high.



I've seen the micro-loan approach be very effective in Kenya as well. It's amazing how a very small amount of money to start a business can lift people out of destitute poverty. 

Unfortunately, it seems that the general practice of our government is just to hand money out, then people feel like they're entitled to it, and then they say that Paul Ryan is evil because he points out that we're 14 trillion dollars in debt (how many zeroes is that??) and the gravy train has stopped.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 22, 2011)

jsaras @ Fri Apr 22 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Apr 21 said:
> 
> 
> > Institutions like Grameen can only do so much-and interestingly, the repayment rate on those loans is extraordinarily high.
> ...



That's not true, jsaras, and I think you know that. The Ryan budget is excoriated because of HOW he plans to bring down the deficit-on the backs of the poorest. That train doesn't bring gravy, it focusses on services for the neediest among us-health care, food, heat. This isn't about handing out Cadillacs...except of course, to millionares who will continue to enjoy even more tax cuts they don't need..


----------



## JohnG (Apr 22, 2011)

*Gravy Train*

The gravy train DOES have to stop, but it's how you stop it that I think is at issue. Leaving aside the almost Dr. Evil-ish notion of funding tax cuts for wealthy people by taking away benefits for disabled people and poor children, Mr. Ryan's plan doesn't propose to touch social security, which must be addressed if you want to sort out the fiscal house. 

Any plan to help US finances must include Medicare and social security (Ryan leaves SS out) because the US' $14 trillion explicit national debt is dwarfed by the unfunded medicare and social security liabilities, which are, in present value terms, $36 trillion and $15 trillion, respectively -- in total more than three times the national debt. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0197.htm Although he gets credit for talking about Medicare, I don't like Mr. Ryan's voucher approach because it means some 90-year-old may not have enough to pay for a broken hip. What's she supposed to do with a voucher that covers half the cost of her operation?

*Let's Pretend*

Apart from ignoring social security, I find Mr. Ryan's plan misleading because it depends heavily on unemployment dropping below 4% (good luck) and on the fallacy that tax cuts raise aggregate tax revenue.

Tax cuts do not raise revenue. But don't take my word for it -- ask two of the supply-side's most well-known champions, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman. A central pillar of Ryan's plan -- the central pillar, arguably, because it's a huge proportion of his much-advertised deficit reduction figure -- is that tax cuts will result in higher aggregate tax revenue. 

Even Greenspan agrees this is not true:

MR. GREENSPAN: Look, I'm very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money. And the problem that we've gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money, and at the end of the day, that proves disastrous. And my view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here on it. 

MR. GREGORY (host): You don't agree with Republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves? 

MR. GREENSPAN: They do not. 

full transcript: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38487969/ns ... ranscripts

David Stockman (Reagan budget director) on tax cuts: 

"...scratch the average Republican today and he'll say 'Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts,'" he explained. 

"It's rank demagoguery," he added. "We should call it for what it is. If these people were all put into a room on penalty of death to come up with how much they could cut, they couldn't come up with $50 billion, when the problem is $1.3 trillion. So, to stand before the public and rub raw this anti-tax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say this, should be ashamed of themselves." 

These frank words come from Ronald Reagan's old budget director. Stockman was the architect of the largest tax cut in American history. 

But he doesn't let the Democrats off the hook. He says he cringes when he hears President Obama say things like this: "I believe we ought to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent."

the interview is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/28/60minutes/main6999906.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/ ... 9906.shtml)


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 23, 2011)

i said it before. you get denial then you get anger and then finally somewhere down the road you get acceptance. the denial stage lasts a lot longer than the other two in general. thats how politics and economics works. very difficult for people to move on. seen it many times before.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 23, 2011)

Well, we didn't get the second stage. We stayed with rabid capitalism - although I'd call it a perversion of capitalism (as Elliot Spitzer put it).


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 23, 2011)

You say tomato.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 23, 2011)

I say tomato.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 24, 2011)

Someday this topic will be meaningless as the American Middle Class will be totally dismantled.
One thing is certain the wealthiest rulers of the world have sold us out to create room for the new Chinese Middle Class.
There's only room for one, and it should be obvious by now, especially after the " economic " collapse who it will be.

Californians aren't even in shock at their old port of Long Beach becoming the soveirgn territory of China. Funny how during good times it went unnoticed, and once established, we had a housing crisis, bank crisis, and corporation crisis, all at once actually.

No sir, I see exactly what is real as I follow the coins instead of the headlines.

I strongly suggest composers here finding their way to Chinese markets.
I am going there this Fall to play for twice the pay I get here.
Besides, Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Rupert Murdoch and so many other wealthy elites live there and work for the Chinese, I suspect they are teaching them their trade.
Afterall they sold our country out, and even have half of our people buying into this Global Warming scam while China buys our coal, and drills off of our shorelines.....
If anyone here lives in the midwest, just look out at the incredible amount of Coal being transported by gravity downstream to New Orleans to be offloaded into Chinese ships.....

They dont have silly political correctness, and can buy the worlds resources while our politicains allow us to be raped. Cant blame them, they get nice beach houses, etc. Probably have their own acting classes for upcoming Chinese leaders.

Cmon guys you have to realize you have been bent over, and hit hard.
Just move on, and pray that you will get your promised scraps from these wealthy protectors of the people. 

God Bless The USA..........................


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 25, 2011)

Thanks NYC.
I bet that's the book where Chinese gals have a poster of Mao in the break rooms that can be flipped over to show Condolesa Rice, Mia Hamm and Hillary Clinton that I have heard so much about.
Seems that the hard working folks of the world still want the American dream that is quickly disappearing over here. Taking away a persons pride with promised entitlements is a new form of slavery, and to some poor Chinese kids who dream of self reliance, America via Hong Kong must be most alluring.
I cant wait to play there. A Taiwanese gal who grew up in Chinatown here in LV has a Metal band that is very successful and goes by the name of Jung Ho.
I played with an all girl Korean band here in the '90's managed by Joe Jackson that kicked ass, sold out showrooms nightly and paid really well. They too liked the sound of FAT American Analog synths. I would love to be surrounded by fine educated talent like that again.
Hell I might not come back after seeing Hong Kong and Malayasia.
Musicians often comment on how its like California was in the '60's before the Soviets in Sacramento starting passing laws and filling the streets with squad cars and Gestapo.

Thanks Chief.


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 25, 2011)

chimuelo @ Sun Apr 24 said:


> Someday this topic will be meaningless as the American Middle Class will be totally dismantled.
> One thing is certain the wealthiest rulers of the world have sold us out to create room for the new Chinese Middle Class.
> There's only room for one, and it should be obvious by now, especially after the " economic " collapse who it will be.
> 
> ...



more people should listen to you. course people like me knew that for years and capitalized on it rather than using debt to buy things with. now leverage is quite another thing. :D :D :D


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 25, 2011)

chimuelo @ Mon Apr 25 said:


> Thanks NYC.
> I bet that's the book where Chinese gals have a poster of Mao in the break rooms that can be flipped over to show Condolesa Rice, Mia Hamm and Hillary Clinton that I have heard so much about.
> Seems that the hard working folks of the world still want the American dream that is quickly disappearing over here. Taking away a persons pride with promised entitlements is a new form of slavery, and to some poor Chinese kids who dream of self reliance, America via Hong Kong must be most alluring.
> I cant wait to play there. A Taiwanese gal who grew up in Chinatown here in LV has a Metal band that is very successful and goes by the name of Jung Ho.
> ...



No posters. You should read the book. Really. It's short.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 25, 2011)

George Caplan @ Mon Apr 25 said:


> chimuelo @ Sun Apr 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Someday this topic will be meaningless as the American Middle Class will be totally dismantled.
> ...



People like you are awfully smart, it seems- but don't you think it's a little unseemly to gloat over your wealth like Midas rubbing his hands over a chest of gold? Especially while others are struggling? 

WINNING! DUH!


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 25, 2011)

Just bought it since it was cheap at Amazon. Thanks.

It is similar to the other book my Chinese rackmount designer who calls herself " Amy " spoke about.

Chinese girls admire American women, especially their accomplishments. They dont fall for the left/right shell game over there, but rather ones success and strength.
To them, Condelesa Rice is no different than Hillary Clinton. They both are well educated, and successful.

Whenever you speak to a true Mainland Chinese woman, and actually ask questions that show admiration, every one I have spoken to wants revenge on the Soccer field against the USA Womens Soccer team..... :lol: 

Mia Hamm and the other gals beat a team where millions tried for, and yet they have only thousands over here that show up to try.
Sure, they admire our gals, but at least the revenge they seek isn't a military solution like so many men who are considered " authorities " want.


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 26, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Mon Apr 25 said:


> People like you are awfully smart, it seems- but don't you think it's a little unseemly to gloat over your wealth like Midas rubbing his hands over a chest of gold? Especially while others are struggling?
> 
> WINNING! DUH!



no one cares if other people are struggling. what is struggling and what does it mean? whats fairness and fair mean? doesnt mean anything its simply platitudes assholes come out with when times get hard and they suddenly found they got into too much debt. its the same as thinking dems and reps will make a difference. its an excuse.

you try what we do sometime and then come back and talk to me about it. see how long your nerve lasts. we dont work for banks and noone pays us a salary or a into a pension fund. they still complain in this country even with 0.5% base rates.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 26, 2011)

George Caplan @ Tue Apr 26 said:


> NYC Composer @ Mon Apr 25 said:
> 
> 
> > People like you are awfully smart, it seems- but don't you think it's a little unseemly to gloat over your wealth like Midas rubbing his hands over a chest of gold? Especially while others are struggling?
> ...



Funny. I'm not struggling, though I'm obviously one of those "assholes coming out with platitudes". Sorry, some people DO care about the plight of other people, your Dickensian Scrooge-like approach notwithstanding.

Many hardworking people have lost their jobs in this country. I guess they were just stupid and unprepared, had no 'nerve', took on too much debt paying for things like healthcare, food and education, didn't get current in their skills during their 'downtime'.

Certainly, there were some highly optimistic people in regards to the ridiculous housing bubble,, people who knew what they were doing and still raped their equity. There were also people selling them predatory mortgage products. I got at least 10 calls a week in those days. The boondoggle of the bailout reeks of government/banking/brokerage collusion.

Tell me-if you give so little a crap for your fellow human, why do you write music? Or do you? What are you doing here, exactly?


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 26, 2011)

Hey Larry, remember when Fannie Mae and Freddies' errand boys stopped calling on the phones...?
Even months after the calls stopped, the letters kept coming from Ameriquest and guess who declared bancrupcy...? It's owner.
He was allowed to escape prosecution by having Bush and his Liberal bros' in Congress send him to Queen Beatrice to be the Ambassador.
Sadly the middle aged " Republican " donor dies a mysterious death upon arrival, and then his position was handed off to his son as if it were a Royal Family.
You're right about the Bailout scams. We are suffering from those with inflation and job loss at this very moment.
Google Roland Arnall and read the latest cleaned up versions of his tenure, and you will see how the " Liberals " and evil banks, along with George Bush work so well together at their Country Club lunches and yachting events.
The Federal Reserves favorite bank, the Bank Of Deutschland, was the front guy for the Feds as Trillions of our equity went to Shanghai.

This is exactly why I dont fall for the shell games and scripts these pathetic actors read to us.
I follow the money, and have come to the conclusion after years of denial that these bastards are all in bed together, and with the latest campaign contibution laws that brought us the Tea Party, I have no doubt what so ever that the Lobbyists representing the global banking giants are in fact the Federal Reserves representatives.

No Conspiracy theory though, they just use the same stockbrokers..........


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 26, 2011)

chimuelo @ Tue Apr 26 said:


> Hey Larry, remember when Fannie Mae and Freddies' errand boys stopped calling on the phones...?
> Even months after the calls stopped, the letters kept coming from Ameriquest and guess who declared bancrupcy...? It's owner.
> He was allowed to escape prosecution by having Bush and his Liberal bros' in Congress send him to Queen Beatrice to be the Ambassador.
> Sadly the middle aged " Republican " donor dies a mysterious death upon arrival, and then his position was handed off to his son as if it were a Royal Family.
> ...



Chim-I agree with your premise for the most part, at least when it comes to the money trail. However, I don't see the Tea Party as a viable solution-do you?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 26, 2011)

The tea party is great - the country will save a lot of money on education and dentistry if a lot of people join in.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 26, 2011)

Viable.........? Sure. It's all about money. Liberals sell laws and give banks trillions, just like the Conservatives do. They are one of the same regardless of the brief appearances they give while reading scripts. 
The Tea Party was a small grassroots group of unemployed middle class folks who actually were angry with a wealthy Senator from Utah who wanted Americans getting more than 26 weeks of unemployment to be drug tested.....I was appalled at this elite bastard who sits in his Senatorial throne watching the nation crumble and he wants to kick people while they're down.....? BTW he's a " Conservative."
Too bad he voted yes in all of Bush & Cheneys' spending.

But lets remember the little law that the " Super Majority " allowed to be fast tracked to the Supreme Court that allows any campaign donations to remain anyonomous.
Now, follow Dick Armey to the various grassroot groups and suddenly these folks are getting organized. Bus rides, T Shirts, posters and a blank check.
Where did these funds come from...? Hard to prove.
But he has wanted to chair the Fed for decades and is in line with the very few select people that even a President cannot unseat.

We have access via CSPAN to track politicians voting records, but when they put forth laws, we never really get to see that process until it's too late for us to speak up. Michele Bachman is someone to watch. She consistently votes no on budgetary sessions, and will certainly vote no on the debt ceiling, because she has been told to do so.
She also pushes laws that ensure the funding of the Pentagon and military if a shutdown were to occur, or if the debt ceiling is voted down.
Doesn't debt ceiling mean, you have hit the roof and cannot spend.....? Interesting names these clowns come up with, what a contradictions in terms.

The Federal Reserve has many global banks, and these banks have lobbying firms, and while Bachman claimed she would never allow lobbyists in her office she was greeted by new unknown firms and voila.............we suddenly have laws being pushed that MUST be orders from the top down. She even knows there will be no repercussions in her own GOP, and even thinks she can be a President.
You dont rise that fast in the ranks unless you are quite sure of your future and financing.

Until the people get specific and demand DC change the laws and have campaign oversight, and equal funding, we will be ruled by whoever has cash.
Hell, even China can use our tax dollars that pay down our debt to them, as a source of unknown origins and push for laws that actually destroy what's left of the Middle Class. This is only one example off the top of my head.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 26, 2011)

Sorry- I meant morally and ethically viable. it's not all about money to me.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 26, 2011)

These people accept cash from anyone, anywhere, anytime and we are suppose to believe that the whole time they are out reading scripts and practicing their lies on us, that they give a hoot about some schmuck that actually works for a living....?
They do this in the name of moral and ethical goals.........?

Cmon Bro....that's like leaving your Chickens with Colonel Sanders and hoping he watches them for a few days while your vacationing.


----------



## snowleopard (Apr 27, 2011)

Meanwhile, Obama released the long form of his birth record. We might hope this will shut up zealots and idiots like Trump, but don't count on it. They'll latch on to something else, and I'm sure there will be a faction of them that say this document is forged. 

The President is right, the entire thing was just silliness and he seems like the only voice of reason at this time.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 27, 2011)

snowleopard @ Wed Apr 27 said:


> Meanwhile, Obama released the long form of his birth record. We might hope this will shut up zealots and idiots like Trump, but don't count on it. They'll latch on to something else, and I'm sure there will be a faction of them that say this document is forged.
> 
> The President is right, the entire thing was just silliness and he seems like the only voice of reason at this time.



Crying shame that he had to go through all that trouble.


----------



## robh (Apr 27, 2011)

josejherring @ Wed Apr 27 said:


> snowleopard @ Wed Apr 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, Obama released the long form of his birth record. We might hope this will shut up zealots and idiots like Trump, but don't count on it. They'll latch on to something else, and I'm sure there will be a faction of them that say this document is forged.
> ...


Crazy priorities I suppose. Now to focus the next few days on the royal wedding. :roll: 

Rob


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 27, 2011)

Circus barker. I love it.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 27, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 27 said:


> Circus barker. I love it.



Yeah, little doubt as to who he was referring to.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 27, 2011)

Well lets say these 2 parties and this whole Hollywood trained series of skits are real.
Trump is chasing away Independants that Obama desperately needs for a 2nd term.
Why on Earth would you even acknowledge this clown and cave in so easily...?
The longer he rants the more successful the DNC will be...
Obamas handlers need to be fired, and not because of this, but because they never learn from their mistakes.
They have fallen on their faces consistently and still are allowed to embarrass not only the President, but all Americans.......I can't even think of a conspiracy theory as an alternative, unless...............Hillary and Bill, who originally did this to Obama, but let up after their fellow Liberals called them racists. That's the last tool in a Liberals arsenal when they've lost an argument, could be in on this with Trump, and Trump will back out, while Obamas ratings drop below 40%.......Then she resigns and seeks revenge....

It is great entertainment though, and even more proof that these parties are all a hoax, especially when someone like Trump can shake down the leader of the free world.............this can't possibly be real.....?


----------



## snowleopard (Apr 27, 2011)

I don't really look at it that way. I think this makes Obama look like the lone voice of reason, while everyone else grasps at conspiracies and extremes. 

Sadly, I also have to wonder if this would have ever happened had he been white.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 28, 2011)

Race is an issue only talked about in politics these days.
I work with black, white, Korean, Chinese, Mexican contractors and performers and we only worry about if the crowd enjoyed themselves, how much money the waittail cocktresses are making.....I never hear racial issues except from the elites and the media. So I hope you haven't fallen into their trap.
My son hangs out with a more diverse cross section of kids than I do. He listens to the " adult elites " on TV on occassion and his buddies stare in shock as they never hear this crap either.
Well kids are even less prone to fall into the divisive media trap than adults.

One thing is certain, the status quo will be maintained by the real power brokers.
It will have the face of change and a new Super Majority of Tea Partiers will be the new Messiahs.
Thankfully me and my better half are gainfully employed.

I fear that the new group of freshmen are being instructed to cut spending to the point where any unemployed people, or folks on food stamps will have to work to eat. Sounds so " Patriotic and American. "

Blame the GOP or Obama, Bush.....it doesn't matter. The real power brokers that run the show and have trillions around various global banks are calling the shots.
Hard to imagine, but trillions of dollars and a super majority with zero achievemnts, is just a sad reminder of who runs the free world.
If the DNC actually represented the less fortunate people and middle class, we would have much better conditions as that money has circulated already.

The proof is there to see. If you cant get past the idealogy and division provided by media and the elites, you wont be prepared for the upcoming super majority.

Best Wishes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 28, 2011)

Of course we have an oligarchy, and yes we have become a mockery of democracy to a large degree. But as I keep saying: that is not the totality of our present system of government. 

And I just can't understand why you insist on totally ignoring the very real fight between "me" and "we" that's reached new heights in this country, chimuelo. Things are much more complicated than what you're saying even though I agree with your criticisms; you're only looking at part of the situation.

Sure the division is fueled by the media and politicians (who are beholden to the elites who bribe them with campaign contributions; it's not really the elites themselves who exploit the divisions). Of course news coverage has become news entertainment, which is why idiots aren't distinguished from statesmen.

But to say that racism much less political division doesn't exist is simply pretending big pieces of the puzzle aren't there. We are still a republic, we do still vote, and we do have a Constitution even though there are major flaws in the way things are run.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 28, 2011)

Glad you're coming around and seeing things like I do........ :mrgreen: 

Racism is only in the eyes of the racists, and their numbers are few, but the media doesn't get their ratings for showing neighborhoods like I live in.
OMG there's a black man watering his yard and he doesn't have a basketball net either........ >8o 

They want the Glen Beck black on white beatings to anger people, and then give " Doctor " Louis Farakhan a microphone, and boy oh boy, suddenly I feel guilty, even though I am Latin and Caucasian.

I ignore these hate promoters and despise their mindless worshipers. If they come to my neighborhood I might even consider filling my sons Super Squirt Gun rifle with Urine and soaking their ass down.

Don't worry Nick, the old elites are being voted out next time, and I pray my theory of the Fed doesn't exist, and hope they really do re design our defense industry and just stop stealing our cash and throwing it around as if it will fix every problem.

Give me a Liberal party full of Laura Sanchez minded folks, then some crabby old Bernie Sanders for the Independant voice, and then some Ron Pauls for the GOP instead of these false Conservatives.............

I would love to be wrong, but mine eyes haven't seen the glory for the last 11 years...

Fingers Crossed...................Peace Out.


----------

