Jump to content

Photo

Lets talk 2012.


  • Please log in to reply
389 replies to this topic

#41 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 09 September 2011 - 04:31 PM

:lol:

I'm not a religious person, so a lot of the God stuff doesn't resonate with me. Does it bug me that Perry says there's some holes in the theory of evolution?


If he suspends rational thought for one topic what's to stop him from being fanatical in another?
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#42 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,727 posts

Posted 09 September 2011 - 09:10 PM

If he suspends rational thought for one topic what's to stop him from being fanatical in another?

Indeed, I can't wrap my head around his idea that we shouldn't be able to vote for our senators and that they should instead by appointed by the state legislature. How can we spread democracy in the middle east while taking it away from ourselves?
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#43 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,436 posts

Posted 09 September 2011 - 10:22 PM

Indeed, I can't wrap my head around his idea that we shouldn't be able to vote for our senators and that they should instead by appointed by the state legislature. How can we spread democracy in the middle east while taking it away from ourselves?


So did we not have democracy before 1913? The amendment transferred more powers from the state to the federal govt. It's probably too late to change but I would support it's repeal to give the states back more power.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#44 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,727 posts

Posted 09 September 2011 - 11:54 PM

So did we not have democracy before 1913? The amendment transferred more powers from the state to the federal govt. It's probably too late to change but I would support it's repeal to give the states back more power.

How does it give that power to the federal government rather than the people? I understand the idea of having the state governments have some kind of power over the federal government in this case, but I much prefer being able to vote on our senators myself than forfeiting that power to the state government.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#45 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,436 posts

Posted 09 September 2011 - 11:58 PM

How does it give that power to the federal government rather than the people? I understand the idea of having the state governments have some kind of power over the federal government in this case, but I much prefer being able to vote on our senators myself than forfeiting that power to the state government.


I didn't say it gave less power to the people, I said it took power from the state govt. The founders didn't want the people to have direct control over everything, and I think they were correct about that.

The Senate was for the states and The House was for the people, this way the states and the people had to agree on things, now it's just the people hopefully agreeing with the people and the states are cut out.

For example, if the states still appointed the senators then I think we would have less pork going through Congress, since one half of Congress wouldn't have to pander directly to the people.

Do you feel that the US was not fairly representative of the people before 1913? Should we start a movement to have Supreme Court judges be elected by the people, since we should have these powers?

Edited by Devils731, 10 September 2011 - 12:05 AM.

  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#46 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,727 posts

Posted 10 September 2011 - 12:27 AM

I didn't say it gave less power to the people, I said it took power from the state govt. The founders didn't want the people to have direct control over everything, and I think they were correct about that.

The Senate was for the states and The House was for the people, this way the states and the people had to agree on things, now it's just the people hopefully agreeing with the people and the states are cut out.

For example, if the states still appointed the senators then I think we would have less pork going through Congress, since one half of Congress wouldn't have to pander directly to the people.

Do you feel that the US was not fairly representative of the people before 1913? Should we start a movement to have Supreme Court judges be elected by the people, since we should have these powers?

You said the amendment transferred more powers from the states to the federal government. Maybe I just interpreted it wrong, whatever.

I don't like the idea of losing any control over who rules us. Maybe there would be less pork that way, but line item veto could accomplish the same.

I don't know if the US was fairly representative of the people before 1913 because I wasn't around then and I don't know enough about what it was like back then, but I'm not sure if electing Supreme Court judges would be that bad if you could cut down on corruption by eliminating campaign contributions from unions, corporations, etc. The Supreme Court is already politicized anyway since they are appointed by partisan presidents.
  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#47 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,891 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:48 AM

Again, yesterday Obama had no proposals about what to cut to pay for a new stimulus. He's leaving it to the new congressional budget "supercommittee" to figure it out. But House Republicans should vote this into law right away, even though they don't know what they're voting for. Maybe voting for bills without knowing what's in them works for Nancy Pelosi, but not responsible people.

No leadership, no balls, no surprise.
  • 0

#48 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,238 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 09:05 AM

Again, yesterday Obama had no proposals about what to cut to pay for a new stimulus. He's leaving it to the new congressional budget "supercommittee" to figure it out. But House Republicans should vote this into law right away, even though they don't know what they're voting for. Maybe voting for bills without knowing what's in them works for Nancy Pelosi, but not responsible people.

No leadership, no balls, no surprise.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-and-overview

But that is not a 'bill'. The White house can't write bills (why the American people seem to have forgotten this baffles me). They can only list ideas and suggestions about what they would like in a bill and it's up to the house and senate to construct it. Usually when spending is involved the onus is on the house.

Understanding this, when he says his stupid "pass this bill" mantra it's clear he just wants congress to be urgent and not drag their feet. Not to literally pass a non-existent bill that he isn't allowed to write.
  • 0

#49 SMantzas

SMantzas

    Assistant Coach

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,548 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 09:18 AM

what people dont realize about Ron Paul and his "radical" ideas is that not all of his ideas will pass through Congress. He's not gonna do a complete 180 here
  • 0

#50 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,891 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 06:10 PM

Squishy, of course you're right that bills come from lawmakers. But when the president says he has a jobs plan, I want to hear exactly what it entails. I want to hear his cutting suggestions, but, what a shock, the empty suit doesn't have any.
  • 0

#51 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,238 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 12:07 AM

Squishy, of course you're right that bills come from lawmakers. But when the president says he has a jobs plan, I want to hear exactly what it entails. I want to hear his cutting suggestions, but, what a shock, the empty suit doesn't have any.

Why would you expect a 450b jobs bill to include spending cuts? Not only would immediate cuts likely offset any job growth this bill created but he's a democrat and it goes against his political ideology. The way he would probably like to pay for this is to tax the rich, since that seems impossible in this political atmosphere he left it up to congress to figure out if they want to fund this or not in a way they deem appropriate.

Is that the best approach? maybe not, but it is at least status quo, and what I can't figure out is why a lot of the same people that didn't mind handing Bush a blank check for two wars or medicare part D all of a sudden are having this crisis on conscious and can't vote for something unless it's accompanied by offsetting revenues; which by the way can not be tax increases despite the fact that federal taxes are at historic lows.
  • 0

#52 Jerrydevil

Jerrydevil

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,891 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 11:39 AM

Why would you expect a 450b jobs bill to include spending cuts?


That's what Obama proposed. He proposed to tack on $450 billion to the $1-point-whatever trillion in cuts promised in the debt ceiling compromise.
  • 0

#53 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,238 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 12:58 PM

That's what Obama proposed. He proposed to tack on $450 billion to the $1-point-whatever trillion in cuts promised in the debt ceiling compromise.

Doesn't necessarily mean cuts, I don't think the "super committee" has ruled out new taxes yet.
  • 0

#54 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,132 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 02:57 PM

Which is why the corporate owned news media will not allow him in the discussion. The same reason Health Care, Corporate Business abuses, environmental issues and workers rights are not allowed to be discussed in a serious fashion.


Say what? Those issues are covered in the news all the time, if not ad nauseum. I'm not sure what you mean by something being discussed in a "serious fashion" unless it means being discussed in a fashion that supports your world view.

Despite what many people think, Rupert Murdoch does not control the world.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#55 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,132 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 03:02 PM

For example, if the states still appointed the senators then I think we would have less pork going through Congress, since one half of Congress wouldn't have to pander directly to the people.


Pork is more or less a rounding error on the federal budget. If we want to take cutting spending seriously, everything has to be on the table -- that includes social security and medicare (means test them) and military spending (an end to all nation building ventures which means cutting the size of the army).
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#56 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,436 posts

Posted 14 September 2011 - 04:59 PM

Pork is more or less a rounding error on the federal budget. If we want to take cutting spending seriously, everything has to be on the table -- that includes social security and medicare (means test them) and military spending (an end to all nation building ventures which means cutting the size of the army).


That quote was just listing one example on why having the state legislators have the final say in senators was better than having the Senate be directly voted on by the people. It really wasn't talking about balancing budgets, although I do think it might help, since Senators would hopefully try to get some power and responsibilities back to the states and away from the federal gov't.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#57 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,238 posts

Posted 18 September 2011 - 11:14 PM

I want to hear exactly what it entails. I want to hear his cutting suggestions, but, what a shock, the empty suit doesn't have any.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-propose-1-5-trillion-tax-revenue-024632167.html

You may not like or agree with his proposals, but I would hope we can now put to rest the argument that he hasn't put down a plan.
  • 0

#58 devilsadvoc8

devilsadvoc8

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,818 posts

Posted 19 September 2011 - 07:47 AM

Haven't we already counted the afghan war savings three or four times already? Another budgetary trick used by both sides.

At the end of the day it is a meaningless proposal as Obama has included items that the repubs have said aren't negotiable. So we have a proposal that was made to be a political gesture not a real proposal. The cycle of incompentence continues in Washington as both sides would rather be utter a$$holes than do anything productive.
  • 0
Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

#59 Jimmy Leeds

Jimmy Leeds

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,338 posts

Posted 19 September 2011 - 08:41 AM

Isn't this the same empty suit who read off his teleprompter that, "you don't raise taxes in a recession"

Pandering to his base of zealots. Or he got a new writer for the teleprompter.
  • 0
I DRINK LOU-AID
Posted Image

Posted Image

Kill Mumia

#60 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,339 posts

Posted 19 September 2011 - 08:47 AM

Obama is a failure (all by himself - no need to blame uncooperative Republicans) and Rick Perry is a lying opportunist (campaigned for Gore in 2000 - talk a bout a flip flopping opportunist dirt bag - anyone who supports him is a fool - even my republican mother says the guy is a worse self-worshiping crook than Bill Clinton).

Ron Paul is not going to fly -- and he mealy mouths as much as the next guy - but it comes off weak not like he's bullsh!tting in the name of compromise for his teabagger could-be supporters. Speak your mind consistently don't fold like a deck of card when you think you might win if you say what the people want to hear instead of what you think -- learn nothing from McCain's run? He's an a$$hole anyhow.

Everyone is an ass. The discussion here is pointless because no one can even approach anything close to truth -- just their opinion. And opinions aren't wrong canNot by thier very nature be wrong -- just misguided and there's no re-directing them - and there is no telling who's opinion is best for the country. Most of you guys hold opinions that are just THE WORST thing for your SELVES! You're just too puffed up with winning a bullsh!t argument to even take the time to see any kind of truth.

ANY kind of truth. It's shocking to me -- you guys really don't care. You dont care to be informed. You dont care who is representing you. No one knows what anyone stands for -- it's just shocking. Shocking. not even MEDIA rules you all -- it's gossip. Plain and simple party-line gossip, heresay and wishful thinking.

Mind blowing.

Edited by Pepperkorn, 19 September 2011 - 08:48 AM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users