Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by TRENCHLORD, May 9, 2012.
But, but, but, but, that's communist socialism, you far-left Nazi.
I just had a read through the GOP's 2012 platform, the whole thing is insane.
It contains (among other things):
Outright denials of the evidence for global warming.
Calls for a complete cut of government funding for any organization that supports contraception.
Public Display of the 10 commandments.
Opposing removing the word god from the pledge of allegiance (no big deal), the declaration of independence (it doesn't actually appear within it to begin with) and currency (apparently the 1954 change that added "In God We Trust" to our money can stay).
Claims of the infallibility of our constitution, ardent opposition to any changes.
Opposition to National Healthcare.
Government support of homeopathy.
Judeo-Christian values and Scripture in Pubic schools.
Removing the term "Assault Weapon" from semi-automatic firearms.
This one needs to be read to be believed:
1.7 We call for the repeal of the law denying a citizen’s right to bear arms based on a single conviction for simple misdemeanor domestic assault.
The stuff that applies to gays and lesbians:
(The entire "Marriage section" can essentially be summed up in two words. "No queers." so I won't bother posting it.)
1.1 We believe that the traditional family is the building block to a moral, healthy, and thriving society.
(No gays getting married.)
1.9 We favor improving, strengthening, and simplifying the adoption process.
(wait for it...)
1.10 We oppose adoption by homosexual individuals and couples.
(There it is.)
1.12 We support non-familial adoption by heterosexual married couples consisting of one man and one woman, and believe that no law should infringe on faith-based adoptive service agencies that offer their services in accordance with their beliefs.
(No, really, no gays.)
1.7 We support a landlord’s right to refuse to lease property and a business owner’s right to refuse service based on moral grounds. (They believe in a persons right to discriminate against literally anyone as long as they can claim a "moral grounds" for doing so, way to open the floodgates guys.)
So they want less science, more guns for criminals, less freedom for gays, and more freedom to discriminate. Brilliant.
Isn't legislating morality & failed socio-economic legislation the hallmark of Big Government and Fascism? ESPECIALLY when it lacks consistent scientific or factual basis? Can we honestly say that a government that steps into people's private lives to tell them what and who they can do isn't what these people "Socialism"?
Republicans arent actual conservatives
Exactly! Even if I don't agree with everything they say, I can respect real conservatives. What we have here in America is a bunch of religious bigoted zealots who feel that what they believe outweighs anyone else's personal rights and freedoms.
Even I uphold some conservative beliefs, like keeping the government in check or being fiscally responsible and people paying their fair share. But what I'm seeing is the extreme right becoming the new center. It's mind-numbing. Almost makes you wonder what their idea of extreme right would be.....
Wouldn't it be great if we could rewind back to the time before bush jr and remember what it was like to have a solid economy again?
Yes it would.
We can't even begin this really until we have a federal budget passed.
It's been about 3yrs. since the feds were beholdent to any budget numbers.
I think the last 2 fiscal year (for 12 and 13) Obama Budgets were voted down 0-97, and 0-99 respectively in the Democrat controled Senate.
@anyone really, anyone with answers lol.
Is this some sort of political scheme by the Dems? Maybe so they and Obama are beholdent to no budget at all?
Is this simply that the Dems on capitol hill are too afraid for their own political future to get on board with Obama?
Is it that the Obama Budgets are so unreasonable that not even one single Democrat will give the thumbs up?
Or, is this something that the Republicans are behind?
Obviously, I have more questions than answers.
Well the short answer is that it takes money to pay off debt. Obviously right? Now where do we get money to pay the bills? Taxes. It's basic economics 101 that in order to keep your bills paid you need to be bringing in AT LEAST as much as what you owe to break even right? Trouble is that thanks to that idiot Reagan, people have gotten this idea in their head that the solution lies in reducing taxes more and more in the slight hope that there will be more jobs; thus more people to tax. Sounds good right? Trouble is that you are making the ENTIRE economic system rely on corporations to make morally sound choices. Historically speaking, this a very rare occurance. So now we have less and less money coming in. Now take a look at the expenses. War is a huge expense and we have been at war for over 10 years now. So with less income due this crazy overconfident idea that more jobs will open up if we don't bring in enough tax, combined with the escalating costs of wars, it's a wonder we aren't at the point of insolvency.
AND THIS IS THE SITUATION OBAMA WALKED INTO WHEN HE WAS INAUGURATED. So how do we fix this? Do what any American citizen would do to stablize things, shift the spending from killing innocent people to paying off debts. Car industry about to fail? (a vital part of our economy btw) Gonna have to,write some blank checks to save it and our ass in the process. Banks going bankrupt? Gonna have to save their dumbasses too with blank checks. Obama was forced into a catch 22 there because either he lets the banks fail and our economy with it, or spend money we don't have in an attempt to fix things. Either way he becomes the bad guy.
He did screw the pooch on oversight of that money, and I'm certainly pissed about companies taking bailout money and pocketing it for bonuses.
Blaming Obama for this economic crisis makes about as much sense as blaming global warming on unindustrialized nations. Eschew the b.s. on tv and see that Obama walked into a shit sandwich and was expected to make it taste amazing. We all hear about how much he had to spend, but what they DON'T tell you is that you have to spend money to pay the bills. You have to spend a LOT of money to keep the economy in check. Now that we are on the tail end of things however; we need to out focus BACK on paying down that debt. While I have no ill regard to the chinese, I'm in no hurry to be owned by them.
Still of topic, but somewhat related to the few last posts here:
Come on, don't act like you've never gone off topic!
Daily Kos: Another study says watching Fox News makes you dumber
I've seen a few of these studies, this is in response (however late) to Trench's comments about Fox News being popular.
I'm reading Bill Clintons book right now, and he breaks it down very well.
It all started with Reagan, whom by stating "government is the problem" became the posterchild for the modern radical Republican party. The idea itself is not only an oxy moron being said by a government official, but also a sort of self fulfilling prophecy in the hands of Conservatives because if they fuck up (like Bush Jr did), the explanation is simply "see? We told you Government couldn't do anything right!".
Anyways, Reagan was the first president to pass a budget that raised spending while cutting tax revenue at the same time, something never done during peacetime. George H.W. Bush noticed this, and sacrificed his second term trying to correct it by slightly raising taxes in an effort to bring the deficit down; a noble cause that Clinton worked with him to continue through his own two terms.
So Clinton passed a sustainable budget plan (in the face of another Newt Gingrich-headed anti-government congress shift that occurred in 1994), which based on projections would have obliterated all of the Federal Government's debt for the first time since 1832 by the year 2013.
Now comes the fun part. Within Bush Jr's first year in office he succeeded in passing big tax cuts and spending initiatives that doubled the debt, while also destroying banking regulations and allowing healthcare costs to rise at three times the rate of inflation. Compare that to Obama, who was mostly acting on damage control, and the idea that he's a big spender is pretty childish if you ask me.
"The first three decades of the anti-government movement have been more anti-tax and anti-regulation than anti-spending".
^So, IF that was all true, then why does Obama keep striking out when his budget proposals go up for a vote in the Senate?
Wasn't his last two budget proposals voted down 0-97 (last year), and 0-99 just last wednesday?
Isn't the Senate controled by the Demacrats?
Why wouldn't even 1 demacrat give him the thumbs up?
Doesn't something smell a little rotten here?
Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate - Washington Times
this is why:
"Democrats disputed that it was actually the president's plan, arguing that the slim amendment didn't actually match Mr. Obama's budget document, which ran thousands of pages. But Republicans said they used all of the president's numbers in the proposal, so it faithfully represented his plan."
Avoiding biased websites really helped me find a clear answer.
Also no, both the House and Senate have Republican majorities right now; hence why Obama is being stonewalled at every turn. All I can say there is, if you elected them, you have nobody to blame but yourself. We need to re-elect Obama, and put Dems back in charge. Repubs need to separate themselves from the church and from crazy Reaganomics if they ever hope to have a snowball's chance in hell of effectively running this country again.
Any idea on why last years vote went 97-0 in the senate, surely it wasn't the same scenerio was it?
And now that I read that WT article, why did the budget proposal lose in the house by a vote of 414-0?
I can understand why republicans are blocking, but why are the democrats?
Here is the wiki on the current congress for info sake.
112th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From what I know it is because it is a republican amendment that included Obama's budget and Democrats don't think it is the same budget for both house and senate. In general it is odd that no one voted for it I mean what are the chances.
As for last year no clue, but I suppose a similar scenario could be the cause however unlikely. Either way I wish Congress would just make a decision on anything at this point no matter where it falls on the party lines, they all have their heads up their asses at this point.
My apologies. The senate has a SLIGHT democrat majority, provided you count the two independents that are caucusing under the democrat banner, otherwise it's basically even. The repubs still control the house, so I was 1 for 2.
Don't they need 60 votes out of 100 to do anything?
I was speaking to a gay man my age the other day in a bar and he said something I've never thought of before. He said that he doesn't want marriage to be legal between gay people. He sees marriage as a religious thing and therefore doesn't care if he can't get married to a man. All he wants is to have the same legal rights, that way he gets what he wants and the people who want marriage to stay as a traditional religious ceremony remain happy too; he doesn't want to upset them nor change tradition within their religion.
Needless to say I found this very interesting.
The only question left in my mind is what about religious homosexuals, but that is not a stance I know enough about in order to comment or muse on in any way.