Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

This forum is for the preservation of old threads from before the forum pruning.
It is currently Thu Jul 17, 2025 6:17 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The State of The States
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:35 pm 
Offline
Council Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:31 pm
Posts: 597
Here's a quote from another forum:
[QUOTE=Jragghen;3963296]So in other news,

Ron Paul would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, blames Lincoln for the Civil War, "shock poll" puts Clinton 15 points up in Iowa, Thompson failed to get on the ballot in Washington DC, and the Kansas GOP chair has sent an email out boasting about caging.

Also, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster defeated Intelligent Design in the classroom in Florida.[/QUOTE]

It should be noted that the shock poll's methodology has been criticized.

All in all, I'm starting to feel sorry for the Republican party.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:00 am 
Offline
Templar Inner Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:55 am
Posts: 2885
Location: Somewhere in my pants.
I'd quit trying to be infalmmatory if I were you scalfin. Neither party is exactly on great footing, and every election is just a choice of the lesser of two evils. The Democrats are having just as hard a time. :<

Anyway, the Ron Paul thing is way out of context. I willl quote the article to give some better context:
Quote:
Contrary to the claims of supporters of the Civil Rights Act of '64, . . . [the act] did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of '64 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
I think that sums it up. He was against forced integration. What would've been a better idea was banning the practice of exclusion based on race, so that African American's could attend white schools if so desired, and visa-versa. And a lot of people blame Lincoln for the Civil War. After all, the Confederates said they would succeed if Lincoln was elected.

As for the Clinton thing, again hugely out of context. That poll puts Clinton 15 points ahead of Obama, not in general, so it means nothing to the Republican party.

On the defeat of the teaching of ID, no one is surprised and no one should be. Religion has been so vilified in America that the teaching of ID will never happen, sadly.

Lastly, to Kobach. It's one man who doesn't really matter. Of course caging is a bad thing, and it should be stopped, but just because one guy is an idiot about it doesn't say anything about the rest of us.

EDIT: Whoops, I missed Thompson. I don't know how great of a politician Thompson is anyway, and if he didn't have his stuff in order it's his own damn fault.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:51 am 
Offline
Grand Templar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:16 am
Posts: 2439
Location: Florida
You seem to be set against Ron Paul, Scalfin. I'm assuming this means you've got some sort of problem with the constitution and are therefore against the United States. Terrorist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:13 am 
Offline
Council Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:31 pm
Posts: 597
I mean how this stuff adds up. We have Ron Paul blaming Lincoln for the civil war, Thompson not even registering for a poor district, the Kansas GOP bragging about violating election law, as if the semi-illegal voter suppression wasn't enough, and a humorous group having to show a school district that just because you can't disprove Prometheus giving humanity fire doesn't make it acceptable school curriculum.

This is on top of all the news that's come out about Huchabee, and Coulter's latest comment about Huckabee.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:15 am 
Offline
Grand Templar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:01 pm
Posts: 1121
Location: On the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection
Don't blame me. I'm voting Kucinich.
;D

((Or at least I would if I was the proper age by election time D= ))


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:11 am 
Offline
Templar Inner Circle
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:55 am
Posts: 2885
Location: Somewhere in my pants.
At any rate scalfin, it sounds like you're just trying to discount the GOP and be inflammatory. Also, the FSM vs ID thing has nothing to do with Republicans. Just because many of them are religious doesn't mean they had anything to do with that florida decision.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:13 am 
Offline
Council Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:31 pm
Posts: 597
Trust me, if I'd wanted to be inflammatory, I'd have called the mysterious escape of the Siberian Tiger a Christmass miracle, than asked how the Laufer curve is going.

I implore you guys to support McCain in the primaries, despite the fact that surveys have shown that he's the only candidate who could win the general election (survey looked at various match ups and found that the only R victory would be McCain v. Clinton), because I hate all his competitors with all my essence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:41 am 
Offline
Friendly Forum Foxie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 1046
Location: I'm in ur vines, eatin ur grapes!
I'm inclined to agree with Scalfin; a lot of people I know that like Ron Paul know very little about his stances. I just don't want to vote for a strict constructionist, isolationist, and confederate. While I believe in States' rights and a smaller government, on too many issues affecting my future and well-being as a gay American, does he wish to give back full decision-making to the states. I'm sorry, but gay marriage and equality legislation should not be left exclusively to individual states, especially not when he wants to pass a DOMA with a clause forbidding judicial review. I mean, hell, Texas had a sodomy law on the books until 2003. Do we really want states to decide all of that for themselves? Especially when regular marriage has no such issues: get married in any state and its recognized in every state.

Imagine this, for instance: I'm on a roadtrip with my husband, since we live in Massachusetts and are married. We're in New York when we get into an accident that puts him in the local hospital. Now, because New York won't recognize our marriage, rights such as power of attorney, visitation, etc. are suddenly no longer valid. :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:58 pm 
Offline
Templar GrandMaster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:34 am
Posts: 878
Location: at any point between 0 and 1
It's all a sticky issue to be sure, but then again politics has never been a "VOTE FOR THIS GUY AND EVERYTHING WILL BE HAPPY!!!!" though as we all know that is often how they try and portray it.

Part of the problem, at least in my opinion, is that politicians do and say what we WANT them to, (for the most part) but the fact of the matter is the general population couldn't tell a toaster from a TV. So instead of actually fixing REAL problems they are off on some pork barrel legislation to build a bridge to nowhere, or spending BILLIONS on the wars around the globe (the last funding bill to go through congress appropriated 70 billion for this purpose - the original price was going to be 200 billion) no offense to any of our men and women in uniform but imagine if we put that into say education? maybe we wouldn't have these problems because people would understand where the best place to put our time and attention. instead we are off on feel good projects that get us nothing but big bills in the mail.

it seems like any part of our society you look there is an accident waiting to happen, personally if you think everything is going along fine its time to take off the rose colored glasses and take a closer look problems everywhere but no one wants to admit it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:19 pm 
Offline
Grand Templar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:01 pm
Posts: 1121
Location: On the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection
Scalfin2000 wrote:
Trust me, if I'd wanted to be inflammatory, I'd have called the mysterious escape of the Siberian Tiger a Christmass miracle, than asked how the Laufer curve is going.

I implore you guys to support McCain in the primaries, despite the fact that surveys have shown that he's the only candidate who could win the general election (survey looked at various match ups and found that the only R victory would be McCain v. Clinton), because I hate all his competitors with all my essence.
Actually, I am rooting for McCain to win the R nomination because I put him far over Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee, and Romney combined.

I still pick Kucinich overall, tho'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:43 pm 
Offline
Council Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:31 pm
Posts: 597
On popularity: My economic ideas would be incredibly unpopular if implemented, to the point that a test essay that was supposed to be an advisory memo for the president on which items on the menu of pain to take started with the word "as a lame duck president with already dismal approval ratings." Yeah, that bad. My conclusion was all of them (I'm closer to Keynes than Classical, especially of the national debt and its interest's effect of the budget).

On Ron Paul and Kucinich, when I took the ABC candidate policy test, my results were, in order, Gravel, Ron Paul, and Kucinich, the two crazies and Mr. UFO, though I feel the questions were so bad that they render the results useless.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:10 pm 
Offline
Grand Templar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:16 am
Posts: 2439
Location: Florida
I think I'll be voting for Ron Paul, myself. A lot of what he talks about are in my best interests and I think he'd do a lot for the country. He's got a great voting record. He's against regulating the internet, income tax (and pretty much every other tax for that matter), the war in Iraq, and the Patriot Act. He's also for keeping our borders and not becoming one with Canada and Mexico, something many of the other presidential candidates want. Who here wants to spend the Amero instead of the US dollar? Does not sound appealing to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:16 pm 
Offline
Grand Templar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 6:01 pm
Posts: 1121
Location: On the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection
Luca Fox wrote:
I think I'll be voting for Ron Paul, myself. A lot of what he talks about are in my best interests and I think he'd do a lot for the country. He's got a great voting record. He's against regulating the internet, income tax (and pretty much every other tax for that matter), the war in Iraq, and the Patriot Act. He's also for keeping our borders and not becoming one with Canada and Mexico, something many of the other presidential candidates want. Who here wants to spend the Amero instead of the US dollar? Does not sound appealing to me.
I agree with you about the Regulations and taxes. Could you cite where you found the information about other candidates supporting the combining of countries, as I've only ever heard grass-roots rumours about that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:58 pm 
Offline
Council Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:31 pm
Posts: 597
So basically, he hasn't received the memo that, at current rates of revenue and expenditure growth, interest on government debt will exceed tax revenue by 2040?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:58 pm 
Offline
Grand Templar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:16 am
Posts: 2439
Location: Florida
I forget where I heard it but there's a disturbing amount of them from what I remember.

--

Dr. Ron Paul wrote:
In Washington we hear a lot of talk about tax cuts, but the rhetoric does not always match the reality. For most Americans, taxes remain too complex and too high. After the tumult of the upcoming midterm election, it is imperative that Congress gets back to basics and addresses our terrible tax system.

Lower taxes benefit all Americans by increasing economic growth and encouraging wealth creation. I’m in favor of cutting everybody’s taxes – rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains and hire more employees, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury.

Many conservatives have touted the Fair Tax proposal as an issue in the upcoming election. A pure consumption tax like the Fair Tax would be better than the current system only if we truly did away with the income tax by repealing the 16th amendment. Otherwise, we could end up with both the income tax and a national sales tax. A consumption tax also provides more transparency and less complexity. But the real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform. In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that the federal government needs $2.7 trillion from us-- and more each year-- the only question left is from whom it will be collected. Until the federal government is held to its proper constitutionally limited functions, tax reform will remain a mirage.

I apply a very simple test to any proposal to overhaul the tax code: Does it reduce or eliminate an existing tax? If not, then it amounts to nothing more than a political shell game that pits taxpayers against each other in a lobbying scramble to make sure the other guy pays. True tax reform is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes. No studies, panels, committees, or hearings are needed. When reform proposals seem complicated, they almost certainly don’t cut taxes. Congress should simply focus on cutting existing taxes and reducing spending, instead of complicated overhauls of the system.

The question to ask yourself is this: What would I do with the money withheld from my paycheck each month? The answer is simple: you would spend, save, or invest the money, all of which do more for the economy and society than sending it to Washington. Thanks to the deception of income tax withholding, however, some people actually look forward to tax time and a much-anticipated refund. Imagine how quickly Americans would demand lower taxes and spending if they had to write the federal government a check each month!

Tax relief is important, but members of Congress need to back up tax cuts with spending cuts- and they need to vote NO on every wasteful appropriations bill until we start over with the federal budget. True fiscal conservatism combines both low taxes and low spending.

Cutting spending would not be hard if Congress simply showed the political will to tackle the problem. I’m not talking about cutting the rate at which government spending grows, but cutting the actual amount of money spent by the federal government in a single year.

If federal spending grows at 5% rather than 7% one year, that’s hardly a great achievement on the part of Congress. The current federal budget of around $2.7 trillion could be cut to $2.5 trillion quite easily. The vast majority of Americans would not even notice. But we must begin chipping away at the federal budget if we hope to address the underlying problem of government debt.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group