U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/)
-   -   'Gone Old Party' (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/gone-old-party-207761.html)

UberBeaver 09-27-2010 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AEON (Post 6967033)
Some argue that a lower tax rate increases spending and investing which leads to more profits and income which increases total tax revenue (despite the lower tax rate).

I think that those that will be most affected by the tax break are higher earners who tend to save, so that money just sits unused.

BEAL 09-27-2010 04:21 PM

Wasn't that the whole point of the trickle down effect/economics? How did that work out for everyone?

MrsSpringsteen 09-28-2010 09:37 AM

ABC News

A new video featuring Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell from a television appearance in the 1990s has been released, and while not as eccentric as last week's infamous 'Witchcraft' video, it still presents the GOP's rising star in an unflattering light.

On Friday night Bill Maher aired on his HBO show, "Real Time," a clip from his previous show, "Politically Incorrect," of O'Donnell saying to a groaning audience, "Evolution is a myth...why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?"

O'Donnell appeared on the political talk show on 22 different episodes, and Maher has said he will air a clip of O'Donnell every week until she agrees to appear on his show.

"It's like a hostage crisis," Maher said last week. "Every week you don't show up, I'm going to throw another body out."

BEAL 09-28-2010 09:39 AM

This country is doomed if she and/or Palin ever win anything.

Pearl 09-28-2010 04:17 PM

Told you she was ignorant, uneducated and dangerous.

martha 09-28-2010 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl (Post 6968234)
Told you she was ignorant, uneducated and dangerous.

And the hope of the libertarians, apparently.

MrsSpringsteen 09-30-2010 09:50 AM

Tea Party-backed U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell said in an interview published online this week that God is guiding the trajectory for her campaign.

"God continued to strengthen and empower us when, you know, his strength is perfected in our weakness," explained the Senate hopeful to Jennifer Wishon at the Christian Broadcasting Network. "Because you see that if it weren't for faith, when all logic said it's time to quit, we pursued, we marched on, because we knew God was not releasing us to quit."

O'Donnell, who is facing off against Democrat Chris Coons in Delaware's general election, called the spiritual phenomenon "exciting."

The remarks bare resemblance to comments made by Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle earlier this year. During an interview that took place in July she said, "I believe that God has been in this from the beginning and because of that when he has a plan and a purpose for your life and you fit into that, what he calls you to he always equipped you for."

Angle told CBN over the summer that her crusade to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is "her calling." The suggestion sparked backlash from within the religious community.

At the time, President of the Interfaith Alliance, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, issued a statement contending:

Candidates for public office are free to talk about how their faith informs their thinking, but should not imply that policy positions will be based on scripture rather than the Constitution. It has been my experience that when candidates intentionally insert faith into politics, the purpose is rarely to protect religion; rather it is done to enhance a political position.

Moonlit_Angel 09-30-2010 04:22 PM

Quote:

"Because you see that if it weren't for faith, when all logic said it's time to quit, we pursued, we marched on, because we knew God was not releasing us to quit."
That's no surprise she's ignoring what logic says about this, 'cause I think logic, to quote from 'Tommy Boy', "waved bye-bye to her long ago".

Now, of course, if a Muslim ever ran for office and stated that they ran based on some divine inspiration from their leader, oh, no, couldn't have that, all hell would break loose. Yet somehow Christians can say the same thing and that's perfectly fine. Strange.

I wonder what God, if they exist, must think about statements like hers. If God does indeed support people like her, though, more reason for me to go hang with the atheists.

Of course, statements like this give me hope:

Quote:

At the time, President of the Interfaith Alliance, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, issued a statement contending:

Candidates for public office are free to talk about how their faith informs their thinking, but should not imply that policy positions will be based on scripture rather than the Constitution. It has been my experience that when candidates intentionally insert faith into politics, the purpose is rarely to protect religion; rather it is done to enhance a political position.
Oh, if only we could inject that sort of sanity and realism into the O'Donnells and Angles of the world.

Angela

Pearl 09-30-2010 05:24 PM

Both O'Donnell and Angle need to read that book by Jim Wallis: God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. Its a bit out of date (it was written for the 2004 election), but it does explain that God wouldn't side with a politician based on one or two issues.

And I have a question for O'Donnell and Angle: if they lose, would they see it as God's plan? Are they sure they are following God or are they following their egos? OK, that was more than one question, but I really can't stand it when a politician says "God is on my side, not yours!"

Moonlit_Angel 09-30-2010 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl (Post 6971705)
Both O'Donnell and Angle need to read that book by Jim Wallis: God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. Its a bit out of date (it was written for the 2004 election), but it does explain that God wouldn't side with a politician based on one or two issues.

I've heard a bit about that book. It sounds interesting, I'll have to keep an eye out for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl (Post 6971705)
And I have a question for O'Donnell and Angle: if they lose, would they see it as God's plan?

I was actually considering that same question! Yeah, would love to hear their answers to that one. I assume it'd be the typical, "Oh, well, he works in mysterious ways/believes we're meant for something else" (which would make me wonder why he wasted his time, then) sort of blather, but still, it would be fun to watch them try and explain their way out of that.

Angela

the iron horse 10-03-2010 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martha (Post 6968572)
And the hope of the libertarians, apparently.


Libertarians are seeking less government, less taxes, more freedom.

If Sarah Palin is speaking this....then more power to her.


Why do you think these ideas are wrong?

coolian2 10-03-2010 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6977776)
Libertarians are seeking less government, less taxes, more freedom.

and fuck the poor, mirite?

martha 10-04-2010 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6977776)
Libertarians are seeking less government, less taxes, more freedom.

If Sarah Palin is speaking this....then more power to her.

Please provide some quotes where Palin and your pal O'Donnell are seeking all this. Don't worry; we'll wait.


Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6977776)
Why do you think these ideas are wrong?

Please quote ME where I've said these ideas are wrong.



My disdain is for people who will support O'Donnell and her type. She's not libertarian; she's fucking crazy.

BVS 10-04-2010 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6977776)
Libertarians are seeking less government, less taxes, more freedom.

If Sarah Palin is speaking this....then more power to her.


Why do you think these ideas are wrong?

But why is it coming from people who do not understand the constitution, railing against the government on uninformed issues, or cheering for less taxes as they cheer for more war?

Are there libertarians that are not hypocrites?

Are there libertarians that ARE informed?

Where are they?

kramwest1 10-04-2010 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the iron horse (Post 6977776)
Libertarians are seeking less government, less taxes, more freedom.

If Sarah Palin is speaking this....then more power to her.


Why do you think these ideas are wrong?

How does more government always equate to less freedom?

Laws and the enforcement of them help to uphold our social contract. I firmly believe in the maxim: "You have the right to do whatever until it infringes on the right of someone else to do whatever." That takes government.

Most people who I have heard claim that they are Libertarians are mostly whiners who want things their way. That's not "more freedom." That's selfishness.

And taxes?

Thankfully, I don't equate my freedom with money. Money provides opportunities, obviously. But, I gladly pay my taxes to a responsible government (less so these days, but I believe that's fixable). I understand that good government provides the equality for more of society to have an equal shot at happiness.

Money doesn't equate to happiness or true freedom. Equal opportunity and justice leads to happiness and success.

We have long, proud history in Minnesota of great education, a great business community and social acceptance, tolerance and justice. This all despite our high taxes and strong government. I'm very happy with it.

:twocents:

MrsSpringsteen 10-04-2010 09:24 AM

At least 78 GOP candidates would force women to bear rapists’ babies | Raw Story

A partial list of Republican candidates running for US Congress in this year's mid-term elections shows that at least 78 of them have professed to oppose abortion in all cases, including where rape or incest are involved.

The Republican National Coalition For Life, a political action committee formed by anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schlafly, sends out questionnaires every election season to Republican candidates asking them to lay out their positions on abortion.

A list of responses from this year's candidates indicate that 78 Senate and House candidates answered that they are "pro-life without discrimination," meaning they don't agree with any exceptions to a ban on abortion.

The list was flagged earlier this week by Charles Johnson at the Little Green Footballs blog. Johnson counted 112 candidates who hold that view of abortion, but a Raw Story count of the listed candidates found 78 who have won their primary and indicated they would make no exceptions to allow abortion.

As the list doesn't include all US states or all candidates running for the House or Senate, the total number of candidates backing a full abortion ban is likely higher. The list also does not cover gubernatorial candidates or politicians running for state or local government.

Among the more notable candidates backing a full abortion ban are Christine O'Donnell, running for the Senate in Delaware; Rand Paul, running for the Senate seat from Kentucky; Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann; and Missouri Senate candidate Roy Blunt.

But the list does not include a number of candidates known to hold that view, including Sharron Angle, who is running for Sen. Harry Reid's seat from Nevada, and Joe Miller, running for Senate from Alaska.

The influence of the tea party movement on this year's elections may have something to do with an apparent increase in the number of Republicans taking a hard-line stance on abortion, reported Amanda Terkel at the Huffington Post.

Dianne Edmondson, executive director of RNC for Life PAC, told Terkel that "we have many more candidates responding to us this year than we did in the last election cycle -- probably about three times as many -- and I'd say at least half of them do meet that criteria."

"The Republican Party is, without actually talking about it, this year nominating a group of candidates for top-of-the-ticket races that are more extreme on the issue of abortion than any other slate of top-of-the-ticket candidates in any other year," MSNBC's Rachel Maddow reported in August.

Maddow criticized the "small-government conservatives" who supported a full abortion ban, suggesting they're hypocritical for believing "government should be big enough that it can monitor every pregnancy in the country to ensure that every single woman who becomes pregnant is forced by the government to carry that pregnancy to term."

KhanadaRhodes 10-04-2010 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramwest1 (Post 6978214)
How does more government always equate to less freedom?

exactly. to me the two aren't mutually exclusive. i could come up with a million reasons why, but yeah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen (Post 6978272)
Maddow criticized the "small-government conservatives" who supported a full abortion ban, suggesting they're hypocritical for believing "government should be big enough that it can monitor every pregnancy in the country to ensure that every single woman who becomes pregnant is forced by the government to carry that pregnancy to term."

haha, exactly. though honestly for some (read: not all) conservatives, the small government thing really boils down to small government when they like. they like small government to mean no taxes and laws favouring big business and umm...yeah. but don't take away their medicare, social security, and we better tell people what they can do in their bedrooms because then someone might do it up the butt, and of course forcing 15 year old girls raped by their father to carry their child to term. because lord knows orphanages around the country are practically empty, waiting for more unwanted children.

Moonlit_Angel 10-04-2010 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes (Post 6978287)
haha, exactly. though honestly for some (read: not all) conservatives, the small government thing really boils down to small government when they like. they like small government to mean no taxes and laws favouring big business and umm...yeah. but don't take away their medicare, social security, and we better tell people what they can do in their bedrooms because then someone might do it up the butt, and of course forcing 15 year old girls raped by their father to carry their child to term. because lord knows orphanages around the country are practically empty, waiting for more unwanted children.

Oh, of course. And what really kills me is that they're so hellbent on banning abortion and restricting sex ed, and...that's about the extent of their solution to that issue. They offer up nothing else beyond that. They just think by doing those two things, poof, all of our problems are over! I mean, I know I'm pretty damn idealistic and admittedly naive at times, but I got nothing on these people, it seems. And it's because of stuff like that, combined with nearly every single other thing the modern Republican Party stands for nowadays, why that party is getting absolutely none of my support, none of my votes anytime soon.

Also, kramwest1, fantastic post :up:.

Angela

KhanadaRhodes 10-04-2010 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel (Post 6978943)
Oh, of course. And what really kills me is that they're so hellbent on banning abortion and restricting sex ed, and...that's about the extent of their solution to that issue. They offer up nothing else beyond that. They just think by doing those two things, poof, all of our problems are over! I mean, I know I'm pretty damn idealistic and admittedly naive at times, but I got nothing on these people, it seems. And it's because of stuff like that, combined with nearly every single other thing the modern Republican Party stands for nowadays, why that party is getting absolutely none of my support, none of my votes anytime soon.

Also, kramwest1, fantastic post :up:.

exactly. i know bush pushed for abstinence-only sex ed, which to me is just silly. i mean, i can't even fathom how something like that gets taught. do they still teach how all the parts work but say you can't use them? it'd be interesting to know if teen pregnancy has increased in the past ten years.

and yes, nice post mark. :up:

anitram 10-04-2010 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen (Post 6978272)

I commend them for this view.

If you believe that life begins at conception and abortion is sin, and that is a child who is innocent and has done no wrong, then it is not that child's fault that it came into this world through violence. I never understood the carve-out for cases of rape - after all, this argument is always framed in terms of the child and not the mother, so who cares about her emotional status. As they say, she can give the baby up for adoption.

:up:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com