ehehehehheheheheh

1235

Comments

  • newagehippie
    newagehippie Posts: 749
    jlew24asu wrote:
    and so would you :)


    I'm much too virtuous to be in politics... ;)
    Cheers,
    NEWAGEHIPPIE

    Keep your eyes open, eventually something will happen....
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jlew24asu wrote:
    dont know how many times I have to say it. I'm not a republican.

    conservative then. whatever label you prefer. the inference was stroking it to the good ole days when americans were god fearing, women stayed home, gays stayed in the closet, and abortion was illegal. it was just a joke comrade ;)
  • jeffer96
    jeffer96 Posts: 136
    newagehippie wrote:
    Actually, truly loving persons should have no problems helping out those in need......it is not a religious concept, it is a human concept.....


    Oh I agree. People should help people that truly need the help. As a Christian, I get the feeling often that non-Christians believe that all Christians come off as holier than thou. A true Christian should not give off that vibe. I"ll be the first to tell you that I am no better than anyone else. In fact, I will be the first to say I am worse than anyone else because I know my actions and the decisions I am reponsible for. As far as others, I care more about the person than what they do or have done. Those actions are something that is between them and God and are really none of my business. Obiviously if it is an action that is criminal, like murder, then a blind shoulder cannot be turned to the actions, but I believe in doing the best I can to forgive. I used to be a supporter of the death penalty, but as that is completely hypocritical of my beliefs, can no longer support it. I don't mind paying taxes to house inmates if it means the inmate has every opportunity to make amends for what they have done. Anyway, I'm getting way off tangent from the topic of this post. Sorry about that!
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    jlew24asu wrote:
    be interested all you want. but it seems most non americans are only interested in Bush, or any republican, losing simply becuase they hop on the hate georgie bandwagon...instead of looking at the real issues. those issues deal directly with americans, like social security, healthcare, homeland security, border control, taxes...etc.

    Its not hate George.. its "Stop George"
  • jeffer96
    jeffer96 Posts: 136
    soulsinging wrote:
    you might be right there. it's often tough to separate the message from the messenger, esp when the messengers are so adamant. i grew up catholic. left in adolescence. but ill tell you, i respect them far more than the mainstream american protestant church, which seems to be little more than a political machine anymore.

    It is tough. Especially when you see so many hypocritical people condemning others and using the name of God to do so. In my opinion, and this is solely my opinion, the only Christian in the mainstream that is absolutely sincere is Billy Graham. This is a man who preaches nothing but love, has been in council with so many past Presidents that the number slips my mind, yet is humble enough to say that his actions are not enough to earn him a spot in Heaven.

    I put my faith in God to remove the corrupt using his name for personal gain. We just saw this exact thing happen in Colorado last week. Haggert claimed a holier than thou attitude and look where that got him. I also put my faith in the people of this country not following a person just because they say they are a Christian or moral or whatever. Obviously there are some sheeple, as there will be in any society, but there are more people looking at the big picture here than not and this can only lead to good things.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    dont know how many times I have to say it. I'm not a republican.

    You're not a member of the Klan are you? :confused:
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    You're not a member of the Klan are you? :confused:


    the Klan?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    the Klan?

    Grand Wizard jlew24asu? ;)
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    You're not a member of the Klan are you? :confused:


    thanks for the very offensive comment. not sure how I ever came across as a racist
  • lgt
    lgt Posts: 720
    jlew24asu wrote:
    no thats not cool. why should people work very hard to make alot of money only to give all of it back to people who have less?

    Depends on your conception of government. Ask the Scandinavian countries where the majority of people are happy to pay higher taxes for public services, including health.

    Yours is the textbook political conservative view.

    Redistribution of income via taxation, regardless of working very hard or not (you can also inherit wealth or steal it, not just work), is a central tenet of any democratic government to guarantee services for the general public. The higher the level of taxation the more to the left the government leans.
  • lgt
    lgt Posts: 720
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I still get surprised on how so many UK people are glued to american politics. I guess you are our puppet. you have to watch the people pulling your strings.

    It's not just UK people!

    Everywhere in the world is affected by US foreign policy decisions, hence the interest.

    And yes, I am not British.
  • civ_eng_girl
    civ_eng_girl Posts: 2,001
    newagehippie wrote:
    Actually, truly loving persons should have no problems helping out those in need......it is not a religious concept, it is a human concept.....

    I <3 u, hippie... :D:p
    ~~*~~ ...i surfaced and all of my being was enlightend... ~~*~~
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    lgt wrote:
    Depends on your conception of government. Ask the Scandinavian countries where the majority of people are happy to pay higher taxes for public services, including health.

    Yours is the textbook political conservative view.

    Redistribution of income via taxation, regardless of working very hard or not (you can also inherit wealth or steal it, not just work), is a central tenet of any democratic government to guarantee services for the general public. The higher the level of taxation the more to the left the government leans.


    textbook conservative view? I dont think so.


    you make it sound inheriting and strealing are the norm for anyone who has money. I came from nothing and have worked extremely hard to get where I am. I dont feel I should be forced to give that money back.
  • Puck78
    Puck78 Posts: 737
    say goodbye to montana, UAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
    www.amnesty.org
    www.amnesty.org.uk
  • lgt
    lgt Posts: 720
    jlew24asu wrote:
    textbook conservative view? I dont think so.

    Read any political theory book and you will find out that conservatives oppose, with varying degree, government intervention, or in their eyes interference. Taxation is regarded as one of those government activities to limit vis-a'-vis individual responsibility, property and autonomy.

    Your original post argued that taxation is not cool because it means - and I am paraphrasing you - hard-working people giving back what they earned to give to those who have less.

    People of a more progressive political tendency (that's why I mentioned Scandinavia, where there is a social democracy with very high level of taxation) do not regret redistributing their wealth via taxation not only for the ordinary public services (such education, transport, health) but also to provide welfare for those who for whatever reason do not have as much.

    That is why I argued your position was text-book conservative.

    How would you call it otherwise?
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you make it sound inheriting and strealing are the norm for anyone who has money. I came from nothing and have worked extremely hard to get where I am. I dont feel I should be forced to give that money back.

    I did not mean that stealing and inheriting are the norm for those who have money. I mentioned it just to highlight the fact that those who have money also may have it for other reasons than hard work, which your original post seemed to imply. And conversely, those who do not have money must not work very hard, which again I do not believe to be true.

    Finally, you say you don't want to give back the money that you earned via hard work. But you are living in a society and community that are part of a state and because of that your money as well must be used to guarantee the running of such a state. It is a social pact between state and individual. However, a conservative would always try and limit the obligations that the state would impose on an individual. A progressive does not, by and large and to varying degrees, oppose state intervation.
    That is why I claimed your view was textbook conservative.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I dont feel I should be forced to give that money back.

    But you are happy to use the services provided with tax money... roads, hospitals, schools, etc......
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    redrock wrote:
    But you are happy to use the services provided with tax money... roads, hospitals, schools, etc......


    don't forget - Corporate Welfare...
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    redrock wrote:
    But you are happy to use the services provided with tax money... roads, hospitals, schools, etc......


    I dont use government resources more then someone who makes less then me. actually probably the opposite.
  • Galiana
    Galiana Posts: 554
    lgt wrote:
    The Republicans won in 94 with Newt Gringrich but formally proceedings to impeach Clinton for his sexual shenanigans and related lawsuits started with Kenneth Starr prosecuting later on in... 1998 was it?

    let me check...

    yes, 1998

    http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

    http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

    Edited to add: yep, what the others said. :D The impeachment came later, with a specific intent from the Republicans.

    Just to clear things up, 1998 was also a midterm election year, and the impeachment proceedings started shortly after those elections took place.
    Don't threaten me with a good time.
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    for the record, i voted democrat because the republicans have been taken over by religious extremists and corruption. conservatism to me meant small government, more state rights, cuts in spending, and immigration reform.

    Bush has completely abandoned every single one of those ideals since he took office.

    i dont need the government to tell me whats moral, i only ask that they keep the king of england off my back and not wreck the economy.

Categories