Politics

[irishff1014]

Definitely. Any secular culture is superior to a religious one. A culture that inherently denies freedom to women is inferior 100% of the time. I would also welcome a politician who finally stood up and said that the "ghetto" culture was disgusting, too.

This will never happen and you know it. It would not be politically correct. That's what this country has gone too.

 

[tadman95]

I see why someone would want to believe this Buster, but I fundamentally disagree with you. It's not leaderships role to decide which cultures are more important or valid. Leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini did just that. Leaders are suppose to represent everyone in a democracy, not just those that deem important. One day you are happy that they are disenfranchising a group of people that you don't like, the next day you could be that group.

I truly believe that there is good in all people and culture is just the life they are in. Government should never have the role of being the judge and jury for who's life is more meritable.

You had a V8 this morning. Excellent

 

[Ndaccountant]

I see why someone would want to believe this Buster, but I fundamentally disagree with you. It's not leaderships role to decide which cultures are more important or valid. Leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini did just that. Leaders are suppose to represent everyone in a democracy, not just those that deem important. One day you are happy that they are disenfranchising a group of people that you don't like, the next day you could be that group.

I truly believe that there is good in all people and culture is just the life they are in. Government should never have the role of being the judge and jury for who's life is more meritable.

I too believe what you said. However, government does decide these types of things whether we like it or not.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Definitely. Any secular culture is superior to a religious one. A culture that inherently denies freedom to women is inferior 100% of the time. I would also welcome a politician who finally stood up and said that the "ghetto" culture was disgusting, too.

Bachmann would have our culture be a fully Christian one. So, while you may agree with the quote, you probably don't agree with her version of what would make one superior.

 

[Downinthebend]

I too believe what you said. However, government does decide these types of things whether we like it or not.

Just because government is doing something is not a legitimate reason for them to continue doing it.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Just because government is doing something is not a legitimate reason for them to continue doing it.

I agree 100%. I was just merely pointing it out.

 

[Booslum31]

We have passed over to a society where more people are expecting to be taken care of than people expecting to take care of themselves. Because the collective moral compass and collective family unit are broken (and not coming back) we have reached a point of no return. When someone like Bachmann fumbles trying to point this out she gets executed. No...she's not "thoughtful or reasonable" or even smart. But she's right...IMO.

 

[chicago51]

We have passed over to a society where more people are expecting to be taken care of than people expecting to take care of themselves. Because the collective moral compass and collective family unit are broken (and not coming back) we have reached a point of no return. When someone like Bachmann fumbles trying to point this out she gets executed. No...she's not "thoughtful or reasonable" or even smart. But she's right...IMO.

Fiscally and economically speaking we are way more to the right today than in previous generations. Most of LBJs anti-poverty programs were completely wiped out during the Reagan presidency. Bill Clinton of all people made huge cuts to Welfare and minor cuts to Medicare.

President Reagan a very conservative politician actually raised the FICA tax to strengthen Social Security while today's right wing wants big cuts in it. Despite the fact SS to this point has not contributed to the deficit.

Back back in the 1900s Teddy Roosevelt actual took action against big banks and other monopolies to keep prices down for the middle class.

For better or worse the government does less in terms of taking care of people than it ever has. The gap between the rich and poor is as big as it ever has been. You may agree with that society is better off today with less social programs. Don't act like people today are suddenly more selfish. People outside of health care cost reform are not asking for more people are trying to protect what programs they have left.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Bachmann would have our culture be a fully Christian one. So, while you may agree with the quote, you probably don't agree with her version of what would make one superior.

She's definitely a hardcore Christian and voices her beliefs, but more importantly she believes in freedom to the individual. It's not like she's interested in starting a modern day Christian Crusade. Come on...

 

[GoIrish41]

She's definitely a hardcore Christian and voices her beliefs, but more importantly she believes in freedom to the individual. It's not like she's interested in starting a modern day Christian Crusade. Come on...

unless you happen to be gay, or want to exercise the right to make your own reproductive choices. Her version of Christianity is one of intollerance.

 

[Booslum31]

Fiscally and economically speaking we are way more to the right today than in previous generations. Most of LBJs anti-poverty programs were completely wiped out during the Reagan presidency. Bill Clinton of all people made huge cuts to Welfare and minor cuts to Medicare.

President Reagan a very conservative politician actually raised the FICA tax to strengthen Social Security while today's right wing wants big cuts in it. Despite the fact SS to this point has not contributed to the deficit.

Back back in the 1900s Teddy Roosevelt actual took action against big banks and other monopolies to keep prices down for the middle class.

For better or worse the government does less in terms of taking care of people than it ever has. The gap between the rich and poor is as big as it ever has been. You may agree with that society is better off today with less social programs. Don't act like people today are suddenly more selfish. People outside of health care cost reform are not asking for more people are trying to protect what programs they have left.

I think it's more like the right wing wants to make sure that SS stays around for future generations. I do believe people have gotten more selfish...or worse...entitled and selfish. We as a society need to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. No argument there. I would suggest that a huge number of individuals abuse the system and vote for the person who will keep the game the same. Shame has officially left the building...this hasn't happened "suddenly" but it has happened in my lifetime.

 

[chicago51]

unless you happen to be gay, or want to exercise the right to make your own reproductive choices. Her version of Christianity is one of intollerance.

I love the religious wing GOP. They are against homosexuality, abortion, and birth control because those things are mentioned in the bible. Yet in the bible Jesus frequently associated with the outcast and sinners of society.

While when it comes to loving thy neighbor and helping the poor things that are mentioned much more often in the Bible the GOP wants no part of. Talk about being hypocritical. If you want to follow the Bible to core fine. Then I suggest they support social programs. I also suggest they support gun control because Christ was against weapons and violence.

Bottom line I am a Christian that believes in separation between church and state. If the religious wing of the GOP wants to throw Christianity in my face I suggest they actually read their Bibles again because they are missing out on a lot of details.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I love the religious wing GOP. They are against homosexuality, abortion, and birth control because those things are mentioned in the bible. Yet in the bible Jesus frequently associated with the outcast and sinners of society.

While when it comes to loving thy neighbor and helping the poor things that are mentioned much more often in the Bible the GOP wants no part of. Talk about being hypocritical. If you want to follow the Bible to core fine. Then I suggest they support social programs. I also suggest they support gun control because Christ was against weapons and violence.

Bottom line I am a Christian that believes in separation between church and state. If the religious wing of the GOP wants to throw Christianity in my face I suggest they actually read their Bibles again because they are missing out on a lot of details.

While I agree 100% on the separation of church and state, I would like to point out that the religious conservatives I know don't look at they way you portray it. They are not against helping others or the intended outcomes of social programs. Instead, they have alternative views on how to achieve it.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I see why someone would want to believe this Buster, but I fundamentally disagree with you. It's not leaderships role to decide which cultures are more important or valid. Leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini did just that. Leaders are suppose to represent everyone in a democracy, not just those that deem important. One day you are happy that they are disenfranchising a group of people that you don't like, the next day you could be that group.

I truly believe that there is good in all people and culture is just the life they are in. Government should never have the role of being the judge and jury for who's life is more meritable.

The government makes these decisions every day. They have banned polygamy, they completely smashed the antebellum culture of the south (i.e. slavery), and it continues to this day.

There are cultures who are fundamentally against universal human rights and freedom, and they are inferior.

Any culture that does this to adulterers is inferior:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH1JHHQxd7g (warning: quite graphic)

Our government will always be on the right side if it is on the side of freedom. Then, of course, there is the argument of the freedom to live how you want if it denies others freedom, and freedom in general. You are in free to systematically deny people rights.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Back back in the 1900s Teddy Roosevelt actual took action against big banks and other monopolies to keep prices down for the middle class.

For better or worse the government does less in terms of taking care of people than it ever has. The gap between the rich and poor is as big as it ever has been. You may agree with that society is better off today with less social programs. Don't act like people today are suddenly more selfish. People outside of health care cost reform are not asking for more people are trying to protect what programs they have left.

Prices are lower than ever, and the goods we buy are better than ever. Literally EVERYTHING is a thousand times better than Roosevelt's time.

The gap between the rich and the poor has NOTHING to do with government and everything to do with the effects of capitalism.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I love the religious wing GOP. They are against homosexuality, abortion, and birth control because those things are mentioned in the bible.

**** Tyrone, Get It Together.

I don't think abortion and birth control are mentioned too often in the Bible. I would bet against there being a concrete stance in the bible on either issue.

I absolutely loathe the religious right. In fact my Facebook status on Election Day was this:

"I'm am instead going to turn my hate towards the bible-thumping Republicans who hold the party hostage and turn the primary into the most embarrassingly nonsensical gay-bashing abortion-hating minority-fearing cluster**** known to man. Just saying."

But you have it wrong. Most of the Christians don't oppose the use of birth control, that's only the Catholic Church. Not even most of the Catholics, just the Church.

What they oppose is the government telling people what they must sell to people, even if its against their religious beliefs and not even medically necessary. Catholic health care plans had already administered "birth control" pills for medically uses, they just didn't do it for the sake of contraception. They think it is wrong for the government to force that, and I fully agree with them.

 

[Bluto]

Prices are lower than ever, and the goods we buy are better than ever. Literally EVERYTHING is a thousand times better than Roosevelt's time.

The gap between the rich and the poor has NOTHING to do with government and everything to do with the effects of capitalism.

Of course the gap between the rich and poor has to do with government. The reason is that government is the institution that regulates capitalism. So how we choose to regulate or not can in fact expand or contract the gap between the rich and poor.

 

[chicago51]

No the Bible does not mention birth control or abbortion. The Bible does mention premarital sex. I assumed that most would want birth control so they could have casual sex.

You are right though. I think the republican party would be more attractive party if the religious zealots didn't scare everyone in their ow caucus primary everyone that does not agree.

Big thing both parties should realize. Say you have a moderate republican Senator in blue state or a moderate democrat Senator in a red state. DON'T PRIMARY THAT PERSON. If you go with an extreme party enthusiast you will lose a state or national election.

I actually think the Romney that ran MA had some good things to bring as president. Romney though had to alter so much to win the primary it hurt him in the general. If the GOP wants be successful they have to stop with this primary everyone that isn't pure thing they are doing.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Of course the gap between the rich and poor has to do with government. The reason is that government is the institution that regulates capitalism. So how we choose to regulate or not can in fact expand or contract the gap between the rich and poor.

Fair enough, on some of that. I should have said that no action by the federal government widened the gap per se, and that it is merely a natural effect of capitalism.

Capitalism bifurcates everything in business. The bell curve is not going to happen, it will skew to the right as we see in this country. The bonus of capitalism is that even being poor is better than ever before. Equality isn't a goal I consider to be necessary; the quality of life for the poor is what we should be talking about.

 

[Buster Bluth]

No the Bible does not mention birth control or abbortion.

So then why were you intentionally inaccurate to make even more generalizations about the opposition?

Big thing both parties should realize. Say you have a moderate republican Senator in blue state or a moderate democrat Senator in a red state. DON'T PRIMARY THAT PERSON. If you go with an extreme party enthusiast you will lose a state or national election.

The Republicans have always nominated moderates. McCain and Romney were very moderate. Bush isn't even a super conservative fellow.

I actually think the Romney that ran MA had some good things to bring as president. Romney though had to alter so much to win the primary it hurt him in the general. If the GOP wants be successful they have to stop with this primary everyone that isn't pure thing they are doing.

Is it possible that the Primary Romney was fake, like I said all along? Romney was the best Presidential candidate since HW Bush and the media hung him with the primary bullshit.

 

[Bluto]

Fair enough, on some of that. I should have said that no action by the federal government widened the gap per se, and that it is merely a natural effect of capitalism.

Capitalism bifurcates everything in business. The bell curve is not going to happen, it will skew to the right as we see in this country. The bonus of capitalism is that even being poor is better than ever before. Equality isn't a goal I consider to be necessary; the quality of life for the poor is what we should be talking about.

That's a good point. I would say equality of opportunity should be a goal (primarily access to education in my opinion) and the basic things that support that (food and housing) are critical. That does tie back into the quality of life your mentioned.

 

[chicago51]

My whole point was that the Bible should not be used to justify political policies.

Who wants to elect a faker? Governor echascetch as I called would change his talking points depending on the audience.

 

[GoIrish41]

Is it possible that the Primary Romney was fake, like I said all along? Romney was the best Presidential candidate since HW Bush and the media hung him with the primary bullshit.

If this is the case (which, I agree, it is) then Romney demonstrated his inability to stand up to his own party. The degree to which he was willing to sprint to the right made him appear spineless to half of the electorate and extreme to the other half. In both circumstances he painted himself as a terrible candidate. HW Bush ran for president on perhaps the strongest resume of any candidate in U.S. history - Romney ran on a single term in Mass., (and he abandoned every positive thing he accomplished during that term) and a businessman that made his money in ways that many argued was good for enriching him, but bad for the workers who lost their jobs and the economy. He did that to himself -- perhaps out of necessity. I know we've sparred on this topic before, but I think Romney's willingness to say anything to become president make him anything but the best presidnetial candidate since HW Bush. He was not even in the same ballpark, IMO.

 

[Anchorman]

So then why were you intentionally inaccurate to make even more generalizations about the opposition?



The Republicans have always nominated moderates. McCain and Romney were very moderate. Bush isn't even a super conservative fellow.



Is it possible that the Primary Romney was fake, like I said all along? Romney was the best Presidential candidate since HW Bush and the media hung him with the primary bullshit.

I don't think you're wrong about primary Romney being fake, but the media should hold him to that. It represents the bigger problem which is that the Republican party has taken a hard right and is ostracizing a sizable middle ground they once had at the polls, as well as losing the moderate senators that gave them power. There's a reason the Obama Camp was scared of Huntsman. Moderate Republicans can easily win the general, but the GOP would rather bring em through the mud with the Santorum/Bachmann/Cruz crowd first. Its bewildering.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Who wants to elect a faker? Governor echascetch as I called would change his talking points depending on the audience.

Have you ever voted? Then you've voted for a "faker."

 

[woolybug25]

The government makes these decisions every day. They have banned polygamy, they completely smashed the antebellum culture of the south (i.e. slavery), and it continues to this day.

There are cultures who are fundamentally against universal human rights and freedom, and they are inferior.

Any culture that does this to adulterers is inferior:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH1JHHQxd7g (warning: quite graphic)

Our government will always be on the right side if it is on the side of freedom. Then, of course, there is the argument of the freedom to live how you want if it denies others freedom, and freedom in general. You are in free to systematically deny people rights.

I think you missed my point entirely, Buster.

 

[chicago51]

Have you ever voted? Then you've voted for a "faker."

If you are applying that politicians lie and use deceptive facts then yes I have voted for a faker.

If you are saying the people I voted for have proposed radically different proposals than what they campaigned on then no I don't think I have.

Sure Obama has not always lived up to my expectations but it is not like he has gone out and pursued a totally different agenda than what he campaigned on.

 

[Downinthebend]

Chicago, just an aside topic, do you have any problems with Ron Paul?

 

[chicago51]

Chicago, just an aside topic, do you have any problems with Ron Paul?

Not personally. I do not know that much about his policies. I typically don't follow GOP primaries as good as I do the general elections and the current people elected.

I am liberal on most of my views so I probably won't be a fan of him even if I knew more about him.

FYI there are some GOP leaders like Chris Christie I find to be effective leaders even if I disagree with them on policies.

So to summarize I don't have an issue with Ron Paul. He has not made any stupid comments on Senate floor like say Rand Paul. I just don't care for conservative policies.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Sure Obama has not always lived up to my expectations but it is not like he has gone out and pursued a totally different agenda than what he campaigned on.

Unlike Hilary Clinton and John Edwards, who were running on an insurance mandate as part of their plans, Obama ran saying that he opposed a mandate to buy health insurance. He then beat them in the primaries, won the election, and then "passed" Obamacare that mandated insurance coverage.

So I'll go ahead and put your last post on top of the "Chicago51's Generalizations That Aren't Actually True But It Fits The Narrative" pile.