Kilmer17 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 So you admit that our nation was founded on principles other than "Rob from the rich and give to the poor"? Good. Now pleae enlighten us all as to when, where, and how that somehow changed. DC, thank you for showing that he in fact DOESNT do what you claimed he does. As for Gay Marriage, he certainly has made that proposal. And I personally disagree with it. But more than 1/2 the country AGREES with him. So isnt he doing the will of the people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlantaskin Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Originally posted by ross3909 "no one has the right to tell two people who love each other that they can't get married. " Gay marrige is not about two people who love each other. I know it is confusing. Marrige was created for one purpose and the two people that love each other have little to do with it. It is for creating a stable environment for children. Marrige is not a toy for people to want and get. It isnt even a collection of rights. It is the one thing that stands between a strong moral society that knows right from wrong and an anarchy where everyone just does what they want because they have never been taught to respect others or themselves. Gay Marrige is fine, and why stop there. What if a guy wants to marry his roomates, and then a father want to marry his daughter. A woman marries her dog. It pulls on the string of the fabric that holds this country together. Make a joke of marrige in this country and there wont be a safety net to stop us from where that fall would take us. Just a thought. Comparing gay marriage to marriage between a person and her dog is patently absurd, insulting, and ignorant. And don't shoot back that you were not comparing the two, rather you were questioning where do you draw the line. You are comparing them and it is mean spirited. Apparently you checked your "strong moral society" at the door because your posting is immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 How about one guy to 3 women? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 DC, thank you for showing that he in fact DOESNT do what you claimed he does. As for Gay Marriage, he certainly has made that proposal. And I personally disagree with it. But more than 1/2 the country AGREES with him. So isnt he doing the will of the people? I want you to show me where more than half the country agrees that the Constitution needs to be amended to ban gay marriage. And after you do that, I want you to explain why it matters. I don't care if 99.9% of the country is against gay marriage; that doesn't mean that it should be illegal. And don't say that if the majority of the nation is against something then it should be illegal, because you and I both know that this is a special circumstance. The fact of the matter is that two people who love each other should be able to get married as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. And there isn't anyone who should be able to stop it. BTW, you're right about the abortion thing. He hasn't taken action against it, although he would in a heartbeat if he knew he could get it done without a firestorm. I'll admit I was wrong. Something Bush should learn how to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlantaskin Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 So you admit that our nation was founded on principles other than "Rob from the rich and give to the poor"? Good. Now pleae enlighten us all as to when, where, and how that somehow changed. I would suggest that it changed largley with the New Deal. If that isn't specific enough for you, it certainly changed from what the founders originally had in mind when we passed the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 24th Amendments. Do you not think that the role of government has changed in the last 228 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 It certainly has changed. But it hasnt changed to a Socialist system that you are advocating. Though the left continues to try and make it so. The "rich" already give more than their share. It's simply astonishing that anyone would believe, though, that our Govt doesnt exist for anything OTHER than to treat everyone as equals. Saying that our Govt exists to only help the poor and middle class is simply ignorant. DC, you think it's a special circumstance, and I happen to agree with you. But as you said, Bush wont do anything about abortion because he knows it will never fly; and that's the same reason why he backs this amendment. He knows it cant ever be passed (you think 3/4 of states will ratify it?), but it's a political winner for him. I'll amend my statement to say more than 1/2 Americans believe marriage should be defined as a man and woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlantaskin Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Well, Kilmer, what do you think that our government should do? Who do you think it is out there to help, or is it just an evil that we don't need other than for protecting our borders? I don't think that it is ignorant to have a vision of government that is there to assure that the under privileged have a shot at reaching the American dream. It may be idealistic, but I don't think it is ignorant. Of course government serves the wealthy because everyone benefits from programs like federal funding for highways and public education. The point of my statement was that the emphasis of government should be on assisting the middle and lower classes. Any benefit that acrues to the wealthy is gravy. But the Bush Administration has consistently put forther policies that only assist the wealthy and that contradicts my vision of government. How about you share your vision of good government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 And I think the Govt should exist to help everyone the same. As it stands now our govt assists poor and middle class far more than it does the wealthy. The argument being (correctly IMO) that the wealthy also benefit from programs like Welfare, and Medicaid, and other "bootstrap" programs. The emphasis of our Govt should be a broad view of our nation. But your claim that it EXISTS to serve the poor and middle class is crazy and nowhere close to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 "And don't shoot back that you were not comparing the two, rather you were questioning where do you draw the line." Sorry to dissapoint you but I was just asking where you draw the line. I have no problems with Homosexual unions. I just wonder what the need is to be married? If it is just rights than that can be corrected with ammendments to the unions. Or is it something bigger like another step to making the gay lifestyle mainstream. Either way marrige is for the kids. Again I will say it, if you make a joke out of marrige and make it a funny thing you do when you kinda like someone...there will be reprocussions from that, unavoidably. The funny thing is, I have gay friends who question whether or not this is worth the fight and dont see why it is worth all the trouble it is causing when they could be going after widening the civil union laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Ross, Do you then believe that people (heterosexual) who are no longer fertile should not get married? They should only have civil unions? And that, via your marriage license, you should be required to have kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 Originally posted by Cskin Most of you guys have touched on my problems with Bush. **Illegal immigration - Shut the damn borders already and begin identifying the illegals in this country so as to start building a foundation for a guest worker program **Domestic spending - He's had the means to veto many of these bills bloated with pork... yet he hasn't. A conservative he is not... based on his allowing of drunken sailor spending by Congress **That damn smirk and cartoon like laugh. How about being a bit more presidential why don't you. Damn, the heh heh heh heh (evil voice) laugh of his sends shrills down my spine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 edited for content Sorry Tarhog, bad joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 So you admit that our nation was founded on principles other than "Rob from the rich and give to the poor"? Good. Now pleae enlighten us all as to when, where, and how that somehow changed. The poor back in the day were slaves. That is my main problem with Republicans in general. They think going back to the "good old days" will solve all of our problems. Wake up! The future is now and the "good old days" weren't that good in the first place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 And poor in America today means you have cable TV a 2 bedroom apt and a car. I think our Govt is doing a bang up job of helping the poor. Compare it to........how about any other country in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlantaskin Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 "And poor in America today means you have cable TV a 2 bedroom apt and a car." It is now clear why your postings are so far to the right: you have no clue what is really happening in this country. You don't know what poverty is. As for your earlier posting that my idea that government exists to help the poor and middle class, I think that perhaps you are reading things a bit too literally. If I used the word "exist" let me clarify by stating that I think the emphasis of government should be on serving the middle and lower classes--providing them opportunities to make it to the wealthy class. Again, I am not advocating that the upper class is the only class that pays taxes or anything like that (pay more, yes, but that is what a progressive tax is). I just think that we shouldn't give tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of social programs that benefit the middle and lower classes. Your responses have acted like this is such a crazy idea--but I really think that it is embedded in the principles of the welfare state and has been the emphasis of our government until George W. Bush took office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 That's precisely what our govt does currently. The lower classes gets far more benefits from the govt than the upper classes. And they should. But that's wholly different from saying it EXISTS for them. It EXISTS to serve everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlantaskin Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 I understand that it "exists" to serve everyone. My original point here was that my biggest problem with George Bush is that he has shifted the emphasis of government in favor of the wealthy and big business and away from serving the poor and middle class. Enjoyed the debate. I am signing off now because I have to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 And an example of shifting the emphasis to the wealthy would be what exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlantaskin Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Huge tax cuts for the top 2%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 The same tax cut that everyone else got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troyster Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Originally posted by atlantaskin "And poor in America today means you have cable TV a 2 bedroom apt and a car." It is now clear why your postings are so far to the right: you have no clue what is really happening in this country. You don't know what poverty is. As for your earlier posting that my idea that government exists to help the poor and middle class, I think that perhaps you are reading things a bit too literally. If I used the word "exist" let me clarify by stating that I think the emphasis of government should be on serving the middle and lower classes--providing them opportunities to make it to the wealthy class. Again, I am not advocating that the upper class is the only class that pays taxes or anything like that (pay more, yes, but that is what a progressive tax is). I just think that we shouldn't give tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of social programs that benefit the middle and lower classes. Your responses have acted like this is such a crazy idea--but I really think that it is embedded in the principles of the welfare state and has been the emphasis of our government until George W. Bush took office. Actually, I don't think you know what poverty is. Its a very relative term. Across the world, a country is considered at the highest level of GNP if its people average around 10,000 dollars per year in income. In America, this is poverty though, we're so above the curve. About 15% of people in the entire world live on less than a dollar a day. You can make that in 10 minutes at minimum wage in America. Why do you think people want to come here? Here's a chart for you: http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/economic/gnp/map1.html Anyway, so since Bush has been in office, the poor and middle class in America have lost the ability to work their way up the ladder, or come up with an innovative business idea to make themselves money? How did he take this away? Tell me how Bush and the Republicans have snatched away the American Dream. What opportunities are the government supposed to provide for the poor so that they can make it to the wealthy class? Apparently the government was passing out opportunity for people under a certain income until Bush got into office? Jeez, and all this time I thought brains, hard work, and a capitalist economic system was what made moving from poor to rich possible. Some of you guys demonize Bush to a ridiculous extent when it comes to economics. Some of you also sound like you'd prefer a socialist economic system, which would be a big mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Originally posted by atlantaskin Huge tax cuts for the top 2%. Didnt all Americans (even some who paid 0 taxes) get the tax cut? I love that the dems keep claiming that Bush is seeking tax cuts for the rich. It's simply untrue. He just wants to reaffirm the current tax cuts that were established 3 years ago. Why does this false perception exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Originally posted by atlantaskin Huge tax cuts for the top 2%. They got the same as everyone around 2 and 3%. My question is why do you care?? Someone making $200K pays I think 32% so that equals to $64,000 Someone making $64K pays 28% which equals to $17K Almost 3 times as much as the other person. So why do they need to pay more when everyone is getting the same type of service from the government to begin with, you can say the poor get more. Please don't give me this crap that richer people can deduct more etc.... so can anyone else as long as they know what they are doing. Heck I don't even make close to any and I was able to deduct a lot for school, retirement, home, etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 His problem is he reaches out too much to those who hate him. He didnt reduce the money to us fighting the war in Iraq, the pentagon attempted to and we are still getting tax free hazardous duty pay in bosnia since 1995 and officials abuse it with visits at the end of the month to get 2 months tax free for a 3 day visit. Nobody wants to be a wartime president and Kerrry definately isnt the answer on this topic. Bush appointed gay Ambassadors, unfortunately so I dont see him as anti butt pirate. and why is not supportin deviant behaviour an issue? The economy is booming even though the press and media is determined to downplay it the fact is 600,000 jobs is 600,000 jobs the problem is that the accurate report wil come out after the election so Bush needs to gets the facts out since most people won't go to the labor website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma They got the same as everyone around 2 and 3%. My question is why do you care?? Someone making $200K pays I think 32% so that equals to $64,000 Someone making $64K pays 28% which equals to $17K Almost 3 times as much as the other person. So why do they need to pay more when everyone is getting the same type of service from the government to begin with, you can say the poor get more. Please don't give me this crap that richer people can deduct more etc.... so can anyone else as long as they know what they are doing. Heck I don't even make close to any and I was able to deduct a lot for school, retirement, home, etc.... It shouldn't even be a question whether or not the rich should pay more in strict dollar terms. Even flat tax proposals are asking for flat percentage rates, not flat dollar amounts. Government isn't a giant Wal-Mart where everyone pays for some amount of stuff and gets their money's worth. If that were the case, we wouldn't need government - we could just privatize everything. However, there are some things that would create serious conflicts of interest if privatized i.e. national defense. Now, you can argue that every one of us receives the same fractional benefit from national defense, but the truth is that the rich have more at stake. If we were invaded by China, the lives of the working class wouldn't change that much - we'd still need people to work at McDonald's or pick up our trash or deliver our mail. However, the wealthy would lose millions if their companies go bankrupt or the financial markets collapse. Even without looking at the catastrophic case, simply look at the bankruptcy code, the FDIC, the limitation on corporate liability, and all the other laws that allow Americans to take risks and make large amounts of money. The vast majority of our laws are enacted and enforced to allow those with money to benefit. Looking at entitlements is a very narrow view of what government does. Although you can say that everybody gets the same out of the government, it should be pretty obvious that if you put a dollar value on it, the rich have a lot more to lose and a lot more to gain, and that's what they pay for in taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.