Typical TBD Guy
-
Posts
2,238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Typical TBD Guy
-
-
Okay... I will play. Why do we as a nation need China and other emeriging nations if said emerging nations don't want to play by a higher standard? Our market and the European markets are big enough to sustain their needs. The US doesn't have to be in every corner of the world and we can play by our higher expectations. Shouldn't it be "race to the top"... Not: "race to the bottom." Your arguments and positions highlight exactly why as a nation we continue to undercut everybody and anybody.
Having any corporate taxation - especially excessive taxation - is not "playing by a higher standard" or "racing to the top." Rather, it forces many companies out of business and many employees out of jobs. It prevents many new companies from forming and many new citizens from finding employment. It increases the cost of goods and services on the consumer.
Your indifference to trade with China and other emerging international markets only highlights your fundamental ignorance in basic economics. You may not care about additional wealth creation, but most rational Americans do. It's not about wanting to be #1 in everything; it's about wanting the best standard of living that's possible for a 21st century civilization.
-
Whatever.
A most convincing retort! I was admittedly still on the fence after the first eye rolling emoticon, but the second one has pushed me solidly in the Keynesian economic camp. Well done, sir!
-
And if the US exludes them and throws up protectionist measures?
So let me get this straight. Based on what you've posted in this thread, your ideal plan for America's 21st century economy would involve:
1. Denying trade with 3 of the biggest and most innovative players on the international free market stage.
2. Making corporate taxation uniformly high for every state in the union, just like in the flourishing laissez-faire utopia that is the state of New York.
3. Expanding the ultra-efficient public bureaucracy for every state in the union in true Keynesian fashion, just like in the state of New York.
Brilliant.
-
Oh, what's gonna happen if the nation goes ALL heavy gov't... Where are the pouting companies going to run in retalitation?
HINT: It won't be Columbus, Ohio.
To countries that have no corporate taxes, I presume.
HINT: It will probably be China, South Korea, and India.
-
Tolerance is a virtue of the soft-minded and ignorant when it comes to acts. Acts of the will can be judged and should be judged. What cannot be judged is the intention unless it is explicit or implied.
We are to tolerate people, but not their actions. That's why the Rosa Parks analogy is illogical and flat-out stupid. Homosexuals are not persons who are intrinsically linked to homosexuality, they are people who do homosexual acts. You cannot equate the person with the act, whereas in race you can. Ergo, the analogy is stupid. The key here is that there is no evidence of homosexuality linked to the person, just circumspect studies typically done with an aim to prove their pre-disposed beliefs. There are no facts.
I'm only getting into the act of tolerance and analogy, not the act of homosexuality. I mean it's funny that views against public homosexuality, using natural law as an argument, are excoriated publicly and through the media, whereas those who hold aberrant and evil views are given a free pass and championed through the media. It's not a coincidence.
When the movie L.I.E came out movie critics loved it and it got rave reviews.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242587/
But when people say homosexuality is intrinsically disordered where is our outlet to publicly disseminate our views? No, the intolerant gestapo of the left is far more violent than the claims of intolerance of the right. The use of liguistic gymnastics is now the ploy of the immoral with buzz phrases rather than rational discussion: phobia, hate, tolerance, etc.. Yet strangely when they attack pro-lifers physically, or those speaking out against homosexuality I never see the media brigade.
When I see the outcry against L.I.E from the media let me know, until then they will see evil when a teacher or cleric does it, but not when it suits their agenda.
If anyone thinks the media is neutral on this issue look up the Jesse Dirkhising. Here is a boy that was raped, beaten, and starved to death by homosexuals. Yet, not a peep out of the media. Reverse the situation and make it a "hate" crime. It would be on newsstands, TV, and everywhere else. This is not a coincidence.
Here is a story on the 13 year old:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29026
This seems to be the crux of your entire argument: that homosexuals choose their behavior because they have chosen to be gay. You can't prove that to be true at the moment based on our current understanding of the biological sciences, just like I can't prove the opposite at the moment (but who knows what scientists will discover years from now).
Reason, however, should guide us to 2 key points:
1. Gays don't choose to be gay in the same way that (presumably) us heterosexuals don't choose our own id-like inclinations for ladies with low waist-hip ratios, symmetrical faces, smooth skin, and big ol' titties.
2. Even if gay behavior is completely chosen, why the !@#$ does it matter to you personally or to government so long as their gay behavior isn't interfering with your own individual liberties and willful pursuit of happiness?
By the way, I thought you weren't going to post here again because we are all just too stupid for Stupid?
-
Look at the ridicule that I am getting ( ... Not that I have ever proven myself ridicule-free ..
).JA and the likes, liberal and conservative can't contain themselves. I never once said anything bad or hateful... Maybe hurtful... And to that, I say I am sorry.
I am very tolerant... I just don't see it coming from the other side, the shoe is on the other foot and that side is proving to equally and more disingenuous... And what scares me is that I fear there is not even a moral basis of any kind to fall back on.
Yes you have.
In post #85 of this thread, you recall the stereotype of the dangerous AIDS-infested homosexual as a reason for denying the opportunity for gay couples to have the same health care rights as heterosexual couples.
In post #126, you use another tired stereotype of the homosexual relationship - based purely on the carnal - as a foil for heterosexual relationships that are implied to be based on more "noble" concepts like love.
In post #180, you express emotions of anger and disappointment upon the theoretical discovery of a relative's homosexuality.
And pretty much all of your posts in this thread make reference to some nebulous contempt for gay marriage because it personally makes you feel disgusted and uncomfortable.
You have also repeatedly failed to articulate how condoning gay marriage will unravel the social fabric of our country, why the gay marriage issue alone deserves so much focus if one assumes social standards happen to be in a grave state of crisis at all, or whether gay marriage is even "immoral" by any universal (read: non-religious) standards of human ethics. And perhaps worst of all, you continue to invoke a "tyranny of the majority" rationale (example: post #138 of this thread) for using government to deny gays the same rights as heteros...the very antithesis of thought upon what this once great country was founded.
-
It helps that we drafted two very smart players.
Wonderlic scores:
Levitre- 36
Wood- 29
I don't think they will have as much trouble as the average rookie.
They're also known for having a great work ethic, which surprisingly isn't a given at this level of competition (see: Peters, Jason; Dockery, Derrick).
-
Keyes is a far different fish....... against abortion and homosexual rights for sure...but also a just war theorist who was against the Iraq war, WTO, GATT, NAFTA, Patriot Act.....no different from Pat Buchanan really. (who is also a Catholic...but so what?...both are moralists and not preachers with any ecclesiastic authority) So, as dangerous as Pat Buchanan? eeeewwww spooky....and constitutional constructionists which it is hard for me to see how their Catholicism informs that more than a classical liberal education.
Rev. Robertson has an eschatology that changes week to week.....signs of the end times.....
edit: okay...he favored a first strike in Iraq...but he can't claim that as a religious program...
You don't think the Catholic faith guides Keyes and Buchanan in their morality? Those two aren't exactly "cafeteria Catholics." I might even suggest Keyes and Buchanan are "cafeteria classical liberals," since they have no qualms picking and choosing which rights for which individuals can be granted equal protection under the law.
Seriously now, did you even watch Stupid's YouTube link? Gay couple adoption inevitably leads to incest?!
-
Hardly the case for Keyes. I think he would be the opposite. He does not root arguments in scriptural hermeneutics as much as he is likely to argue natural law in which he probably sees Locke, Hobbes, and to a much lesser extent Hamilton as heirs to the Western scholastic tradition.
Actually, I think that Alan Keyes is good for democracy as long as he is never elected.
The guy is a demon debater and a strict constructionist, and they can be bloody fun to have around.
Totally incorrect. Keyes is a devout Catholic who warps selected parts of Enlightenment philosophy to advance a bigoted religious right agenda. You think Keyes is harmless compared to the Pat Robertson types because he doesn't quote scripture; I'd argue that he's only relatively harmless because his audience is so small.
-
It seems that the early reports of it being some sort of combination of swine, human, and avian flu have somehow quickly dropped out of the news.
Half man flu, half bird flu, half pig flu....ManBirdPig flu!
-
Here is a great discussion with a current president, who doesn't use one argument based on principle, with a guy who actually was properly educated:
Alan Keyes is a perfect example of how religion causes otherwise rational men to twist themselves in completely illogical knots. Why am I not surprised to discover Stupid thinks so highly of him?
-
So your principle-based argument is one that relies on statistics? Stupid, you are indeed a master of logic. And hypocrisy.
LMAO I had the same thought while reading Stupid's drivel. Not only that, but the "statistics" he used to support his argument are mired in cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacies.
-
That is all I am saying too. I have more of a hunch it will strain the system... I think it can only be worse. How can it be better. I can live with either way states decide... I am just against it myself.
The elderly disproportionately strain the various welfare state services that you liberals love so much. As do the mentally and physically disabled. As do blacks and Hispanics. As do single moms. In fact, all of these groups would "strain the system" more so than the tiny percentage of gay married couples. Using this half-baked logic, the only subset of the population that should be allowed to marry are white, young, healthy, middle/upper class heterosexual adults....the subset LEAST likely to need government welfare programs.
-
-Destroys the natural law
It's not destroying "natural law." Homosexuality is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom, including all species within the primate order.
-Destroys the most major purpose of marriage which is the stability of the PARENTS to raise childrenGay couples can't adopt and raise children? They can't do a better job than trailer trash parents?
And should we also prevent sterile couples and elderly couples and couples who choose not to have kids from marrying?
You need to read about the origins of marriage to find the real reasons for this civil institution.
-Forces their beliefs, which are unnatural, on others through coercionExactly who is coercing whom here?! You're using government to prevent a minority (gays) from having the same rights (tax benefits, property rights, health care access, etc...) as the majority (heteros) based on their individual sexual preferences of which you don't personally approve. Homosexuals aren't using government to prevent YOU from marrying, are they?
-
How does it "hurt" society to allow homosexuals to marry?
I have yet to read one credible, rational, specific answer to this question from the anti-gay marriage crowd.
-
Lindell came in from FA. Wilson is not on this team anymore. Reed and Denney are backups. Schoebel, Moorman and Evans are only starters we have to show for from that Era. Reason why the Bills are not in the playoffs..
George Wilson the safety? He re-signed with the Bills on April 4.
-
2001: Moorman, Schobel
2002: Reed, Denney
2003: Lindell, McGee, Kelsay
2004: Evans, Wilson
2005: Parrish
That's 10 players left, 8 if you count Kelsay and Parrish as good as gone.
-
The value is that you dump $3million in salary for a guy who's going to play 10-12 plays a game. You can then (hopefully) use that money on someone who will contribute more--like Freddie Kieaho or Derrick Brooks, both still out there and both who would improve our D, or Kendall Simmons, also still out there and also someone who, if healthy, would improve our O. It's the same with the Peters trade--people need to look at the totality of it, including cap and cash to cap ramifications. For ex., if the Bills use the 4th rounder and some of the $11 million or so cash to cap I suspect they budgeted for Peters on getting Rhodes (done), Henderson in trade and/or other like the guys above and also get a 1st rounder and 6th rounder for Peter you have to look at all of that as what we got for JP. Looks a bit better in that light (if that should come to pass), doesn't it?
A player like Parrish can take those 10-12 plays and dramatically alter the outcome of the game. Also, that $3 mill per season saved is less important now that Peters is gone. I say keep Parrish, have him take some of the punt returning load off of McKelvin, and try to be more creative with incorporating Rosoce's unique skills into the offense.
-
Hey dude, since I know you consider Fox News a reliable news source, how do you explain this...
http://www.politicususa.com/en/Olbermann-Cavuto
Caught on camera manipulating numbers. I don't know how you find these news sources trustworthy.
While your link isn't working for me, I assume it shows how Fox News has a right wing bias. I couldn't agree any more with that claim, but...
The first guy interviewed is obviously an inarticulate moron, but this very same CNN reporter didn't blink twice when Bush was called a fascist and visually compared to Hitler at an anti-war rally two years ago.
-
You don't have "time"? That's the lamest response you've ever posted and that's quite an accomplishment. You're nothing more than a !@#$ing myna bird who repeats whatever he hears with the zeal of a two year old who's been promised a trip to Chucky Cheese.
You've got plenty of time. What you're missing is ability.
conner last posted in this thread Sunday night. It's now Wednesday night. Since then he's gone on to start another thread and add numerous other posts of various length on the PPP board. But apparently he still doesn't have time to return here. Of course, when your only argument is that you TRUST
Obama will do the right thing, what else is there really to say? It would be nice if he could assuage my fears of hyperinflation within the next two years or so, but apparently the fundamental principles of economics don't apply to the United States when The Chosen One is in office. -
1. Wacka, nice rebuttal. Your argument has me stumped I can't argue with those facts and figures. Very nice.
2. Mr. Blessing...
So lets forget these economy recovery spending's going on right now. Lots of money, yes but also they are one time expenditures. Investments in the economy.
As far as I know, his plan is a combination of options 1 and 2. Mostly option 1 though. From everything I gather he wants to reform health care (and has not yet released any plan yet) - and if/when he successfully does that, federal spending should drop a large amount.
I suppose everyone except me has ignored this quote by him - "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way."
But you said its a joke and don't believe him. I do.
And yes, raise taxes on the top 5% richest Americans. Think that plus the tax cuts for the middle class probably are a wash, but I haven't done the math. Either way I'm a fan because a middle class with more money, in my opinion, vastly improves the quality of life in the country. More people with more money tend to spend it and make the economy spin more than less people with more money (my opinion).
The energy stuff I think helps the economy and the long term health of our planet and country. As well as helping to keep us as a technological powerhouse. But I don't see how it helps the budget.
Not entirely true. Certainly not in this particular economic climate. Giving tax breaks to the middle class is a very good thing, but a significant percentage of that money is going to go towards paying off debt and not towards consumption of goods and services like Barack Hussein Keynes hopes. I'd also argue that this tax cut money SHOULD go toward debt payments and general savings rather than further consumption. America needs fresh capital for a healthy economy in the long term, not continued borrowing from lending sources shrinking in size and in willingness to lend to a nation of materialism addicts.
By the way, why do you continue ignoring the role of the supply side? The wealthy 5% spend money as well, but their money goes to create the vast majority of JOBS in America; furthermore, whatever remaining jobs the government provides is only due to taxation revenue generated mostly from - surprise! - those 5% of wealthy Americans.
-
I will try to ignore the fact that you pulled "carter-style" out of your ass because you don't want to say "Clinton-style" as Obama has said himself. Because you know full well that those tax rates improved the economy.
...
I guess... where is the data to back up those claims you just made? Personal philosophy is great and all, but running a country on philosophy probably is not a good idea. Take a look at the tax rates in the 50's, one of the greatest times of economic booms in our history. That is data. Look at FDR's tax rates and the improvements in the jobless rate. Look at Clinton's era and the tax rates and the improved economy.
And then on the other side of the coin.. look at either Bush, look at Coolidge, look at Nixon. Even your hero Regan, look at the national debt under him. His tax policies are lauded far and wide by you guys, but they were unsustainable just because of the national debt.
I trust Obama to respond to historical facts and figures and not some personal philosophy of any sort. He seems to be doing that.
at this post. It's pretty late, so for now let me just focus on the bolded part above. Right there you at least acknowledge that a large national debt is unsustainable in the long term. That's a start. So if Obama wants his legacy to be that of a good president on economic issues, he must manage the debt he inherited from Bush. How? Well, he has 3 options:1. Slash government spending.
2. Raise taxes.
3. Have the Federal Reserve print more money to make ends meet.
Option 1 is a joke, as we know Obama and Pelosi want to do very much the opposite over the next 2 years that will dwarf Bush's TARP. This will only further increase the absolute value of our national debt, made comparatively worse if the national GDP shrinks at the same time (it almost certainly will, as it already is).
Option 2 was a seemingly innocuous plan put forth by Obama during the campaign season, but also the reason why so many "white trash tea-baggers" have decided to protest on the eve of Tax Day. Obama claims that he wants to lower the taxes on most of America and only slightly raise taxes on the wealthiest 1-5%.
If that turns out to be a lie, then the protestors were correct in assuming that Obama - like all politicians - was lying to win votes. Even if Obama spares the middle class and raises exorbitant taxes on only the very wealthy, such a decision will further shrink the pool of already shrinking wealth producers in this nation (who, in turn, are the ones who provide the bulk of tax revenue in the first place).
If, however, Obama was telling the truth on his tax policy, then how on Earth are we going to balance the rapidly expanding national budget under the Democrats' watch? Because as it stands now, our deficit is MUCH bigger than when Bush left office. Which leads us to Option 3...
Option 3 has already been done under Obama's watch, but I fear a lot more is to come. This is perhaps more terrifying than any sort of income tax raise, as it will absolutely crush the poor and middle classes the most...the 95-99% of Americans whom Obama and the Democrats allegedly care for the most. The inflation results may take 2-3 years to be felt, but they will be felt.
I can already anticipate your retort to this post...that Option 1 will be a forced public "investment" in energy, health care, infrastructure, government jobs etc... which will prompt spending from the lower classes and wealth production from the investing classes so that just enough tax revenue can be collected under Obama's current tax plan to balance the budget. Two problems with that:
1. When has government ever been efficient in allocating its revenue resources for planned public tasks? Have you seen our public education system lately? How are the New Orleans levees doing? How well was Fannie and Freddie Mac managed? How often do public bureaucrats get fired for doing their job poorly?
2. You're assuming private investors and the free markets couldn't do this all more efficiently and FASTER if our politicians would actually release the litany of economic shackles that have been simultaneously placed on employers and laborers alike.
As a side note, please stop lumping me in with Republicans and conservatives. I'm libertarian and have never voted for a Republican in my life. Coolidge, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush were all freedom-hating statists by my standards.
-
Cuz what are they protesting against?
In essence, a Carter-style economic policy that will lead directly to:
1. Inflation
2. High interest rates
3. High unemployment
...resulting in:
1. Lower standard of living for all Americans
2. Loss of individual freedoms as government's powers expand
3. Prolonged recession for as long as Keynesian economic policies are maintained
-
Thailog, now that's a name I haven't heard in awhile. Dude doesn't hang around here anymore does he?
Nope, he's too busy getting anally raped by demons in the afterlife to have time posting about the Bills.
I Guess Ms. USA
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Taking Philosophy 101 at your local Christian community college in Boondocks, NY, doesn't make you an expert epistemologist. You don't want to continue debating the idea that homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered" because your understanding of the biological sciences is terribly flawed. Invoking "natural law" is a convenient way to claim a universal code for human morality without having to resort to the unsubstantiated idea of The Omnipotent Invisible Man. It also allows you to ignore the overwhelming evidence of homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom because humans, after all, uniquely posses free will...right? But then your very claim that homosexuality is immoral hinges on the theory that human sexual inclinations are entirely chosen (i.e., environmental and not genetic or prenatal) when no credible scientist has yet to - or probably ever will - make such a claim. Evolutionary scientists don't definitively know yet why human homosexual behavior persists in spite of the obvious fact that it doesn't lead to procreation (one interesting thought, for your reading pleasure: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519...xplained.html); however, a present lack of conclusive scientific knowledge for one claim has never suddenly been conclusive proof of the opposite claim...in this case, the claim that homosexuality is non-intrinsic.
Paragraphs 3-5 of your post are just loaded with ugly, nonsensical bigotry toward "uber-queers" and "absolute flamers." Your reaction to a hypothetically gay son is despicable. You admit that the media can have a great influence on our perceptions, so isn't it possible that the media has influenced your own opinion of how pervasive homosexual behavior is in young people today? That is, unless you normally loiter with the young ones (a la David Wooderson) at high schools and such despite being in your early 30's? Homosexuals comprise a very small percentage of the overall population, so even if their behavior is immoral under your personal code of morality, I doubt condoning their behavior is going to somehow cause the vast majority of marriage-minded heteros to dump their spouses and start getting it on in a decadently gay orgy.
The last sentence in your post really irks me. You have the gall to question my understanding of "liberty," yet you care so much about what people do in their private lives that you want government to regulate who gets tax/health care benefits based on whom they choose to love? I don't personally believe government has ANY business whatsoever in regulating romantic relationship contracts, and that includes heterosexual marriage. I believe government's only business is in protecting individuals from the forceful behavior of others and not from one's own behavior, including personal behavior that happens to offend sanctimonious pieces of sh-- like yourself.