CosmicBills Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 To be fair, scientists don't always have much experience with the female reproductive system. :lol: Rob for the win!
3rdnlng Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 Which isn't as bad as a serving member of the House Science Committee making a complete mockery of the female reproductive process. Come on, 3rd. There are loonies in every party. I specifically said that neither party was immune to it. What is this "complete mockery" you speak of? Be specific. Also please tell me why it is so much more serious than the Speaker of the House, while speaking about energy issues saying that natural gas is not a fossil fuel? Not once, not twice but several times.
Cugalabanza Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 I think this is a cop out. It doesn't explain why I, as "the working man", would benefit from liberal policies as opposed to conservative ones. As to whether I'm viewed as a monkey, I can't worry about that. I'm concerned with what I can do to improve my situation, not whether a politician wants to pat me on my head & tell me I'm special too & pretend that my job is more important than it really is. I'm not a democrat, but I like their plan better. I think it's reasonable for the wealthy to pay a slightly higher income tax rate. There is a historical precedent for this. The rates being called for are still lower than under Reagan. I also happen to believe that spending cuts are necessary too. I think military spending is way too high. We spend more than the next 19 nations combined. There may also need to be cuts to some entitlements. I agree with conservatives that the debt cannot be ignored. However, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that Democrats are more to blame for this. Like Obama, I support a balanced approach. Middle class: taxes should remain at current levels. Any increase would be harmful to growth & consumer confidence. A reduction is not responsible considering the budget problems. I do support Obamacare. In fact, I'm in favor of a single payer (Medicare for all) system. I know it's a big cost and it centralizes something that many people prefer kept in the private sector. I think in the long run, it would be a huge benefit to the middle class. I know you'll probably disagree with me on all this. There are philosophical differences and I'm familiar with the arguments. It's my take that the Republicans have been, above all, about protecting the wealth of the wealthy. And they've done a very good job. The economy didn't crash because rich people were hurting. Wealth inequality is greater now than ever. The stock market looks great. The bankers came out smelling like roses. It's the middle class people that are carrying the weight of this recession. I think it's reasonable to expect the wealthy to pay a little more in taxes. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a quick fix to this recovery. I think things are just picking up now. I think we'll keep seeing improvements in employment, growth and housing and things will get better greadually. I believe though that we are on the right track.
Nanker Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 So you think there's primarily a revenue problem, and that the estimated $80billion that the proposed raise in taxes on the wealthy will solve our fiscal problems?
Cugalabanza Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 Why don't you provide some actual quotes? Spelling "potato" wrong isn't quite as serious as the Speaker of the House at the time claiming over and over that natural gas is not a fossil fuel. Because I don't have time and it's a stupid argument. The idea that God's will includes babies born from rape or that a rape victim's body has a way to try and shut that whole thing down... these are serious to me. Too many conservative minded people have wasted way too much breath trying to deny science (e.g., evolution, global warming). Marco Rubio recently indicated that he believes the Earth could be less than 10,000 years old. Look, I'm not denying that Democrats say stupid ****. I'm saying that Republicans say stupid **** too. And you're fighting me on this. Unnecessarily. To me it's proof that you will fight about literally anything that comes from what you perceive as the enemy. So you think there's primarily a revenue problem, and that the estimated $80billion that the proposed raise in taxes on the wealthy will solve our fiscal problems? No. I said above that spending cuts are necessary too. A tax increase on the wealthy is only a small part.
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) I'm not a democrat, but I like their plan better. I think it's reasonable for the wealthy to pay a slightly higher income tax rate. There is a historical precedent for this. The rates being called for are still lower than under Reagan. I also happen to believe that spending cuts are necessary too. I think military spending is way too high. We spend more than the next 19 nations combined. There may also need to be cuts to some entitlements. I agree with conservatives that the debt cannot be ignored. However, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that Democrats are more to blame for this. Like Obama, I support a balanced approach. Middle class: taxes should remain at current levels. Any increase would be harmful to growth & consumer confidence. A reduction is not responsible considering the budget problems. I do support Obamacare. In fact, I'm in favor of a single payer (Medicare for all) system. I know it's a big cost and it centralizes something that many people prefer kept in the private sector. I think in the long run, it would be a huge benefit to the middle class. I know you'll probably disagree with me on all this. There are philosophical differences and I'm familiar with the arguments. It's my take that the Republicans have been, above all, about protecting the wealth of the wealthy. And they've done a very good job. The economy didn't crash because rich people were hurting. Wealth inequality is greater now than ever. The stock market looks great. The bankers came out smelling like roses. It's the middle class people that are carrying the weight of this recession. I think it's reasonable to expect the wealthy to pay a little more in taxes. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a quick fix to this recovery. I think things are just picking up now. I think we'll keep seeing improvements in employment, growth and housing and things will get better greadually. I believe though that we are on the right track. First of all, you and I define wealthy very differently. Do you consider me to be wealthy? Because I sure don't. I have to wake up every morning, put my big boy pants on, and go to work. Secondly, even if you taxed the top 1% at 100% of their earnings, you wouldn't touch our deficit, much less our debt. It's a feel-good manuever that doesn't actually accomplish anything. The problem is our spending. Our government spends well in excess of 70% of everything it's citizens earn on an annual basis. That isn't sustainable, and yet we keep adding to the spending. Edited November 28, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
Cugalabanza Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) The problem is our spending. I cannot argue with this. Two (bogus, in my opionion) wars cost us quite a bit. How do feel about cutting military spending? Also, if we're talking about entitlements, you have to include corporate welfare too, no? Edited November 28, 2012 by gringo starr
3rdnlng Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 Because I don't have time and it's a stupid argument. The idea that God's will includes babies born from rape or that a rape victim's body has a way to try and shut that whole thing down... these are serious to me. Too many conservative minded people have wasted way too much breath trying to deny science (e.g., evolution, global warming). Marco Rubio recently indicated that he believes the Earth could be less than 10,000 years old. Look, I'm not denying that Democrats say stupid ****. I'm saying that Republicans say stupid **** too. And you're fighting me on this. Unnecessarily. To me it's proof that you will fight about literally anything that comes from what you perceive as the enemy. No. I said above that spending cuts are necessary too. A tax increase on the wealthy is only a small part. First of all, the boldened part is just wrong, wrong, wrong. He was referring to "recorded history". I'm sure the Huffington Post didn't make that very clear for you. Second, take your social issues and shove them up your ass. This country is in serious financial shape and all your !@#$ing Messiah has done is try to divide it on those issues for his own benefit. He hasn't addressed our real problems in any way. 82 billion in increases on the wealthy is a drop in the bucket compared to a trillion plus deficits. Made for a nice sound bite for you lemmings though.
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) I cannot argue with this. Two (bogus, in my opionion) wars cost us quite a bit. How do feel about cutting military spending? Can our military endure some cuts? Absolutely, but not slashing wholesale cuts in which our military is forced to "make due" with what we give them. You don't "make due" when it comes to the defense of your nation when you have other options. Any cuts must come from a combination of maintaining the best defense oriented military in the world, a reduction or elimination of our occupational forces around the globe, an end to our "nation building" foreign policy goals, and in making things more streamlined and efficient, not in cuts intended to intentionally make us weaker militarily. Also, if we're talking about entitlements, you have to include corporate welfare too, no? I have long opposed corporate welfare. Any business that cannot survive on it's own should fail, and be replaced by market forces. I am equally opposed to corporate taxes. Edited November 28, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
/dev/null Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) I cannot argue with this. Two (bogus, in my opionion) wars cost us quite a bit. How do feel about cutting military spending? Also, if we're talking about entitlements, you have to include corporate welfare too, no? Agree. Was against Iraq from day one and realized real fast how off track the Afghanistan was Yes. But before we start singing koom-bay-ya-B word over our agreements..you do understand that the largest pieces of military spending is pay and benefits for both active duty/retired service members and Government workers that are heavily Unionized Yes. Never understood why they got a handout to begin with Edited November 28, 2012 by /dev/null
Cugalabanza Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 ...shove them up your ass... ...your !@#$ing Messiah... ...you lemmings... ah, dialectic
3rdnlng Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 ah, dialectic His focus throughout this last term has been one of dividing, and yes throwing up canards. He did it with fake, made up social issues. He ignored the real issues and threw up distractions in order to get enough people to follow him like lemmings.
Cugalabanza Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) His focus throughout this last term has been one of dividing, and yes throwing up canards. He did it with fake, made up social issues. He ignored the real issues and threw up distractions in order to get enough people to follow him like lemmings. Take it easy, man, it's just a discussion. Why don't you put your conservative vocabulary flash cards away for a little while. I'm sorry I ever suggested that you and TYTT could be the same poster. He actually has something to say. You're like the Chester to his Spike. Edited November 28, 2012 by gringo starr
CosmicBills Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 First of all, the boldened part is just wrong, wrong, wrong. He was referring to "recorded history". Wait, I did not hear Rubio's remarks so I'm just going off you and Gringo's posts here ... but if Rubio said recorded history is less than 10,000 years old how is that any better? In fact, it's possibly even more ignorant since it ignores theological and empirical sources.
Cugalabanza Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Wait, I did not hear Rubio's remarks so I'm just going off you and Gringo's posts here ... but if Rubio said recorded history is less than 10,000 years old how is that any better? In fact, it's possibly even more ignorant since it ignores theological and empirical sources. He was not in fact talking about recorded history. He was talking about the age of the Earth itself. And in Rubio's defense, he never actually said he believed the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old. He simply said that it's a "great mystery" and that different perspectives (biblical and otherwise) should be considered. [EDIT] Rubio's actual words: “I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. “At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.” Link Edited November 28, 2012 by gringo starr
....lybob Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 pretty much ducked the question which is a good Idea if you are a republican planning to run for a national office GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries. and of course the correct answer is the Universe is only 4 seconds old, God made everything including your memories just right the !@#$ now
DC Tom Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 Which isn't as bad as a serving member of the House Science Committee making a complete mockery of the female reproductive process. Come on, 3rd. There are loonies in every party. Point of note: the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment was killed in 1995 by the Republican "Contract With America". Since then, Congress has had hearings on such nonsense as homeopathy, perpetual motion machines, cold fusion...and passed legislation funding some.of it. Since 1995, both houses of congress, whichever party has been in control, have been about as scientifically literate as your average public school science teacher.
Jauronimo Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 pretty much ducked the question which is a good Idea if you are a republican planning to run for a national office ...for most anyone who doesn't want to get caught talking our of their ass.
Cugalabanza Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 ...for most anyone who doesn't want to get caught talking our of their ass. Actually, there is a correct answer and it's not controversial as long as you're not a member of a political party and trying to maintain the support of the lunatics who have hijacked it... 4.54 billion years. (That's the age of the Earth, not of the universe as Rubio somehow strangely misinterpreted the question).
Recommended Posts