The Dean Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 Thank you! Anybody who took 8th grade government knows that, but every day you hear about "American democracy" and "spreading democracy". I don't vote for anything this country does, only for the people who make those decisions. Andin most cases, I'm only given two choices. Those who think America puts power in the hands of the people wears blinders. The system, indirectly, puts power in the hands of the people. Over time, tiny step by tiny step, the people can change their gov't. By voting out people who they believe don't properly represent them, they use their collective power. By running for office, or working for someone who they believe in, they individually have the power to help change their gov't. It's an imperfect system that, as you note, often results in choices that seem to be rather poor. But, it works, over time, better than all the others, IMO. Putting power directly in the hands of the people would be disastrous, IMO. Have you read the posts on the PPP board?
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 First of all, there was no need for your attempt at defining words to make yourself look smart. You're wrong, we are a democracy. A representative democracy, not a republic. Representative democracy enables men to represent their constituencies. This is necessary when you're dealing with a nation as large as ours, so save your "we're not a democracy bullsh*t for little kids," its a childish claim and a blatant cop-out on the topic at hand. Next (notice I'm ignoring your ignorant attempt at sidelining my socialism claim), I'd like to discuss your assessment that liberals are not trying to make everyone equal, allow everyone to have equal rights. This is where the main issue lies, and while you talked about tax breaks and made it all sound nice and pretty on paper, you fail to recognize the reality of the propositions of their "movement". Its not as simple as, oh give them tax breaks, pay for schools, otherwise do you want children to starve to death. No, its much much much farther beyond that. The people who are attempting to dissent the whole tax break thing are always made out to sound like nazis. I think that in almost all situations the liberals would prefer to avoid the situation of poverty by applying their pathetic attempts at equalizing everyone. Thankfully, Hillary did not win the primary, or then we would be in real trouble with this. Obama, however, is showing more signs of being a puppet, more so than Bush, which scares me. Anyone hiding behind "change" as their campaign slogan really scares me, considering that is typically the point of an election. He's trying to branch out to the anti-war America who are mostly not aware of his fascination with socialist policies. Social programs directed at curing the poverty issue in the end infringe greatly on the middle-class who has worked hard to get where they are and does not deserve anyone taking away their money with excessive taxes. These people have forfeited their moral values in an attempt to make everything equal. They have done whatever they can to make those hand-outs (the same ones you for some reason pretend did not occur often) as easy as possible to receive. You're probably going to ignore most of what I said, and argue this last point, then ask for more examples, which I'll gladly provide, however I'm going to class now and wont be back until later. Murra, you are absolutely spot on with this take. There is no doubt that most people do not have much of an understanding, or for the most part recognition, of Obama's "fascination with socialist policies". I quoted you there because that is exactly what it is. If you look deeper into Obama's life, specifically his socialist beliefs, and the radical socialist beliefs of the people who he "admires". Not to mention his religious mentors, who consistently preach, without any apology, about the "Black Cause" rather than what's in the best interest of American citizens as a whole.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted October 21, 2008 Author Posted October 21, 2008 By voting out people who they believe don't properly represent them, they use their collective power. You definitely have a point here, but the trouble is that most people don't even use their right to vote a bad politician out of office. Members of the House of Representatives have a 94% success rate when they run for reelection, because people tend to vote for name recognition even if the guy/gal is doing a horrible job in office. The majority of people stay too ignorant about their local/national representatives to even know they are doing a bad job.
lets_go_bills Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 What a ridiculous question. I would give anything, I would give my left nut for the Bills to win the Super Bowl.
SwampD Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 I get such a kick out of when republicans whine about socialism. "Free Capitalism" is their cry. Then greed gets in the way of capitalism and they need the Government to bail them out. THAT IS SOCIALISM! We tried it your way. Before the last mid-term election we had a Republican House, Senate, and White House. They spent us into debt way faster than the Dems ever have. If you say,"well this money is going towards projects that create jobs and builds things that we need"(like a bridge to nowhere) then how is that not Socialism already. I know I'll never sniff $250k a year. I'm fine with that. The difference in my pocketbook between the two parties is probably a couple hundred bucks a year so who cares. Since they are going to take my money either way, I'd rather it go to people without money who need it, than to rich people and warhawks.
ChasBB Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 What a ridiculous question. I would give anything, I would give my left nut for the Bills to win the Super Bowl. I would sacrifice on the altar to the Gods both McCain *and* Obama if it meant a Bills Super Bowl victory. Hell, I'd sacrifice them to the Gods for a six-pack. Actually, just take them, please -- no consideration needed. Well, I'll waste my vote with a Ron Paul write-in, but at least I can say I voted my conscience.
murra Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 How does that hurt those people? Maybe they can't afford that in-ground pool anymore? If I ever end up making that much money, I will GLADLY give 70% of it away to charity because the feeling of helping your fellow man is better than having possessions IMO. You only need a certain amount of money to live comfortably, and I'm surprised more people don't feel guilty about saving up for that brand new BMW while others suffer needlessly. Its this very argument that upsets me with America. He should not feel guilty for his wealth. You should feel guilty for wanting him to spend away his money on something he doesn't want to. That is what I'm arguing. That's cool that you want to spend 70% on charity. Hopefully when you have a family you'll want to save for the benefits of your child's future before you decide so rashly. I get it, we have differing opinions. I feel that if you inherit your fathers income, your father was successful and intended you to be so. He should keep his money, and maintain his family name. My entire goal in life is to make sure that I can instill a positive affect on my family, and raise one that can be successful for generations. On me being extreme on claiming Obama is socialist: Yeah, I think he is socialist. I think the universal health care plan is just an addition to the FDR style New Deal crap that led America to think that increased taxes are the solution. All of Obama's claim are words that really scare me like "fairness" and "equal" because he misuses these normally peaceful words to substitute for the reality of his absurd and leftist positions. I can't really argue that Obama is socialist yet, because he is hiding as best he can behind his ideals which have social values. It wont be until he wins that people open their eyes and see the destruction he'll cause, but unfortunately that may be too late. In the end, I don't know why I'm trying to debate you, and I mean to belittle you again, but see for yourself, the man and his wife have given us enough reason to believe he's trying to drive America in the very direction as leaders who have brought their nations down time and time again: His wife. Himself. And of course Joe the Plumber.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted October 21, 2008 Author Posted October 21, 2008 Its this very argument that upsets me with America. He should not feel guilty for his wealth. You should feel guilty for wanting him to spend away his money on something he doesn't want to. That is what I'm arguing. That's cool that you want to spend 70% on charity. Hopefully when you have a family you'll want to save for the benefits of your child's future before you decide so rashly. I get it, we have differing opinions. I feel that if you inherit your fathers income, your father was successful and intended you to be so. He should keep his money, and maintain his family name. My entire goal in life is to make sure that I can instill a positive affect on my family, and raise one that can be successful for generations. On me being extreme on claiming Obama is socialist: Yeah, I think he is socialist. I think the universal health care plan is just an addition to the FDR style New Deal crap that led America to think that increased taxes are the solution. All of Obama's claim are words that really scare me like "fairness" and "equal" because he misuses these normally peaceful words to substitute for the reality of his absurd and leftist positions. I can't really argue that Obama is socialist yet, because he is hiding as best he can behind his ideals which have social values. It wont be until he wins that people open their eyes and see the destruction he'll cause, but unfortunately that may be too late. In the end, I don't know why I'm trying to debate you, and I mean to belittle you again, but see for yourself, the man and his wife have given us enough reason to believe he's trying to drive America in the very direction as leaders who have brought their nations down time and time again: His wife. Himself. And of course Joe the Plumber. So now with that "I mean to belittle you" comment, it's fair for me to call you an as*hole. And you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say the $250,000 earner SHOULD feel guilty, I said I'm suprised he doesn't feel guilty more often. And you're using Glenn Beck and Fox News (two sources with some incredibly right-wing spin) as sources? Find something a little more impartial please. And all Obama said in that debate is that the insanely rich ought to be paying higher taxes than their secretaries. And you can go ahead and save up for your family, but I'm afraid that I don't exactly fall for the dedication to the nuclear family thing. That's not to say I won't have a wife and kids (it's a very useful social institution), but I feel that a lot of people use the well being of their family as an excuse to hoard wealth. That's just the feeling I get. Yeah, you have to look out for your family, but given the choice of legitimately helping another human being and giving my kids a larger inheritance, I choose the former. And hey don't debate with me if you don't want, it doesn't really make a difference to me, but I entered into this thing trying to have a thought provoking conversation and you just wanted to strong arm me and make me sound like an idiot. Sounds a lot like most right wingers.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted October 21, 2008 Author Posted October 21, 2008 the man and his wife have given us enough reason to believe he's trying to drive America in the very direction as leaders who have brought their nations down time and time again And John McCain (voting with Bush 90% of the time) has given us enough reason to believe that he will continue America on the horrible path that we've beem set on. The country is foundering and, fact is, it IS time for a change.
The Senator Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 Ya know, polls are just a fancy way of systematically predicting what's gonna happen.... I'll take a Bills victory on my natal anniversary in 2009 over either candidate! 18 and 1 baby!!! GO BILLSSS!!!! PosLUSZny!!!!!
murra Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 And John McCain (voting with Bush 90% of the time) has given us enough reason to believe that he will continue America on the horrible path that we've beem set on. The country is foundering and, fact is, it IS time for a change. That's fine. You're falling for it. You're the protege "Liberal Student" who believes they're being intellectual, and thinking for themselves, but fail to recognize that in their rants (like the one you had above this) undermine family values and refer to those who work hard as hoarding money. I think your vicious cycle comment which I failed to allude to earlier was the false impression that was recited to you over and over by whatever liberal mentor has most recently brainwashed you. You can call me an !@#$, and a right-wing whatever, but the truth is, I've made no attempts to make decisions for other people, and I do not support that. From what it sounds like to me, you do. And if you think that you'll just fall for "it is time for change", and that everything will change for the better, then hopefully in 15 or 20 years you'll wake up, and realize what the change brought us? More government, and less security. If you like people to make decisions for you, and if you like to call those who are wealthy money "hoarders" thats fine. But you just need to realize that you're supporting someone who will come in and tell that person how to spend their money. They want to control your life. The sooner you realize this the better. Some never do.
IDBillzFan Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 And all Obama said in that debate is that the insanely rich ought to be paying higher taxes than their secretaries. You mean they're not? Well I'll be damned. The insanely rich and their secretaries pay the same amount in taxes. I didn't know that.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted October 21, 2008 Author Posted October 21, 2008 That's fine. You're falling for it. You're the protege "Liberal Student" who believes they're being intellectual, and thinking for themselves, but fail to recognize that in their rants (like the one you had above this) undermine family values and refer to those who work hard as hoarding money. I think your vicious cycle comment which I failed to allude to earlier was the false impression that was recited to you over and over by whatever liberal mentor has most recently brainwashed you. You can call me an !@#$, and a right-wing whatever, but the truth is, I've made no attempts to make decisions for other people, and I do not support that. From what it sounds like to me, you do. And if you think that you'll just fall for "it is time for change", and that everything will change for the better, then hopefully in 15 or 20 years you'll wake up, and realize what the change brought us? More government, and less security. If you like people to make decisions for you, and if you like to call those who are wealthy money "hoarders" thats fine. But you just need to realize that you're supporting someone who will come in and tell that person how to spend their money. They want to control your life. The sooner you realize this the better. Some never do. First, I'm a what? a protege liberal student? Whose protege am I? And of course you're just resorting to your conservative buzzwords like "undermining family values" and "those who work hard" (in reference to those who make money) There are those who don't do a lick of work all day and still make 6 figures and there are those barely scraping by who do 60 hours of manual labor a week. You just assume that all poor people are lazy and could be making loads of money if they just tried harder. Not true. And the whole family values thing? Maybe those are your values, but not mine. Why do you treat family values as if it's something that's supposed to be universally agreed upon. And I'm sure that if I'm brainwashed, you are just as brainwashed as me, but from people of the conservative perspective. I interact with both liberals and conservatives on a daily basis and for the most part I tend to agree with the liberals. I don't see how that's brainwashing. And regarding the election. No, I'm not an Obama supporter, I was a Bill Richardson supporter. But the country CANNOT continue down the same war monger oil hungry bullsh*t path that it's on, and McCain is so much more likely to do that. This is a football site, so consider this football comparison. You've just fired your head coach and need a replacement. The team is 0-5 and needs to rebound quickly if it's got a shot. Do you hire a coach who is going to enact the same exact play calling and philosophy as the last one, or do you shake things up? I'm not saying Obama will be perfect, but he'll be better than just having more of the same.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 First, I'm a what? a protege liberal student? Whose protege am I? And of course you're just resorting to your conservative buzzwords like "undermining family values" and "those who work hard" (in reference to those who make money) There are those who don't do a lick of work all day and still make 6 figures and there are those barely scraping by who do 60 hours of manual labor a week. You just assume that all poor people are lazy and could be making loads of money if they just tried harder. Not true. And the whole family values thing? Maybe those are your values, but not mine. Why do you treat family values as if it's something that's supposed to be universally agreed upon. And I'm sure that if I'm brainwashed, you are just as brainwashed as me, but from people of the conservative perspective. I interact with both liberals and conservatives on a daily basis and for the most part I tend to agree with the liberals. I don't see how that's brainwashing. And regarding the election. No, I'm not an Obama supporter, I was a Bill Richardson supporter. But the country CANNOT continue down the same war monger oil hungry bullsh*t path that it's on, and McCain is so much more likely to do that. This is a football site, so consider this football comparison. You've just fired your head coach and need a replacement. The team is 0-5 and needs to rebound quickly if it's got a shot. Do you hire a coach who is going to enact the same exact play calling and philosophy as the last one, or do you shake things up? I'm not saying Obama will be perfect, but he'll be better than just having more of the same. Is it safe to assume you will be voting Republican for Senate and Congress? After all you should shake things up when the offensive and defensive coordinators are not performing up to par. Or do you just believe in blaming everything on the head coach?
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 Barack Obama (I wholeheartedly agree, not a good candidate for president) wants to increase taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year. How does that hurt those people? Maybe they can't afford that in-ground pool anymore? If I ever end up making that much money, I will GLADLY give 70% of it away to charity because the feeling of helping your fellow man is better than having possessions IMO. You only need a certain amount of money to live comfortably, and I'm surprised more people don't feel guilty about saving up for that brand new BMW while others suffer needlessly. First, I'm a what? a protege liberal student? Whose protege am I? And of course you're just resorting to your conservative buzzwords like "undermining family values" and "those who work hard" (in reference to those who make money) There are those who don't do a lick of work all day and still make 6 figures and there are those barely scraping by who do 60 hours of manual labor a week. You just assume that all poor people are lazy and could be making loads of money if they just tried harder. Not true. And the whole family values thing? Maybe those are your values, but not mine. Why do you treat family values as if it's something that's supposed to be universally agreed upon. What school do you go to? Is there a less expensive option that would allow you to donate the money you saved to a "less fortunate" person who could not otherwise attend College? Talk is cheap, you are willing to give away other people's money so how about we evaluate your situation and tell you when you should feel guilty. Get back to us after you spend some time in the real world and we'll see if you have really given away all but a small portion of your income.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted October 21, 2008 Author Posted October 21, 2008 What school do you go to? Is there a less expensive option that would allow you to donate the money you saved to a "less fortunate" person who could not otherwise attend College? Talk is cheap, you are willing to give away other people's money so how about we evaluate your situation and tell you when you should feel guilty. Get back to us after you spend some time in the real world and we'll see if you have really given away all but a small portion of you income. I go to Cornell. Hoist by my own pitard, perhaps? Anyway, that is a good point, and I'm man enough to admit when somebody has properly called me out. But I'm being honest when I say that I go here because I think it gives me the best chance to pursue what I'm going after in a career, not because I'd like to make more money.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted October 21, 2008 Author Posted October 21, 2008 And since I've been showed up, I guess I'll admit that sometimes I just like to be a douchebag and exaggerate my argument for the sake of exacerbation. I still disagree with absolutely everything murra has said so far, but am I REALLY going to give 70% of my income to charity? nah Though I am more charitable than your average student. Apologies. Seriously though, chickenwing, I give you props for seeing through some of my bull sh--.
murra Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 And since I've been showed up, I guess I'll admit that sometimes I just like to be a douchebag and exaggerate my argument for the sake of exacerbation. I still disagree with absolutely everything murra has said so far, but am I REALLY going to give 70% of my income to charity? nah Though I am more charitable than your average student. Apologies. Seriously though, chickenwing, I give you props for seeing through some of my bull sh--. I don't understand you.
Recommended Posts