# Conservative/Moderates vs Far Left Liberals



## PineMan (Jul 23, 2008)

This post is meant for those in the US, but others may find it interesting.

I am going to lay out my thoughts in this matter and welcome any others that wish to add their opinion and thoughts.
*No one will ever be blocked* from expressing themselves. Now* I have not called anyone any bad names or used any profanity*, but expressed my feelings.* Please keep your replies civil*.

Being a conservative/moderate, which comprises about 75% of the US population, I will share a few insights I have gleaned in my 70+ years.

I have nothing against liberals, who actually believe in their way of thinking. This is mainly due to their education from grade school all the way through college.

College makes students more liberal due to the liberal slant the majority of teachers inject into their courses.
Simply put for the most part students just assume what the teachers are saying is correct and accept it at face value. Usually once out in the real world they will see the truth though.

Further - Professors: Just As Liberal, Or More Moderate?

It's the *Far Left Radicals* that I have a beef with. They want to destroy our country and turn it into a vision something unrealistic and unattainable. A Liberal utopia where everyone has an *equal share of everything*. That sounds like Communism to me, and we can all see how that has working out.

Like Winston Churchill once said - "*It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.*"

I have complied a few tactics that *Far Left Radicals* use in their cause.

The following are some irrefragable evidence and facts for my argument. Backed up with sources and/or examples.

*Far Left Radicals* mention the big lie all the time.

"*The Big Lie*", It's true. The *Far Left Liberals use it all the time*. Some examples:

George Bush is a moron. Do you really think a moron can graduate from Harvard AND Yale?
Obama is a genius. Then Obama has an equal chance of be a moron since he also graduated from Harvard (but not Yale)

*The rich need to pay their fair share!*

Well, the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. Taxes paid by the top 10% in 2009

*That 70% would cover Social Security, Defense and Medicare and Medicaid with 8% left over to cover unemployment and other entitlements.*










*Republicans are racists*. *The biggest big lie*. Lets just stick with 3 examples for each party.

*Republicans*:
Abraham Lincoln - Abolished slavery
Ulysses S. Grant - 1866 Civil Rights Act and 1871 Civil Rights Act
Dwight David Eisenhower - Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1960

*Democrats*:
JFK - Voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act 
JFK - Opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president.
Robert Byrd - Member of the KKK - Longest-serving senator and the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Congress

Further: National Black Republican Association - Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats

And don't forget that *Martin Luther King, Jr was a republican.*

Read up on *George Wallace* and *Orval Eugene Faubus*

Here's an amusing one that I see a lot of: *FOX Lies*. Most of the media in this country (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and the *Far Left MSNBC*) are to the Left in their reporting, except for FOX.

They have their faults also, but on the whole offer a voice to both sides of the topic at hand. When someone says "FOX lies" and they are asked for an example they usually pause for a second with a blank look and reply "FOX lies". They've had years to get together and settle on one example and can't do it.

It's the *Far left Radicals* who are out to really hurt this country any way they can. 
There are about 1 in 20 people that also think in the same far left/liberal way, as this Gallup polls show:










It's also a good thing that less than 22% of this country think of themselves as liberals or this country would be more in debt than it already is, due to their tax and spend philosophy.










*Looking at the above chart you can see just how far out of the mainstream liberals are.*

To sum it up the *Far left Radicals*, after reading this will probably reply with some more of their standard evil right wing conspiracy rhetoric and invalid justifications for their way of thinking. The other 95% will see it for what it really is though.

They even have a rule book to tell them how to think and act. *Rules for Radicals* by Saul D. Alinsky. Written over 40 years ago.

When the *Far left Radicals* can't come up with a valid response they will start calling names and try to shout you down. They oppose any one that disagrees with them and will gather in a group and make a fuss so that no one else can be heard. Then they claim victory!

One last word.

*Conservatives and Moderates* would rather teach a man to fish so he can support himself.

*on the other hand*

*Liberals* would rather give him fish to keep him dependent and thus get his vote.

Isn't it obvious by now how Democrats get most of their votes? The more dependents, the more votes.
That and union money. They take union money to get elected, then make laws favoring unions which in turn will get more money to give them. ad infinitum…
Who ends up paying for this? Everybody else!

*That is basically their strategy.*

*That government is best which governs least. - Thomas Paine*

The last word: Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

The problem PineMan is the left really does confuse their education and intelligence with wisdom.

You are a good man for not blocking anyone…I know you are not concerned with others opinions and let your own stand by the light of the day.

I hope that civil discussion will come out of your post but the deer slayer will be out to get you with his threats, name calling and bullying. Stand proud an hold your ground sir.

I am sure a pseudo thread with a very similar name is to follow as well. Sad sad little people they are.


----------



## Gene01 (Jan 5, 2009)

One can usually gauge the accuracy of a conservative's post by the condescension and/or vehemence with which he is attacked.

And, RockyTopScott, lets not confuse an education with intelligence…. or wisdom.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

The biggest problem with liberals and conservatives is that they are not nearly as far apart as they think they are.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Charlie, did you start Mardi Gras early this year?


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Scott, all I'm saying really is that we tend to get too wrapped up in the polar opposites. Yes, that person who is to the far left on every issue is quite different from the person who is all the way to the right on every issue. But, in reality, very few people actually fit that description. Most of us fall somewhere in between. We might take the more liberal view on one issue, and a conservative view on another.

If we could discuss individual issues in a civil manner, without mentally forcing others into a specific mold that we have designed in our own minds, we would all be better off. That's the biggest reason our government is stalled, IMO. Each party demonizes the other, sticks the "conservative" and "liberal" labels on them, and refuses to find the common ground.

For example, I'm a registered Republican who happens to be pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage, and I'm all for allowing women into full combat positions. On the other hand, I think government spending is out of control, I'm pro- gun ownership, and anti- minority set-asides. So does that make me a liberal or a conservative? If you can figure it out, let me know.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

It is usually not the issues that divide us Charlie as much as it is the solutions and the meaning of words.

For example, referring to illegal immigrants as undocumented workers is like saying a drug dealer is an unlicensed pharmacist.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

I really couldn't care less whether you call him a "drug dealer" or an "unlicensed pharmacist", as long as he ends up in the "high-security exit-limited hotel".


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I am still thinking about women in full combat positions. Got any pictures?


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Now I see what you mean about the meaning of words.


----------



## PineMan (Jul 23, 2008)

Charlie - You are correct. That's why only 5% of the population is Far Left. The Very vocal minority.
The 75% who are either conservative or moderate are typically the silent majority. It's mainly the far left takes the rest to task and with them it's always their way or the highway. There is no in between.

I'm like you in all but one respect. Gay marriage. Not because god says it wrong, but because it's not viable. If two gay guys were stranded on an island for 100 years that would be the end them. If it were a male/female couple at least there is a chance of finding their children. It's impossible for anyone to argue with that reasoning. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That being said, I have no problems with civil unions. Semantics, huh?

Another thing that makes me different from conservatives is that I'm agnostic when it comes to religion.
As long as they don't try to push their version of it on me, it perfectly fine with me what people believe.


----------



## HawkDriver (Mar 11, 2011)

Wow, I think I am finding the woodworkers that have the same views as I. For a while I thought I must be losing my mind and no one feels the same way as I do. Thanks for speaking up guys!


----------



## PineMan (Jul 23, 2008)

HawkDriver - There are a lot more than you think. Silent majority and all that.

I remember being taken to a Bar in Barstow when I was a kid. It was off the freeway to the west and on the right side of the street. It had an old west bar that came around South America from some place on the east coast. It even had a few bullet holes if I remember correctly.

I took this picture when I was there because a friend had never seen the sign. It's right after you get in the I-40 from the I-15. THe very start of the I-40.


----------



## HawkDriver (Mar 11, 2011)

I drive by that sign every day on my way to work at the Barstow-Dagget airport!


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

I largely have to disagree completely with your post and that is cause I don't think that anyone really fits into any kind of clear demarcation and the attempt to make it so is half the problem that we have. In seminary I was too conservative for many while only 30 miles away I'm one of the most liberal and I don't feel that I'm either but rather somewhere in the middle. As I think the biggest issue is that no matter where anyone actually stands they like to think of themselves being in the middle so I could be wrong about where I actually stand. Like Charlie I kind of pull from both sides of the issue, though I'll argue that a pot dealer isn't an issue and doesn't need to go to prison.

Pineman, did you ever think that the lack of viability could be the best reason to give gay marriage full rights? In a world that is quickly heading to overpopulation I've often pondered if the surge in homosexuality isn't some sort of biological trigger to help prevent overcrowding, though made less effective due to modern science. Only a thought but something I've wondered about. By giving them full rights you open the door for them to adopt from all the kids in social services who need care and nurturing.


----------



## tommyt654 (Dec 16, 2008)

WOODNET in the making


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Rev. Russ… Okay, I'll meet you halfway on the pot dealer: He can stay out of jail as long as he pays taxes on his profits. 

Just curious, though…. Do you really think homosexuality is on the rise? I suspect the percentage of people who are homosexual is pretty much constant, but people are just more open about it now than they were in the past.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Looking at the statistics you supplied, the far Right is larger than the far Left, and I believe equally bonkers. Both fringes have pushed their respective parties to the extreme, and left the middle with no one who really addresses the issues that matter to them.

I'm with Charlie on most issues he discussed; I'm in favor of smaller government & fiscal prudence in spending, but I want the government out of bedroom and religious issues. Neither party reflects this, so who do I vote for? As an atheist I'm forced to hold my nose and vote Dem while the Rep's are so wrapped up in promoting religion.

PineMan - serious question for you, really, I'm not trolling. As far as gay marriage; your example is valid, but so what? I'm married and have two kids. Good friends of our are gay and will probably get married (live in NY) and they won't have kids (don't want them.) What difference does it make to you or me if they marry? Besides the religious objection, I've never heard a good reason to deprive someone else of rights just because we find it distasteful. It's not like making gay marriage legal will force anyone to get married to someone of the same sex.

One note about your tax example - looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget (I don't know how to embed the pictures. This is based on the same OMB data you used.) Federal personal income taxes collected were $899billion. I agree with your 70% for the top 10% number, meaning the top 10% put in $629B. According to spending for 2010 Defense spending was $689B. So the income taxes paid by the top 10% doesn't even cover Defense spending, let alone SS, medicare, Medicade, and Defense as you suggested above. In fact, the Feds collected $2.2trillion in all taxes, and SS, Medicare/Medicade, Defense, and interest cost us $2.38T; of the $3.5trillion spent, everything else was borrowed.

One flaw in democracy is that the people can vote themselves more than they can afford. We've been letting politician of both parties tell us we can have our cake and eat it too for decades now. We've finally started to see a problem, but like true addicts, we can't stop. Poll after poll shows that people, of all parties, including the Tea Party, do not want serious cuts in Medicare and Social Security (which they 'earned', which is a joke, since promised benefit are more than they ever put into the system.) Of course we have our entire national identity wrapped up in being the biggest bad a** on the planet, so we won't cut defense spending. And everyone knows we have to pay interest on the debt. Those 4 items exceed ALL Federal taxes collected. We can cut EVERYTHING else and still be in the hole year after year. Add to that the projected explosion in Medicare costs as the nation ages, and we're looking at a huge hole.

Getting the economy growing will certainly help, but it is not enough. The 30 year experiment has shown lowering taxes on the rich are not sufficient to spur economic activity; supply side economics ignores the demand side. If people can not afford to buy the products, suppliers won't make them. Increasing middle class incomes, as occurred in the 50's and 60's, leads to greater consumption and larger economic growth. The rich and companies would get a smaller piece of a larger pie and still make more. I'm not in favor of government redistribution of wealth, but companies need to share productivity increases with workers to keep them in a position to buy their goods.

The People need to wake up, realize they can not continue to get more out of the government than they put in, and start getting significantly fewer benefits as well as paying higher taxes. Taxes across the board are historically low, particularly for the rich. The poor and elderly don't want to give up benefits, and the rich and working class don't want to 'share,' by paying taxes. Unsustainable. I'd like to see pretty much all the cost saving ideas from both parties enacted; cut benefits, slash military spending, and increase taxes. Now, doing this during a period of slow economic growth is also suicidal and pretty much guarantees a depression. We could at least legislate a timetable for these changes which I think would have a huge positive effect on the economy. But neither party will do it, and the people won't allow it.

Sigh….


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

John, you make some excellent points.

Let me just make this clear: My original intention in responding to this thread was to point out the problems of labeling people and lumping them together. I listed a few of my views just as an example to show that we don't all fit into one category or the other.

I'm one of the people who has no problem with political or religious discussion in the non-shop-talk forum. I just wish folks would keep it more issue-specific. If you want to talk about gun control, or term limits, or debate the merits of a flat tax, that's great. I just get a little tired of the overly broad posts that tend to be nothing but a "Republicans are evil" or "liberals are stupid" hate rant.

I've come to feel the same way about political parties as I do about organized religions: People tend to get so wrapped up in promoting theirs and bashing someone else's that they forget the important stuff.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*"...Rush Limbaugh "doctor shopping," or illegally deceiving multiple doctors to receive overlapping prescriptions, after learning that he received about 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion."*

So why isn't THIS Right Wingnut drug pushing addict in jail? Rules different for the Right?


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

*George Bush is a moron. Do you really think a moron can graduate from Harvard AND Yale?
and
lets not confuse an education with intelligence…. or wisdom. *
.
I don't disagree with some of the OP's points and I don't disagree with some of Mike's.
I can tell you by personal experience that a total idiot can successfully graduate from either of those schools.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Mike you have a reference to where Rush sold drugs (drug pushing)?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Mike you have a reference to where Rush sold drugs (drug pushing)?

From here probably. He had his own live-in maid selling drugs from his home! But be real Scott, Limbaugh was pumping $100s of thousands of $$$ into the drug pushing establishment and you seem to infer that THAT is OK and NOT a crime?










Arrest Warrant Details/Copy

Drug Addict


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Make up my inferences as you see fit Mike. Whatever makes you happy.

It certainly won't be the first time you made something up.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Check the links there Scott, moore to come… and remember YOU asked the question.


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

Charlie, I am of the opinion that pot should be legalized and companies should be packaging it. Considering dime bags were 20.00 back when I was an undergrad you could probably have packs selling for 20 with 12-15 of that nothing but taxes and no one would whine. Let all the non-violent pot dealers and users go and spare the system the cost.

John, why shouldn't people expect more out of social security then they put in? I expect more out of my pension, mutual funds, and other investments for when I retire then I put in so why not social services. The only reason that there isn't is mismanagement. If people can't expect more then why pay in and not keep the money to invest personally. Though in all reality the onl yreason I still pay in to it is that I figure the system needs everyone paying in fairly for it to succeed. I could, like some friends, legally opt out and invest the difference.


----------



## xwingace (Apr 25, 2011)

Pineman, I married my wife when I was 45 and she was 47. We don't plan on having kids, nor could we realisitically. Is our marriage therefore void because we are "non-viable"?


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Russ, now you're arguing semantics. A reasonable rate of return is one thing, but when you see a program like medicare where the average person puts in an inflation adjusted ~$150,000 in their lifetime and gets over $400,000 in benefits, it's obviously not sustainable. The WWII generation is in the same boat with SS; getting a huge return on very little investment. The Boomers will get a nice return, and when the dust settles, the rest of us will likely loose money. SS was meant to keep the elderly out of poverty and turned in to a retirement program, with out changing the funding. If the country wants it to be a retirement plan that's fine, but it needs to be funded as such.

Another thing to remember is that the excess SS funds were not 'stolen' for other things; the Government gave the SS Administration treasury bonds for every penny, which is still earning interest (those bonds are part of the national debt number.) They are now cashing in those bonds to cover costs as benefits paid exceeds revenue. When the bonds run out they will only be able to cover 78% of benefits unless something changes.

My larger point is that you have politicians of every stripe campaigning on how they can get more money back from Washington than was sent in, and people elect these guys. We should all know this is to good to be true, but we keep doing it.

I think blaming it on one party or another is like trying to say I prefer viral over bacterial infections; not a heck of a choice.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

John, both of your posts in this thread have alot of truth to them…can't agree with it all but alot of stuff that is dead on.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^I prefer treponeme infections, personally


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

What do you mean, an African or a European swallow?


----------



## NBeener (Sep 16, 2009)

WHAT … is your name ?

WHAT … is your quest ???


----------



## Tennessee (Jul 8, 2011)

derosa, when you say you don't think there are really left-wing nuts out there, you have never read some of the posts I see on my Facebook page. Since I got into guitars, a lot of people have "liked" my page, so I also see their non-music posts on my main personal page. There was one who was so far left, I defriended him rather than see that dribble everyday. He is on some kind of disability, (although he does work), he gets an Air Force pension, his wife gets a SS disability pension, and he constantly bitched that there wasn't going to be enough money to keep him in his brand new Section 8 condo in the midwest.

Another one who I still tolerate, (I don't know why), posts things like the 18 best reasons to kill Republicans, why all conservatives should be put in jail, that kind of dribble. These are people who vote, who never have a sound reason for what they say, (save for the government checks they get each month), and as far as I am concerned, free speech stops when you talk about killing fellow Americans.

I also believe that to get welfare and an EBT card AND unemployment, you should be made to pass a drug test, a really, really hard one like Olympic participants take.

Legalizing more drugs beyond alchohol is putting a second wrong, a worse one, out there. I really want to know that the guy passing me on the way to work has had a nice joint for breakfast. Breakfast of champions. No thanks.

As far as illegal aliens, it's a real problem, but if you were sitting 200 miles South of the Arizona border, in a dirt floor hut, with a kid or two, you have three choices: Sit and starve, head South to be shot by people in South American dictator countries, or head North and enjoy America if you can get in. Get the wall up first, then we can have a discussion on how to end this. Most people believe that rounding up 12 million plus Mexicans is just about impossible, so let's get the wall up and then we can decide if we want to keep them, maybe by letting states decide. By simply cutting off the benefits, it is estimated that almost half would go back South across the border. Right now, this current administration, I believe, is strangely trying to turn this large group of people into a voting bloc. Just today, the Attorney General successfully argued against Kingston, NC who wanted to eliminate party affiliation from their ballots in the upcoming general. Holder's team got the judge to rule verbally, (and I quote), "that the voters would not be able to find the Democrats on the ballot". So is Holder trying to say black people and illegals who are voting because you don't have to present ID cannot tell who is who? If you participate in the political process in America shouldn't you at least know who you are voting for? Or is it just a push of a button for a bag of food or something similar? Or is this a sidestep plot for the Democratic machine to gin up the numbers? I'll let you decide. Me, I want a wall…

In most cases, I would be a fairly conservative person. I work two jobs, my wife also works. We pay our bills, we donate to our church. My now deceased gay brother was athiest, but although it bothered me, I never tried to convert him in religion or lifestyle. Instead I loved him and prayed for him. It was his choice. But…I do not believe in gay marriage, nor do I believe in benefits for them because there is no legal precedent for it in this country. 21 times, states have said no to gay marriage. Do we have to do all 50? And they can break up in a heartbeat. No legal binding document for the benefits. If I have to show some sort of proof that I am married to get medical coverage for my spouse, so should they. If I was not married, and pretended that my girlfriend was my wife, at some point someone would find out, I would be convicted of fraud, and fined and maybe jailed, certainly lose my job. But since gays and lesbians live together with no binding documents, they think they deserve the same benefits as a married couple. Sorry, no dice.

I am pro-life. Enough said on that.

I am tired of being the police of the world, but unfortunately no one else will step up. At least people think twice or three times before messing with the USA. As Mr. Laden found out, as well as thousands of his followers.

I think the United Nations should be cut off and let some other country like France take them for a few decades. We've done our share…

No, I'm not a Ron Paul disciple, but I also am very, very tired of supporting people who do not work.

My day job is sales with a mechanical contractor. The HVAC systems we are currently putting in a Section 8 housing project in my community is top shelf, as is everything they are getting. Green certified building, stainless appliances, the whole bit. We estimate the two bedroom units would go for about $177,000 each if put on the open market. Instead, they will be given to people who don't know how to earn money, and for just one third of their monthly income, be it welfare, EBT cards, whatever, they will get one of these. When I was young, my parents were not rich, quite the contrary. We lived in an old trailer in Wyoming. Their answer? They worked extra jobs…The government tit is dry. Take a bath and get a job!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Greetings Paul,

I am about 20 miles from you as the crow flies.

It is a pleasure to hear from you sir.

Scott


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Paul- Hooray!!! I'm so much in favor of the wall… Just the rhetoric is mind-numbing: immigration reform, as a subject, assumes there is policy that needs reformation. I say, let's start with enforcement.

And, for Neil, What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

"*A reasonable rate of return is one thing, but when you see a program like medicare where the average person puts in an inflation adjusted ~$150,000 in their lifetime and gets over $400,000 in benefits, it's obviously not sustainable.*"

John, I'm not trying to argue against your point in general, but this statement caught my eye so I did a little calculating. It would take saving roughly $275 per month for 45 years to build up $150,000 if the return rate was zero. But if you were earning a 4% return on ivestment, that same $275 per month would be worth $408,000 after 45 years.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

What Charlie said,... +1

*Smitty SAID: I say, let's start with enforcement.*
Smitty, so just how well is that "enforcement" thing working out for you? Never mind that the USA already jails more folks than ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

Ignoring State Jails and Probation and only taking Federal Prisoners the U.S. has 1,587,403 more federal prisoners than in China; 1,307,001 more than in Russia; 1,799,543 more than in Brazil and 1,813,544 more than in India, yet these countries has significantly larger populations.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Very pretty graphics indeed. But you're directing prison statistics at a post that talked about a lack of enforcement of existing immigration law. I observed that the US is not in contol of the border. You agree? Fine. Disagree? That's okay too. How is 'not staying on point' working for you?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Could enforcement not entail something other than jail? Seems to me we would need to measure all comporable methods of enforcement to make an accurate comparison of "enforcement".

But I don't have a doctorate degree so I could be wrong.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Wow, nice citation. Libertyforlife… Assasinating Lincoln's character, calling for public servants to be shot, etc. Interesting stuff, indeed. I guess the shooting avoids prison overcrowding.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Thank you, enforcement can mean more than jail. A rational discussion will be interesting and insightful. Lectures? Not so much.


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

HorizontalMike said "Smitty, so just how well is that "enforcement" thing working out for you?"

I don't see the correlation between US prison population and deportation.

As far as the prison population goes, it just shows that we have more criminals that got caught and convicted.

I'm not sure but probably a lot of them are illegal aliens that committed crimes here instead of being deported.
If they would have been deported by enforcing our current laws, the prison would probably be a emptier.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

To detain anyone for any period of time is to arrest them and put them in jail, be local, State, or Federal. And Smitty, I am no more off topic than you. BTW, is the wall to keep others OUT or us IN?

The record is clear that the government is better at imprisoning than at building social programs. 
AND besides and VERY MUCH ON-TOPIC: I thought all you conservatives were ,*"...for SMALLER government."*


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Smitty and Miket, please do not confuse the discussion with logic and reason, merely go and cut and paste some propoganda charts and graphs that are not neccesarily relative to any prior posts.

Please play by the rules.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

"George Bush is a moron. Do you really think a moron can graduate from Harvard AND Yale?
and
lets not confuse an education with intelligence…. or wisdom. 
.
I don't disagree with some of the OP's points and I don't disagree with some of Mike's.
I can tell you by personal experience that a total idiot can successfully graduate from either of those schools."

Ivy League schools are about making money, if someone is a legacy (parents, grandparents were graduates) they pretty much only have to be able to sign their own name to get in. The minute someone starts school there their parents are swamped with requests for donations. Don't get me wrong you can get an excellent education there but you can also just sit there, do nothing and graduate with a B+ average.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Charlie,

Fair point, and perhaps I wasn't clear. All those figures are brought to a present value. Here's another take on it which is clearer: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/social-security-medicare-benefits-over-lifetime.pdf 
It analyzes the value of SS and medicare benefits versus taxes paid based on the year an average person/couple turns 65. For the taxes it assumes a return of 2% over inflation. In every case the value of the benefits is higher, often significantly, than the taxes paid.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Scott,
WE really should try to get along since we are woodworkers and share an interest in tools. I noticed you really like DeWalt. How is that working for you? And are you still on a waiting list for that Jet TS or have you reconsidered?

Click image to ENLARGE


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Oh but Mike, you are off topic and saying otherwise doesn't make it so. If you want to discuss prison overcrowding, that's fine. But that's not the context of your post. Re: smaller govt. you're assuming I'm a conservative and want officials shot to achieve smaller govt? Not me, sir.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Mike if you will agree to a suitable trustee/custodian we can both give 50k to each and if you are wrong about both your assumption of that being me in the Amazon picture/listing as well of the picture of the house in the snow you posted earlier that you think is where I live, I keep all 100k.

If you are correct on either posted item, you keep all 100k.

Let's see if you will put your money where your mouth is.

Here is your chance.

If either of your assumed posts is meant to intimidate me, you are wasting your time.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I would gladly give the government only half of what I pay in social security and not receive any benefits because I know I could do better that they could even with just half of the amount.

A 2% return is pretty terrible considering there are rock solid investments (US Savings bonds) that pay more than that and that during the 70's and 80's savings accounts paid some very high interest compared to 2%, heck even just 5 years ago I was earning 5% from an online savings account.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Keep in mind that analysis was 2% *above* inflation; that would be 5.4% for this year, with inflation running 3.4%. EE bonds are currently paying 0.6%, 30 year bond are yielding 2.9%. Doing some quick searching; in 1970 inflation was 5.7% and the 10 year note was about 7.3%, in 1975 inflation was 9.1% and the 10 year was 8%, and in 1980 inflation was 13.5% and the 10 year was 11.2%.

2% over inflation isn't a terrible yield, and the analysis shows SS and medicare are effectively yielding more than that. In order to pay that yield the Government has to take it from the general fund, which means borrowing the money.

Again, my point is it is unsustainable. I would love to see any reasonable analysis that says people, on average, especially Boomers and older, are paying more into social security and medicare than they will get out.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I take that as a no. Is there a smaller amount of money you can afford to lose?


----------



## HamS (Nov 10, 2011)

It is with a bit of trepidation that I enter this discussion, but I have felt the need to express my views and bit my tongue.

When I get over my head and start to spend more than I earn I have two choices, I can stop spending and pay down the bills or I can go get another job and make more money. It is that simple, you either have to raise the revenue or you have to stop spending.

We are at the point int he US that we must stop the spending and raise the revenue or our country will implode. Ronald Reagan saw this and got half of the equation right. He got the revenue increase, but the spending cuts never materialized.

Every time marginal tax rates have been cut revenue has increased. It is really a simple equation, but it is counter intuitive. You think that if you raise taxes to will increase revenue. That works for a short time, but the 'rich' that you raise taxes on have already been taxed at least twice on their income and someplace three times if there is personal property tax. If you take the money from the 'rich', then that money is not available to invest and then companies cannot hire workers, who them selves will pay taxes.

IN my opinion, neither political party is really addressing the core issue at hand which is that it is immoral to use the police power of the state to take the property of someone and give it to someone else. We as a nation are extremely generous at the personal level, but we also expect people to work for what they have.

I do not know all the answers, but I do know that we are, and have been for more than a hundred years, sliding on a slippery slope to anarchy and dissolution. We have enjoyed more years of stable transitions of government than any other nation on earth and that is primarily because we collectively respect the law. However, when there is a growing perception that the fundamental law of the land is being thwarted for political reasons, the support for the institutions that are at the basis of that stability begins to erode.

We are Americans. We change government at the ballot box, not in the streets. We settle questions by having alledgedly wise people who we have elected make those decisions. We don't settle questions by absenting ourselves from opur place of duty when a vote is scheduled that we disagree with. If you have don't have the votes, you need to get more people elected to the legislature that think the way you do.

I played the part of John Hancock in the musical 1776, about the declaration of independence battle. In that show there was line about the union, "Who will then govern Mr. Adams?, Why the people Mr. Rutledge. Which people Mr. Adams?, the people of Massachusetts or the people of South Carolina? It is our understanding that the states are banding together for the common defense and that is all."

While this question really was settled at Appomattax Courthouse, we are still struggling with our inability to live within the structure of the governing document we have made.

The historian in me would really like to point out the paradox that the Democrat party was established by people who abhored a strong government in Washington. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson come to mind. The Republican party was founded by people who where determined that the national government would be sovereign over the states. The constitution really takes the position that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states belonmg to the states.

Enough of the history lesson, taxes are too high, spending is too high, jobs are too few, government cannot generate jobs, but it sure can kill them.

The rest of the issues: Let gays marry in New York and California, it is not my issue. If my representative in the Indiana legislature wants Indiana to legalize gay marraige, I will probably vote agin her next election, but I don't think the state has much business in the marryin' business. To me marraige is a personal and sacramental commitment and God has a lot to say, but the rest of you don't.

I also don;t think anyone should go with health care. But I do not think the system we have makes any sense at all. If you want to see what government health care is like, come with me the next time I go see my doctor at the VA medical center. Yes I am free loadin' on you working folks at a government facility, you were welcome to stand with me in Berlin and the Fulda Gap and you could enjoy those benefits as well.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Scott Moore SAID: I take that as a no. Is there a smaller amount of money you can afford to lose?*

Come on Scott, is that any way for a man of god to act? Take a deep breath and exhale slo..owly… We REALLY do need to come to an agreement and be civil…


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Okay Mike an agreement…tell you what…c'mon on over to Alpharetta and we can have a beer and chat about long grain versus end grain gluing. You know, woodworking stuff.

Or I could come to your place and do the same.

Let's wait until summer…..will your next door neighbor let us swim in their above gound pool?

I guess I could visit in the spring, I hear there are alot of species of birds in your neck of the woods. I would love to see them.

We could sit on your front porch and look out over Shaeferkoeter Lake. Maybe catch lunch at UT Health Science Center.

I will mark you as my buddy in few. Okey dokey with you? Thanks for being so understanding.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Scott,
Just what I thought, NOBODY HOME at the Moore's


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

John,
*derosa, when you say you don't think there are really left-wing nuts out there, you have never read some of the posts I see on my Facebook page.* 
You misread me, I said that the primary issue is that everyone likes to think that they are center. That means that the left-wing nuts, just like the right-wing versions believe that they are center and that is why everyone should meet with them rather then negotiate. It is one of the principle issues killing our national debates.

*I also believe that to get welfare and an EBT card AND unemployment, you should be made to pass a drug test, a really, really hard one like Olympic participants take*.
Terrible idea, besides being an invasion of privacy. Do you know everything that can set off a drug test? Are you aware that if you are having a drug test you should be careful what bagel you eat that morning? I did smoke pot as an undergrad, when you learned a drug test was coming up at work that day the secret wasn't to get someone else to take it for you, it was to eat and drink the right everyday ingredients so that the test was so horribly failed they would schedule another one for a later date figuring it was an error with the test.
Besides, you don't hurt someone by removing their benefits, you hurt their children. And why should SS, medicaid, or any other publicly funded source of income be different, test them all. Only people that lose out are the tax payers who have to pay for the tests.

*let's get the wall up and then we can decide if we want to keep them, maybe by letting states decide.* 
Walls don't work that well, people will dig under, go over or go around. Again it is just another waste of tax dollars meant to make it look like the government cares. Agree with cutting benefits to illegals, that would save money and keep more people out then any wall.

*I do not believe in gay marriage, nor do I believe in benefits for them because there is no legal precedent for it in this country. 21 times, states have said no to gay marriage. Do we have to do all 50? And they can break up in a heartbeat. No legal binding document for the benefits. If I have to show some sort of proof that I am married to get medical coverage for my spouse, so should they. If I was not married, and pretended that my girlfriend was my wife, at some point someone would find out, I would be convicted of fraud, and fined and maybe jailed, certainly lose my job. But since gays and lesbians live together with no binding documents, they think they deserve the same benefits as a married couple.*
At one time there was no precedent for interracial marriage, fairly common now a days. At one time women couldn't vote in a federal election nor could blacks cause there was no precedent for it. These are only some examples; but a lack of precedent isn't a justifiable reason to deny them their civil rights. 
Give them the right to marry and it won't be any easier to split up, would allow them to have proof of relationship for benefits, and put them on equal footing. Why should a wife who has stood by you for40 years be entitled to your benefits and not a homosexual's partner who has stood by them for 40 years; where is the difference? Give them their civil rights and everything that goes with it, the good and the bad. It is for God to determine what they truly deserve, I suspect we don't think alike on that, but here on earth it is for our nation to safeguard their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness even if it means that others don't like it. Marriage for them fails the test of causing harm to others and they therefore should be allowed their rights.

Mike, I like your charts, very colorful. And finally something we agree on. There is something truly messed up in our system and I believe that it revolves around us having a legal system and not a justice system.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Mike, I like your charts, very colorful. And finally something we agree on. There is something truly messed up in our system and I believe that it revolves around us having a legal system and not a justice system.*

10-4 on THAT for sure. I would only add that THAT legal system has already been "bought and sold" to those top 1%'rs and rich corporations who have written "their own" laws for "their own" *owned* politicians to MAKE into law.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Screen capture before the delete. Genius, you gotta admit.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

HamS - *Every time marginal tax rates have been cut revenue has increased. It is really a simple equation, but it is counter intuitive.*

Let's set aside that the accuracy of this statement is highly dependent on who is doing the analysis. Looking at this logically, if cutting taxes increases revenue, cutting taxes to zero would maximize revenue, which is obviously impossible. By the same argument, if raising taxes increases revenue, raising taxes to 100% would maximize revenue. Again, impossible. As is usually the case, the truth is more complicated than a party slogan would like us to believe. There has to be a sweet spot somewhere where taxes are low enough to spur investment but high enough to run the government that allow the investment to be safe, and provide the infrastructure required for the investment.

I know it's hard to believe, but taxes in the US are at historic lows across the board, and especially low on the very wealthy. Here's a great chart showing historic tax burdens http://www.datapointed.net/2011/03/relative-us-income-taxes-1913-2011/

I think it's hard to argue that recent economic growth has been historically high to go with these low taxes, so perhaps we've gone past that sweet spot. Economic growth during the Clinton Administration was better, and taxes were a bit higher. Likewise, there was no great economic boom, nor a significant increase in revenue, after the Bush tax cuts. I'm not advocating a huge tax increase, but the idea that the only way to raise revenue is to cut taxes does not exactly reconcile with recent economic history.

I do absolutely agree that spending needs to be cut; starting with significant reductions in social security, medicare, and defense. Without cutting those the rest is polishing the handrails on the Titanic.


----------



## greasemonkeyredneck (Aug 14, 2010)

I am neither far left or right, in my opinion. I am not a republican. I am not a democrat. What I am is an American.
I have had some people try to label me this or that for my political views. Let's see if someone here can tell me what political offiliation I am based on my opinions on a couple of the topics mentioned here.
I am a firm believer in God and the King James version of the Holy Bible. I am not, however, a believer in modern organized religion. I read my Bible and pray fathfully. I do not go to church. I am of the belief that I do not need to go to church and put on a show to prove my faith to God. I can sit on my toilet and pray if I so desire, because God knows my every thought, word, and action, and will judge me accordingly. It is not my job to judge others, and I do not think it the job of others to judge me. I am a Christian who smokes, cusses, and just the other day got (yet another) tattoo.
I think gay marriage should be legalized in America. My reasoning for this is because of my religious beliefs. My wife and I were married in a church, before God. The vows we made are what makes our "marriage". The legal document we got from the state of Mississippi is something we got only for legal reasons. The "marriage" that gays want has nothing to do with religious beliefs. All they want is a legal dovument from the states that gives them the same legal rights as any other couple in America. A gay person who builds a life with their partner should be afforded the exact same rights as a straight person that builds a life with their partner. To deny them of this is clear an undeniable discrimination. A lot of people make the religious argument against gay marriage. This argument does not hold water on two levels. One, we have something in this country called seperation of church and state. Therefore, religious arguments have nothing to do with laws. Second, a truly religious person (according to my beliefs) has no right to judge anyone based on sexual orientation, color, beliefs, or any other criteria. That is God's job, not ours.
If we are to imprison all immigrants, legal or not, we only cost ourselves more money with no real solution to the problems. My family, only a couple of generations ago, came here from France. They became citizens by following the rules and doing what they were supposed to do. My biggest gripe with the immigration issue actually is the fact that I never should have to push one for english. My family had to learn basic english as a requirement to become citizens. My grandfather's english wasn't great, but he knew enough to function in an english speaking society without expecting that society to cater to him. 
I think both sides have the immigration issue wrong. We have to look at the root of the problem. Why do they come here illigally and take the chance? Well, they do it because of the opportunity. So take that opportunity away. Go after the businesses that hire them. I read an article the other day about a farmer that payed measly wages that complained that Americans would not work for the same amount as the mexicans would. He's 100% correct. However, I heard the reporter use this as an excuse for the Mexicans. I didn't take it that way. I took it as a bad thing that the farmer was doing to the Mexicans. Make it so that Mexicans (or anyone else) can come here legally and work for a living wage, but can't come here illegally and work for pennies. Doing this benefits all. When the illegals can no longer work without being competetive with everyone else and becoming legal, they'll either work at becoming legal or go back home. They also benefit by making more than they're making now for becoming legal. I know there are other issues at work with this one too, but you get the idea. Pitting them against us, while employers hat hire them keep making their money on cheap labor and laughing all the way to the bank does nothing productive to solve the immigration issues as a whole. 
Prison systems are overcrowded. Part of the reason for this is how easy it is to go to prison. On this issue, let's combine it with the drug issue mentioned. I think they should legalize it and tax the hell out of it. No I am not naive enough as I've heard some people that this will magically wipe all drug violence out overnight. It will at least cut down on the cost of the drug war (which is a failure, by the way) while adding to the tax dollars coming in. The people in prison who are there for violent crimes related to drugs need to stay there for the violent crime side of it. The ones there because they got caught with weed (or some other BS charge and couldn't afford a good lawyer) need to be let go. Illegal aliens who commited any crime, need to be deported. If they are illegal and commiting other crimes, we don't need them here, much less paying to house them in jail. Enough on drugs and prisons. I could go on for hours on my ideas there.
We don't need to raise taxes on the rich. We do need to eliminate all tax loopholes. The problem is not that they are not taxed enough. The problem is that with the loopholes, a lot of them are not paying those taxes. Also, when I say loopholes, I also mean the loopholes that allow businesses to dodge taxes by stting up shop overseas. We have businesses that do millions of dollars of business right here in America, whose owners and CEOs live here in America, who pay little to no taxes. It's been said that these are the job creaters. Fine, I'll buy that. Now tie those tax breaks to job creation. We can't give tax breaks to the rich in HOPES that they'll create jobs. It's been proven that they won't. So show us the jobs, you get your tax breaks. It's as simple as that.
So what is the biggest problem in America today? I say it's lack of common sense. I've asked people I know well who they're voting for in certain elections. You know that answer I get most often? I'm voting republican, or democrat. That is ridiculous that some people vote a certain party and can't even name the candidate, much less what the candidate's principles are. We need to wake up as a nation. Vote some people in that we think will put country first. Give them one term to prove it, ONE TERM ONLY. If they don't prove it, next election, vote their ass out. I hear often on candidate's campaign trails these day, "are you better off now than when so and so was elected". Wrong question. The question on EVERYONE's minds should be is your COUNTRY better off?
Our country has become so divided that it is doomed to fail eventually if people don't remember that old truth, together we stand, devided we fall.

Thank you all. I will get off my soapbox now.


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

jmos - for tax rates check out the Laffer Curve

William - You are a liberal right wing republocrat.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

One other thought on gay marriage; my solution would be for the Government (Fed to local) to replace the word 'marriage' in all laws with 'civil unions.' Government would then be in the civil union business for everyone, gay and straight. Give the word marriage to the Churches; if you want to be married you go to your church and they can decide who they will or will not marry. Of course, if your getting married, you would still get a civil union cert like you get a marriage license today. This provides equal protection under the law, but preserves the religious aspect of marriage as narrowly or broadly as each Church likes.

Businesses could then go back to only providing benefits to only those in Unions. Breaking a Union would be just as hard (or easy) as it is now. Churches keep their autonomy. Separation of church and state is a good thing.

Miket - good link. Thanks. I had forgotten the name.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

jmos,
Absolutely,... the State should only sanctify "Civil Unions" period. Getting into the religion business is a lose/lose proposition and is against the US Constitution of the separation of church and State.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

William, I like your style!


----------



## Tennessee (Jul 8, 2011)

Well, Rev. Russ, I'm Paul, not John, but no matter. Let me try to answer your repost comments to my post. The people I see on Facebook who post these ideas of killing Republicans and jailing conservatives, along with the complaints of folks who don't have enough money to stay in their Section 8 housing are extreme, I agree. 
But it is more their gall that our government should be taking care of them, and that other's opinions should be completely silenced. I cannot remember one Tea Party comment ever published that mentioned death. And the supposed comments that were made on the steps of the capital to congressmen and women by Tea Party people were never confirmed, either by eye witness or video.

Now for the drugs: If drug tests are so inaccurate, why do most companies require it as a condition of employment, as well as all law enforcement, our military, NFL, NBA, NHL, Post Office, etc. etc? If my tax monies are going to support people, at the very least I feel they should be clean. As far as testing SS recipients, I would argue that my 40 years of tax reciepts showing my payment into a system that has been raided multiple times by the government that invented it should preclude me needing a drug test. I trusted the US government to take care of my money so I would have some retirement security. They did not, and we are where we are. And I'm still paying into the system, and probably will since I plan on working till about 70. SS and welfare are not even remotely related, save they both use tax revenue. Which initially by the way SS had it's own monetary account that was raided by congress years ago for more spending on what we cannot even remember. So one is a savings retirement plan,(or was), the other is a social entitlement.

As far as your comment about the wall, Nancy Pelosi said one time, "show me a 20 foot wall, and I'll show you a 21 foot ladder". But when Israel put one up, it worked so well they were condemmed by the UN, which knew doggone well it would. Why would ours not? We agree on the benefit cuts. When I was getting ready to do a stint in Shanghai for a furniture company, I had to get a number of shots from my local health department, at that time in Mississippi. I had to make an appointment. I wondered why, in my little town of 4500. The health dept was new,and big! I soon found out as I was in line with all Mexicans. Every single one of them, for everything from treatment for the flu to free shots for school, (also free). Benefit elimination would send a lot of the Mexicans back, but I also am very scared of terror groups using what is arguably the most open border on the North American continent. I stand by my wall, we can disagree on that one.

As far as your argument for gay marriage, I have a fundamental disagreement on it being a "civil right", like free speech, or the right to vote. Using your references of history, at one time as you well know, marriage was a religious sacrament, not a civil right. It was totally controlled by the church. We made our fundamental mistake when we allowed the states and other countries to enter the picture and marry people who argued that just because they didn't believe in a god, they could not marry. From there, we entered a slippery slope of secularism, to the point where we now have people who argue that man + man, and woman + woman may have the same sacramental rights as believers. Some day, I would almost bet, some guy is going to want to marry his dog and get health insurance and a SS survivor benefit for Fido. 
And staying historical, THAT sacrament belief goes back to the framers of our constitution, who were all religious believers in One God, and that is why references to God are littered across our federal buildings, our money, our courts, etc. Even today, over 80% of the United States population states a belief in some form of Christianity. 
That's our history… And for the record, 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The constitution says NOTHING about the US Government mandating "happiness", and in truth, if Jefferson, who wrote this sentence, was alive, I would bet my next paycheck he would never imagine gay marriage as a form of happiness. And save for NY and California, the 21 other states who have banned it are the majority I talk about. The world does not end at the city limits of New York or Los Angelas.
Truth be told, we are becoming a nation where the "tail wags the dog", where very small sectors of the population are gaining control of majority opinion, where one person complains of a manger scene in a city when they drive by one time and the whole city has to comply and tear it down.
And yet we consider ourselves a country where the majority rules. 
At one point in his political career, I cannot remember when, Ronand Reagan stated that the last time he looked, 86% of Americans identified themselves as some sort of Christians, and majority rules. And yet we continue to hear stories of people who are demanding a secular society. When in reality, to speak of history once again, we were founded and grew as a country of Believers. So I am simply speaking of the majority.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Paul, the revisionest left will attempt tp falsify your statement regarding our founding fathers and our government….. I know you have heard it before.

As a reminder to all…

We have the Ten Commandments on the doors entering the Supreme Court as well as a picture of Moses holding the Ten Commandments inside

There is a painting of Pocahontas being Baptised in the Capital Rotunda

Congress and the Supreme Court start each session with a prayer

On the cap of the Washington Momument stand the words "Laus Deo" or *"Praise the Lord"*

On the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial you will find the words: I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

And last but certainly not least : "we are endowed by our *Creator* with certain unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Immanuel is everywhere in our government's history and I am thankful for it.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

OK, so if we're a Christian nation, please point out the numerous references to God, or a Creator, in the Constitution. Please show me where the 10 commandments are codified into the constitution, or even common law. At best you get 3 or 4 out of 10; killing, stealing, and perjury. None of the others unless you count some areas with blue laws on Sunday.

Saying this country was founded as a Christian nation is seriously reinterpreting history. Many, if not most, of the founding fathers were deists, not Christians. The author of the Declaration was no friend to Christianity, just look up some Jefferson quotes, there are some great ones. Here's an example "I have examined all of the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our superstitions of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all founded on fables and mythology. Christianity has made one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites."

Further, keeping Christianity out of the Constitution was not even a big issue. Slavery was a big issues, and we ended up with the 3/5's compromise. No such compromise with religion, it was intentionally excluded except to protect people right to worship free from government interference. The FF's wanted to keep church and state separate after seeing what happened in England. They recognized what we seem to be forgetting, that both church and state are better off separate. Combining them corrupts both.

Again, with gay marriage, I agree the State should get out of the sacrament business. Leave that for the Churches and give civil unions to the State. I want married in a church and would happily not be married but in a civil union.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Nice rant John, but what part of the following is not true?

We have the Ten Commandments on the doors entering the Supreme Court as well as a picture of Moses holding the Ten Commandments inside

There is a painting of Pocahontas being Baptised in the Capital Rotunda

Congress and the Supreme Court start each session with a prayer

On the cap of the Washington Momument stand the words "Laus Deo" or "Praise the Lord"

On the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial you will find the words: I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

And last but certainly not least : "we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Having a largely Christian history does not not make us a Christian Nation; something that seem to have been forgotten. Our Nation is founded on the Constitution, which explicitly does *not* mention God. It is not based on the bible.

Take a look at the Treaty of Tripoli 1797; it includes the following "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…" Started by Washington, a Deist, signed by Adams, a Christian, and ratified by the Senate. This was not controversial at the time as no one thought any differently.

Again, your last two examples are completely out of context as they arise from Jefferson, who was not a Christian in any sense of the word. He was a deist who believed in a Creator who started things and let them go without intervention, not an active Christian god.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Food for thought on Jefferson:
Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.
At 5, began studying under his cousin's tutor.
At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.
At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started his own law practice.
At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America" and retired from his law practice.
At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
At 33, took three years to revise Virginia?s legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.
At 40, served in Congress for two years.
At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.
At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.
At 57, was elected the third president of the United States .
At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.
At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired to Monticello .
At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.
.
At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams
Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

jmos wrote: "Having a largely Christian history does not not make us a Christian Nation;"

With 78.4% Christian and 4.7 combined for other, I would beg to differ.










Source: Pew research


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Miket - there is a distinction between being a largely Christian population and being a Christian Nation. Again, our system of government is not based on Christianity. Some would like it to be that way; we could have our very own version of the Taliban stoning women for not dressing modestly enough. The Nation is defined by laws and policies, and we are specifically not Christian.

I would suggest that Christians wouldn't really want it to be so either. Let's say we agreed we needed to add a giant helping of Christianity to our constitution, whose version of Christianity would it be? Can the Evangelicals, the Mormons, the Protestants, the Catholics and all those other groups in your chart above agree?

Also, take note that your chart says almost a quarter of the population is non-Christian. That's not a small number. Are all the people like us not Americans? In a Christian Nation you could make that argument, and I've seen and heard some in the Religious Right argue just that.

One of the best things about the Constitution is the inherent separation of Church and State; it protects both.


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

jmos - When almost 80% of a nation is Christian that would make the nation for most part a Christian nation. The distinction is only a technicality. Christian ideals pervade our culture and country.

Which version? Doesn't really matter. They all follow the teachings of Jesus.

Personally, *I am an atheist*, and I believe I live in a Christian country. I don't have to believe like they do, but I'm happy to live here with them. At least I won't be forced to convert.

Almost a quarter of the population? Closer to 20% (21.6%), while is a large number of people compared to the rest is vastly outnumbered. Back say 100 years ago it was probably closer to 100%. Would a "tolerant" muslim country let 20% of there population believe other than they do? Not likely.

*The Constitution's separation of church and state is there to prevent a state sponsored religion.*


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

When is the top 10% going to start paying their 70% ?


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

rosebudjim - They already do. That's what "paying 70%" means.

Source - http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Miket - we're talking in circles. Of course I accept your point about population demographics. Where we're differing is defining Nation. I see the Nation as the laws and Government, your seeing it as the population. When most folks talk about a 'Christian Nation' they are looking for ways to inject religion into law, and fortunately the constitution bars that. As an atheist too, I do all I can to try to prevent them from doing so.


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

jmos - That's why I said the distinction is only a technicality. Without the people there would be no nation.

The laws and government are just words and without the people are meaningless.

Just think of a bowl of oatmeal.
It may have some milk and sugar, but it's mostly oatmeal, and It's still called a bowl of oatmeal.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

*When is the top 10% going to start paying their 70% ?*
They are.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Miket - We've got to agree to disagree on that. As long as the Constitution stands this is a secular nation with a large and diverse population, including many Christian sects. If enough of those Christians get together and amend the Constitution, then they can have their Christian Nation, and I'll happily move to Canada or New Zealand.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

"I know it's hard to believe, but taxes in the US are at historic lows across the board"

That is a very misleading statement, income tax rates may be at historic lows but when you throw in other taxes, fees etc that didnt exist before there is no way they can be. Ever look at your phone or cable bill, heck there is $5-$10 of taxes on those every month. I can see a VAT in our future but there weill be those claiming that taxes were not raised.


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

jmos said "We've got to agree to disagree on that".

I'll agree with that.

A matter of point though. *The Constitution does not have the word "secular" or "church" anywhere.*
The Declaration of Independence mentions neither of them nor word "religion".*

These are the only two lines in the constitution that concerns religion.*

*Articel 6*: ...but no *religious* Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

*Amendment 1*: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of *religion*...

The term "*separation of church and state*", is mentioned in no Federal document I know of.

The term was was writen by Thomas Jefferson in a letter, which said "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus* building a wall of separation between Church & State*."


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Miket - that's exactly my point. There was every opportunity for religion to have been written into the constitution if the framers had wanted a Christian Nation. If they were all so devoutly religious they wouldn't have thought twice about it. But they did not. Religion was specifically excluded. If it's not religious, by definition, it's secular.


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

jmos - That's conjecture. You have no real idea what they were thinking when they wrote it.

Secular does not mean opposite of religion.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Pew made a mistake

Mormon and Jehovah Witness are not Christian religions.


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

RockyTopScott - some people do argue that. Mainly Christians.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was God's only direct creation.

Mormons believe in Jesus after, all he was the one they claim spoke to Joseph Smith.

The one common thread of all Christians is the believe in Jesus, is it not?


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

By definition, per Google.

sec·u·lar/ˈsekyələr/
Adjective: 
Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: "secular buildings".

Since the Constitution is not religious, by definition it is secular.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

John, I agree with much of what you've said. I am also what you might call either an agnostic or a Deist (I've had people interpret my views both ways), and I have little use for religion. Having said that, though, I tend to lean more towards Miket's interpretation.

I always thought religion was mentioned in the constitution for one reason, and one reason only: to prevent what had happened in England (the establishment of a single state-sanctioned religion), allowing people to practice their own faiths without government interference. Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding, I still think it is a severe stretch to use the establishment clause as a basis to argue for freedom* from* religion when it was clearly intended to provide freedom* of* religion.


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

Merriam Webster:

secular (adjective) sec·u·lar
adj \ˈse-kyə-lər\

a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal "secular concerns" 
b : not overtly or specifically religious "secular music" 
c : not ecclesiastical or clerical "secular courts" "secular landowners"

The definition depends who defines it.

In 1892, the United States Supreme Court, facing the initial wave of secularist ideas, forcefully declared that the United States is officially, legally, and constitutionally a Christian nation, thoroughly refuting the idea that the Constitution is a secularizing charter.

*Well stated Charlie.*


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Miket, one of the core tenets of Christianity is the Trinity and that Jesus was God on earth…..Father, Son and Holy Spirit

The Bible refers to Jesus as Immanuel which mean "God with us". John 10:30 expresses this as "I and my Father are One".

Neither Mormonism or JW accept this tenet.

And thank you for your comment in a civil and thoughtful tone.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Charlie, your comments on the Constitution are very accurate.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Charlie, I hear you. And Miket and I are arguing a pretty esoteric point. I suspect we agree on a whole lot more than we differ on.

I really don't think it's a stretch to argue that freedom from religion is covered, after all what is a more fundamental religious choice then whether or not to believe in any god.


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

RockyTopScott - Whether or not you consider them Christians is really beside the point if they consider themselves Christians. It's a matter of perspective, no?

Like the muslim sunni and shiite both think they are correct, and always will until one side kills off the other.

Being Atheist or Agnostic depending on who you talk to, I am mainly playing devils advocate. I have no dog in this fight or the matter with the Constitution. Like jmos said we probably agree more than not.

My basic tenet is to "Live and let live", as long as it involves only themselves and not others.


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

RockyTopScott - Just a turn of phrase with no basis in reality.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Miket - Definition b is effectively the same as I quoted.

As for the 1892 case, take a look at the Wikipedia article about it, it discusses how this case is mistakenly used to say the US is a Christian Nation, but in actuality says no such thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Trinity_v._United_States

Excerpt from Entry:
Christian nation

The following quote from the decision has given rise to the misunderstanding that in 1892 the Supreme Court endorsed the idea that the United States is officially in law a Christian Nation>

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457 (1892)[2]

Perhaps realizing how his phrasing could create mischief and misinterpretation, Justice Brewer published a book in 1905 titled The United States: A Christian Nation. In it he wrote:

But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

Justice Brewer's decision was not, therefore, any attempt to argue that the laws in the United States should enforce Christianity or reflect solely Christian concerns and beliefs. He was simply making an observation which is consistent with the fact that Americans tend to be Christian.[3]


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

jmos - I generally make it a point not to quote anything from Wikipedia since the content is generally submitted by people "with a dog in the fight". It's usually a place of last resort for me.

A lot of things are a matter of interpretation. It all depends on who is doing the interpreting. I provided a link to the actual decision so that you can make up your own mind. Points of view and opinions are a personal thing.

It doesn't really matter to me one way of the other. Like I posted earlier I'm just playing devils advocate.
I can probably keep this discussion going indefinitely, but how about we stop here, and settle on "Who the hell knows!"


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Not that there are some folks that cannot provide for themselves, but alot of the chronic parasites are just entitlement addicts that need to be broken of their addiction or they will never go on to provide for themselves and contribute to society. I don't mean drug addiction, I mean entitlement addiction…getting something for nothing.

They may not realize it (or like it), but getting them off of welfare is a cure for their addiction.


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

*cr1, RockyTopScott* - Teach them to fish and remove the alternatives and they will fish.

There are hundreds of job training programs out there that they won't take advantage of.

I agree with PineMan on this one. Democrats don't want them off their entitlements. They want to keep them addicted and keep getting their votes.

Democrats play both sides. They say how wonderful the are by providing job training programs while at the same time providing money for doing nothing, knowing that they won't participate in the training. What incentive do they have?

The democrats say the Republicans want to take everything away from you and actually make you work for a living.

If you were getting free stuff for doing nothing, who would you vote for?

*The Miket pan:*

I say decrease their payments by 1/12th each month to wean them off. That will give them a year with decreasing incentives. Go ahead and give them full payments if they go get the training, and then start the reductions when they have completed the training.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Removing the alternatives that are used by politicians to buy votes is a difficult proposition.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

You are correct cr1, unless of course you legislate from the bench.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Miket - I figured that out a while ago, but a halt sounds fine. I follow these church state issues pretty closely. I have no problem with religion and the religious as long as they don't try to force it down my throat, or my kids.

I do agree that we need to put the stigma back into being on the dole. It used to be an embarrassment, now it's no big deal. I don't mind helping out, but come on. Job training is far preferable to handouts.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Wow, cr1, so the Supreme Court has been misinterpreting the constitution all these years. Have you let them know?.


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

*cr1* - I said the Church and State thing back in post #83.

*jmos* said "I have no problem with religion and the religious as long as they don't try to force it down my throat, or my kids."

I agree with that and I live right in the middle of the bible belt! I live in a city that has one church for about every 25 people. It's pretty amazing to be how they all stay in business even with being tax exempt.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Where are you Miket?


----------



## tierraverde (Dec 1, 2009)

Class War-The Calvin Coolidge Response
By David Pietrusza
Published December 30, 2011

America no longer enjoys a peacetime economy.
I speak not of Iraq or of Afghanistan.
I speak of the class warfare economy officially imposed on the nation in Barack Obama's Osawatomie speech.
I say "officially" because this speech is merely a logically outgrowth of Obama's long-held redistributionist ideology, finally manifested in the "spontaneous" "Occupy Wall Street" movement-the phony rage aimed at "one percenters" who fail to "pay their fair share in taxes"-phony, because if it were real, it "Occupy Wall Street" would move uptown and become "Occupy General Electric."
Such class warfare is much older than Obama or OSW or Osawatomie. It has been practiced worldwide-from Bolshevik Russia and Maoist China to Huey Long's Louisiana to Evita Peron's Argentina to Hugo Chavez's Venezuela to the bankruptcy of contemporary Greece. 
It has been tried everywhere. And has failed everywhere. It leads to the guillotine-and, ultimately, back to the poor house.
It is demagoguery built on resentment and envy and ultimately further impoverishes the poor, while enriching leaders who claim to hate the rich.
The leveling impulse has marched steadily onward with few interruptions since the Progressive Era. Its greatest retrenchment came in the 1920s under an unlikely figure: President Calvin Coolidge.
Coolidge understood economics. He understood government's limitations. He understood the real cost and burdens of taxation.
And he understood what high marginal tax rates can-and cannot-accomplish.
Even then, relentless pressure existed to "soak the rich." Coolidge not only resisted it. With his Secretary of the Treasury Andrew J. Mellon, Coolidge succeeded in lowering income tax rates that had skyrocketing during the wartime Wilson administration. A booming economy resulted. Inflation and unemployment nearly vanished. The budget was balanced. The national debt reduced.
Coolidge addressed the issue repeatedly, most famous in budget messages and in a February 1924 address to the National Republican Club, an address that decades later economist Jude Wanniski called, "the most lucid articulation of the [supply-side] wedge model in modern times."
Said Coolidge in 1924:
If we had a tax whereby on the first working day the Government took 5 per cent of your wages, on the second day 10 per cent, on the third day 20 per cent, on the fourth day 30 per cent, on the fifth day 50 per cent, and on the sixth day 60 per cent, how many of you would continue to work on the last two days of the week? It is the same with capital. Surplus income will go into tax-exempt securities. It will refuse to take the risk incidental to embarking in business. This will raise the rate which established business will have to pay for new capital, and result in a marked increase in the cost of living. If new capital will not flow into competing enterprise, the present concerns tend toward monopoly, increasing again the prices which the people must pay.
Much more widely ignored, however, are Coolidge's comments in his formal acceptance speech for the 1924 presidential nomination. It is one of the most remarkable conservative documents of the twentieth century, and its remarks on taxation-and the self-defeating folly of class envy-hit the mark.
"Every student knows that excessively high rates defeat their own purpose," said Coolidge. "They dry up that source of revenue and leave those paying lower rates to furnish all the taxes."
Coolidge went on to explain:
"Only about 3,500,000 people pay direct income taxes. The remainder pay, but pay indirectly, in the cost of all purchases, from a pair of shoes to a railroad ticket. This country has at least 107,000,000 of these indirect taxpayers. I am not disturbed about the effect on a few thousand people with large incomes because they have to pay high surtaxes. They can take care of themselves, whatever happens, as the rich always can. What concerns me is the indirect effect of high surtaxes on all the rest of the people. Let us always remember the poor. Whatever cry the demagogue may make about his ability to tax the rich, at the end of the year it will always be found that the people as a whole have paid the taxes. We should, therefore, have a system of taxation under which the people as a whole are most likely to be prosperous. Our country will be better off if, disregarding those who appeal to jealousy and envy, it follows in taxa­tion and all else the straight path of justice." 
That, in part is what Jeb Bush spoke of in his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. "[W]e must choose between the straight line promised by the statists and the jagged line of economic freedom," noted the former Florida governor, "The straight line of gradual and controlled growth is what the statists promise but can never deliver. The jagged line offers no guarantees but has a powerful record of delivering the most prosperity and the most opportunity to the most people. We cannot possibly know in advance what freedom promises for 312 million individuals. But unless we are willing to explore the jagged line of freedom, we will be stuck with the straight line. And the straight line, it turns out, is a flat line."
Unfortunately, that is where Gov. Bush gets it wrong. Right now, in today's redistributionist, housing-bubble, green-energy-scamming, not-in-my-backyard economy, a flat line economy would look good.
And a new Calvin Coolidge would look great


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

"*I really don't think it's a stretch to argue that freedom from religion is covered, after all what is a more fundamental religious choice then whether or not to believe in any god.*"

John, I hear you loud and clear on that argument.

For me, it always comes down to a question of balancing the rights of the majority to make (or at least influence the making of) policy, versus protecting the rights of the minority who might not like that policy. For example, if the overwhelming majority of parents in a school district wanted to open the graduation ceremony with a non-denominational prayer, I have no problem as long as my kids and I are not compelled in any way to participate.

Clearly we must be sensitive to the rights of the minority. But at what point do we bend over so far backwards to protect *their* rights that we infringe upon the rights of the majority? At what point does my Muslim neighbor get to make my Christian neighbor remove his Christmas tree from the picture window of his own home because it is clearly visible and offensive to him from the public street?

Everyone can agree that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. But many scenarios just aren't that simple.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

As the article says, the really wealthy will let their excess cash sit in tax exempt vehicles and not be available for capital.

Raise the upper tax rates really won't garner alot of new revenue.

The government should get out of the way and let the private sector grow.


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

Charlie said - "Everyone can agree that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. But many scenarios just aren't that simple."

I like that! It sounds so familiar, but I don't recall where I heard it from.

If this country were a democracy then the majority would rule, minority be damned. But this is a Republic.

*RockyTopScott - I ain't tellin'*

Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution reads:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a *Republican* Form of Government…

The democrats sure screwed the pooch on that one!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

So much of our current lexicon has been co-opted.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Uh huh… sure…


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

The progressives/liberals/left wing have been the same in my eyes.

If the liberals feel that they are not being fairly represented why do they not come forward and say or do something?

They all seem to be in lock step.

What's the distinction anyway?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Miket SAID: The progressives/liberals/left wing have been the same in my eyes. If the liberals feel that they are not being fairly represented why do they not come forward and say or do something?

Well, *miket* and *The_Dude* ARE the same person. I guess that means that YOU are OVER-REPRESENTED. I noticed that LJs Admin did take down a double post of yours on one of my threads,... just an observation and NOT an accusation.

QUESTION: Is this how we liberals SHOULD act?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Yes Miket, lockstep indeed.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*The US Republican race is dominated by ignorance, lies and scandals. The current crop of candidates have shown such a basic lack of knowledge that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein. The Grand Old Party is ruining the entire country's reputation.*


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Miket, here is an interesting quote from Wikipedia about the characteristics of bullies:

*"Some doctors have argued that a bully reflects the environment of his home, repeating the model he learned from his parents."*


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

OH!... And let us NOT forget the definition of BIGOT:

*BIGOT* 
One who is narrrowly or intolerantly devoted to his or her opinions and prejudices. This word is a general term that applies to everyone (racists, anti-Semites, misogynists,* homophobes* and xenophobes)._


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

Bachmann - Masters in Law from William & Mary School of Law.
Cain - Master of Science from Purdue
Gingrich - Ph.D. from Tulane University
Hunstman - Bachelor's in international politics from U of Penn.
Paul - Doctor of Medicine from Duke
Perry - Bachelor of Science from Texas A&M
Romney - MBA from Harvard Business School - Juris Doctor Harvard Law School - Bachelor of Arts from B.Y.U
Santorum* - BA from Penn State - MBA from U. of Pittsburgh - Law degree from the Dickinson School of Law

Oh and there's

Obama - Law degree from Harvard - BA from Columbia

They all sound like a bunch of idiots to me!


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

And then there is miket

-NO REAL NAME
-NO Location
-NO Workshop
-Two FAKE projects (really, take a look here)
-NO Reviews

And to QUOTE miket-They all sound like a bunch of idiots to me!


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

There he goes again. Posting rude comments on my project pages in the woodworking part of this site.
First my home page and now this!

*Really tacky and distasteful.*

I could have blocked him long ago, but I just wanted to prove to everyone what a childish little man he is.

Great job proving my point Mike!

"And to QUOTE miket-They all sound like a bunch of idiots to me!" 
*
and obviously doesn't understand the meaning of irony.*


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

And Scott, you ACTUALLY think of yourself as a man of god huh… Open your eyes Scott! Surely the light is not THAT bright. Walk into the light Scott, into the bright light…

*Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. described bigots with the following quote: "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."[1]*


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)




----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

Hello Left wing, Politically correct, bla bla bla.

This guy has a rant for everything


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)




----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Hey Miket, who are these left wing pricks he keeps mentioning?


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

RockyTopScott - They are the British version of the same ones here. The BBC, The Guardian Newspaper, liberal, PC, movie stars, media…..


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

Paul, marriage is not a sacrament unless you are Catholic. You should note that what is being asked for is a state sanctified marriage not a church marriage, huge difference. How can you claim that one person has the right to marriage and not another on the basis of orientation? Marriage is something that only the state can sanction. As a minister the state recognizes my status and allows me to sign off as an officiant of a state sanctified wedding, no different from a ship's captain or a justice of the peace; if the state chose not to recognize my position then I could still do church weddings but they would not have any legal standing for the couple. By the same token I don't have to officiate a wedding if I so choose for whatever reason. So the marriage that is being asked for has nothing to do with church, even here in NY I can't officiate a gay marriage as my denomination has said no, but that doesn't mean that the state can't and shouldn't grant them equal status. And if they don't have the right to marriage then why does anyone else deserve the right?

CR1- I pity you a lot. You are so blinded by hate towards others that is is sad. People are not parasites, you may not like them, you may feel that they are abusing the system, and some are; but you classify all welfare recipients as parasites. I hope you never have to walk in their shoes and discover how hard their lives can be. Palestinians are no more vermin then the people who force them into the places that they are. There are three sides to every story and in this one none of the sides are guiltless. Everyone equally has blood and guilt on their hands. To single out one group is to put on blinders and ignore the reality. I pray someday that you will come to understand that every person has worth and value, sometimes it can be hard to find but that doesn't make them less then human as you would care to portray them.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Rev Russ…don't waste your time trying to reason with cr1. he is a classic right wing conservative that feels if you can't find a job, and you might be injured or disabled, then you should starve to death and die. That's the Republican party's new method of thinning out the population..they tried wars, but letting poor people starve to death might be faster in this day and age. According to them, that's whats causing our economy to tank..it's not the 1% playing with the world economy to fill their own pockets..it's not spending billions on wars that were started based on lies..it's not continual tax breaks for the richest Americans..it's not every so called "American" company s moving their manufacturing to China and Korea along with all the jobs, so they can maximize their profit margin….it's not 8 years of the dumbest president in history, quadrupling the size of government(where were all you tea baggers then..oh ya that guy wasn't black)..it's all those poor people dragging our economy down..why don't we take a lesson from Hitler and round up all the poor along with the disabled..hey lets throw in the mentally impaired too they are a drain on the system..and the homeless…and just march them all to the ovens…problem solved..then all you republitards can afford that Volvo you been eyeing..


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

* The current crop of leftists are not liberals. They hate liberty. They despise freedom. They have nothing but contempt for independence. They have fallen at the feet of their golden calf and are worshiping government. *

You couldn't be farther from correct…keep pontificating and assuming you know everything..because you certainly don't based on this statement..save the bul**t hot air for court..


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Same old thing..different decade..


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Say goodbye to Social Security if any of these idiots get elected….


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

After two days of arguing, er… I mean having a spirited discussion… how about a 10 minute break for some light humor and something about woodworking?






Sorry, I couldn't help it. I'm a natural born peacemaker, and nothing makes peace like a good ol' woodworking video!


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Stumpynubs: Thanks! You just gave me my next project!


----------



## Tennessee (Jul 8, 2011)

So many posts…zero minds changed. 
But I see one beautiful thing in all this.

That we have the freedom to *FREELY* do this. That no soldier is going to eventually knock on our door and stop this thread from happening. The sun came up this morning, the garbage men stopped by to empty my cans and waved good morning, I will say hi to a couple of my neighbors this weekend, and I can attend church if I want to. It's my complete choice.
When I lived in Shanghai for 16 months, I noticed some very subtle things. Lots of people think they understand the Chinese - I lived with them day and night for 16 months, rich and poor, ate lunch with people making $200 a month. Who rode bicycles that held their whole families. Rode the trains. Rode the buses. Handed half filled bottles of water to street people who first drank the water before they recycled the bottle to feed themselves. Was in their homes where a cup of tea is seen as a great gift, and you damn better well drink it, bacteria and all. Met a 97 year-old house boy, (now retired), who knew perfect English because he had been a servant to a rich American family during the occupation before the Japanese invaded. He had great stories. All of it. 
The people don't carry guns since it is a federal offense. Instead they carry knives, which is allowed. There are not as many murders, but then, China "officially" executes about 4000 prisoners every year. Unofficially, who knows? People tend to not do as many heinous crimes when they know they will die. 
They don't vote, and seemed resigned to the fact that they will somehow be taken care of by some sort of politboro. So productivity in China is much, much lower than it is here and many other countries. Still, their cost of living makes it attractive for our companies to open up in China, and then to open branches there for the better off Chinese. For now, at least. The Chinese government is mandating pay raises twice a year for all workers. Eventually, like South Korea and Japan, it will level out financially, China will either become more open to capitalism and democracy or fail, and then the last cheap bastain of earthly labor will rise, in my estimation Africa. (Just a guess, looking around at the planet.)
The Chinese want what we have, which is why all sorts of fast food, Buicks, and many other "Western" items are in such great demand. When I lived in Shanghai, officially 18+ million, but actually closer to 23 million with the migrant population training in for seasonal work, there were 512 MacDonalds. I don't know how many now. Our environmentalists condemn them for their coal power plants, their damming of rivers, their recycling mistakes. But in reality it looks a lot like the US did when we first got started on our industrial revolution. A terrible mess. I can remember when the Cuyahoga river in Cleveland caught fire from the contamination from it and Lake Erie. Now, it is one of the jewels of Cleveland, holding yuppie boats and possibly the lake having the greatest walleye fishing in the country. We want them to skip those 50-60 years, somehow.

And possibly most important - when I would get on Google in my apartment in Shanghai, and I tried to bring up Tiananmen Square in Beijing, the ONLY thing I would get as a result were the official tourist pages showing how nice it is. (I found that scary that they were good enough in 2006 to block cleanly all those articles from across the planet condemming their actions - how good are they now??)

And when I finally visited the square, You could actually see the places where the granite blocks had been replaced…like tire tracks of tanks had torn them up. Straight lines of granite blocks about 8 feet apart, whole sections about where the barriers were that was all new granite. Blood stains?

No, I'll take all this banter, dissagreement, and political discussion anytime over the subtle but distinct restrictions on the Socialistic/Communistic society I lived in for 16 months in Shanghai. I can't ever remember once a Chinese person saying one bad thing about their leaders. Never…You might get a little gesture of dislike, but never verbalized. Because they know about the person knocking on their doors…
By the way, I did attend a Christian church every Sunday, and so could Chinese-their own service only. And we as foreigners were allowed to hold bible class in our homes, but Chinese can be imprisoned for a long time for doing the same thing. 
And Rev. Russ, one last question. As far as the sacraments, why does my Methodist Minister talk in terms of the Sacrament of Marriage when he speaks of marriage classes which people attend to make their marriage better or speaks of people getting married in our church? Is he wrong? Doesn't matter really, it's a sacrament to me and I was married in a church.
I'm sure you are more versed than I on the intricacies of religious differences in the different faiths. Just a question. I respect your beliefs and God Bless!
I'm going to look at other posts now, ones that pertain to wood, wood machines, projects, maybe a review or two…and as far as I'm concerned, you are all still my Internet wood buddies.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^Excellent post, Paul.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

I too will defer to the Rev, but would suppose the Catholic Church, with seven blessed sacraments, is the 'captan S-type' of Sacrament that was being referred to. Marriage is a sacrament otherwise, of couse, in a more universal sense, being a bond between two [persons].


----------



## tierraverde (Dec 1, 2009)

cr1
Another blockbuster response. Thanks for Say'n


----------



## The_Dude (Feb 2, 2011)

cr1 - Are you confusing Liberals and Libertarians?

Those are are all the values that Libertarians espouse.

Sounds like you wrote the wrong word.

Perhaps you should read this about Liberalism and this on Libertarianism


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

David, I drive volvos  they are after all a lot of fun to modify though I've never dropped the dime on a new one. Can't beat a high compression 4 cylinder that has lots of turbo bolt-ons available through other models and runs rwd. 2.3l, 10.5-1 compression, 15psi starting at 1800rpms and a 7k redline all in a car weighing 2700lbs. It is fun.

Paul, the Methodist like the Presbyterian hold to two sacraments; baptism and communion as these were the two ordained by Jesus directly. Jesus calls on Christians to baptize in his name and to remember him through the breaking of bread and wine. That does not mean that within the church setting there aren't other sacred moments, marriage being high among them. The other five sacraments that the Catholics hold on to should be respected for the value they having in remembering that the Church should be involved fully in a person's life whenever it is needed. Marriage is especially sacred because we call on the church to be a witness to it and ask God to bless it and keep it. A marriage outside the Church (meaning non-involvement of clergy and church members) doesn't carry that same meaning or request for blessing. As such it isn't a sacrament nor is it any more sacred then any other officially recognized contract. Whether the term marriage was co-opted by the state to reference civil union I'm not certain. I would like it if all civil unions were named as such and the term marriage left to the churches but then what would non-church couples call themselves; unionized?

Joking aside, the choice of a church to hold a gay marriage is strictly up to the choices of that denomination and I don't know that it should ever happen and I'm not certain I can be that liberal as to do one. If a couple asked me for a civil union in my church I would allow it and the PCUSA has said this is ok as long as God is not invoked in the wedding. But I would see that as no different then the couple that earlier this year asked for a marriage by a justice of the peace in the church.


----------



## HamS (Nov 10, 2011)

CR1 is using the Capital L definition of Liberal. This is the paradox. Liberals were essentially agin' the Kijg and all that went with feudalism. Conservatives weresupporters of the King and that status quo. That is not the definition of the word liberal as commonly used today in discussing conservatives and liberals. Today, the meanings are almost exactly reversed in common usage.


----------



## The_Dude (Feb 2, 2011)

cr1 - Well in this day and age it would seem that you need to call yourself something else, otherwise you will have to explain your position to 99% of the people and most won't stick around for you to finish. Right or Left.

I would settle on libertarian just to simplify your life. If you ever needed to elaborate, then it will be simpler from that point. At least that will get your basic beliefs down to one sentence that most will understand.

Just a thought.


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

Cr1, Do you really believe in the so called death panels? Hate to tell you this but many large hospitals have just such panels already in place and they aren't half the frightening thing you believe. They allow doctors to sit down with you and try to set boundries on just what level of care you recieve and to what extent you would like them to go. I've been involved in them and where the patient in capable they are fully in on the discussion. Where they can't be involved their health care proxy is in their place. In all of it there is the determination to create, if none exist, and follow a living will. I've been there while someone was dying and the doctor wanted to go life support to keep a woman alive who had already decided that if her heart started failing she would be allowed to die. Her living will, done through a "death panel", had already determined that she didn't want to live and the nurse forced the doctor to abandon his efforts. She was permitted to pass peacefully. A major part of the issue is doctors who see someone dying as a loss and keeping them alive as a victory. Another part is more common among elderly vets who's spouses wish to keep them alive at all costs and efforts so they can keep recieving the benefits. It's understandable when it is an equally elderly spouse but not when the spouse is dead but instead it is children who want to keep them alive because they can cash and use the checks. Proxies and living wills allow these abuses to end.


----------



## HamS (Nov 10, 2011)

In my family we have had death panels. They occurred around the kitchen table with my wife and her brothers and sisters while we determined how long we would maintain the life support system when her mother had a massive stroke. We were fortunate that she passed from death to life without having to 'pull the plug, but the panel that made the decision was ther right one, not a government panel. I have the 'so called VA Death book. It actually is pretty helpful in forcing you to think about the decisions that have to be made around surrounding the end of your life. I was really annoyed that was used for political hay.

BTW, I am now sitting at the computer while the current project is in the clamps and the rub on poly is drying. This has been a wonderful fun day in my shop, although I did not do anything that I intended to when I started. Now the day is done and I have time to relax, enjoy a cup of cheer, and pontificate for the benefit of my LJ friends. This discussion has been fairly civil, I wonder why we have so much trouble with incivility in the other ' off topic' threads.

Happy New Year and may it be prosperous and healthy.


----------



## HamS (Nov 10, 2011)

Maybe I'll reclaim the wood in the soap box.


----------



## IrreverentJack (Aug 13, 2010)

It should be hard to argue against people being informed on 'end of life decisions'. I know my fathers' living will made things much easier when he died. The painful part of this issue is when there is no living will or loved ones to make decisions when a patient is not able to. What Krugman was referring to in the edited clip above was the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This boards' purpose is make Medicare more affordable without reducing the quality of care. One expense needing to be addressed is end of life care for wards of the state. It's a complicated issue and people should understand it. A *huge amount of money* is spent on 'end of life care' that loved ones would have determined to be unnecessary. Basically *no expense is spared*, and absent thoughtful decision making, this is the right thing to do. We need to understand this issue to make informed choices. -Jack


----------



## popmandude (Feb 17, 2010)

Why is it when an insurance company steps into the middle of a patients treatment and says "we will not cover any more of said patients treatment" they are not called death squads, and it is accepted as business as usual.

Though I would not call W. a moron, after he got on national television and said " It's o.k. if the U.S. has a service based economy" there are other names he could be accurately called.

While I am at it, why not my opinion on right and left extremists. The way I see it, we have sons and daughters in foreign countries fighting and dieing to combat these extremes. So why should any one jump on the band wagon just because another self serving extremist happens to be white( or American)

It doesn't take very much education to know when you are getting wizzed on, NOT rained on.


----------



## popmandude (Feb 17, 2010)

I am sure the ole grim reaper will be understanding and give you some extra time for a 10 year court case that will cost a few hundred thousand. I don't care for socialized medicine, so don't get me wrong. On the other hand don't pretend we don't already have some one with a vested interest making decisions for us.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Cr1, in your capless Aetna policy:

What's not covered
Services and supplies not covered include,
but are not limited to, the following:
■ Routine foot care

What gives?!


----------

