3 Biggest Threats to the Country When Conservatives Are in Power - 3 Biggest Threats

[classicman2]

to the Country When Liberals Are in Power


Conservatives:

1. Enhance the threat to civil liberties.

2. Engage the country in unnecessary wars.

3. You provide the third.


Liberals:

1. Engage the country in unnecessary wars.

2. Fail to engage the country in necessary wars.

3. You provide the third.

[DarkestPhoenix]

Not in complete agreement of your threats, but here we go:

Conservatives

3. Illegal Immigration Amnesty

Liberals

3. Economic Suffocation Through Higher Taxes And Higher Social Spending

[bwvanh114]

Liberals
3. Economic Suffocation Through Higher Taxes And Higher Social SpendingYou obviously haven't heard of the social contract.< /classicman2 >

[DarkestPhoenix]

No, but I've heard of communism/socialism.

[classicman2]

Not in complete agreement of your threats, but here we go:

Conservatives

3. Illegal Immigration Amnesty

Liberals

3. Economic Suffocation Through Higher Taxes And Higher Social Spending


Most conservatives are opposed to what you call illegal immigration amnesty.

[wishbone]

A bit narrower than your question but 3) US Supreme Court vacancy with either a liberal or conservative president in power.

[Sean O'Hara]

Liberals aren't a threat to civil liberties?

[classicman2]

Both are - conservatives more of a threat.

[hahn]

Not in complete agreement of your threats, but here we go:

Conservatives

3. Illegal Immigration Amnesty

Liberals

3. Economic Suffocation Through Higher Taxes And Higher Social SpendingBy what measure?
Do you consider the GDP or national debt to be good measures of economic well-being? Rhetorical question because you should.

http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/
Discussion, spoilered for length:
On average, in years when the president is a Democrat, the economy grows faster; inflation is lower; fewer people can't find a job; the federal government spends a smaller share of GDP, whether or not you include defense spending; and the deficit is lower (or—sweet Clinton-years memory—the surplus is higher). The one category that Republicans win is, unsurprisingly, federal taxes as a share of GDP. But it is no trick to lower taxes if you don't lower spending.

Among many objections that could be made to this calculation, some of them legitimate, one is that a president's economic policy doesn't work overnight. To account for that, Tab 5 goes back and recalculates everything with a one-year lag. That is, if George W. Bush's father was president in the years 1989 through 1992, inclusive (was he? Hard to believe …), his years of economic impact are assumed to be 1990 through 1993. This changes the result remarkably little. Republicans win in two of the seven categories, with a tiny .01 percent lead in lower inflation.

Some people believe that the president has little or no effect on the economy. If so, that would be a serious flaw in this exercise. But it would also be a serious flaw in the exercise called democracy, since people tell pollsters that the economy is the most important issue for them in deciding whom to vote for. No doubt any particular bad year in any of these statistics can be explained by some extrinsic special event—a war, for example. But surely patterns that emerge over half a century account for these. At some point, if Republicans or Democrats tend to start more wars, and wars cost money, that can be a legitimate part of the calculation.

Finally, as economist Greg Mankiw points out in his blog, reacting to a similar calculation by Alan Blinder (both of them former chairs of the president's Council of Economic Advisers), correlation is not causation. Maybe economic statistics are better when the president is a Democrat for reasons having nothing to do with the president's skill in handling the economy. My own feeling about that is that as long as the pattern continues, who cares why? Correlation will do just fine.

BIG chart: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt.png

The webpage that graph was borrowed from: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

A portion of the discussion of the chart:
If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.84[5].

Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 30 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.

Naturally, if you can still support the McCain/Palin ticket in spite of everything you've heard/seen/read, none of this will change your mind. That you think Obama would lead this country to communism also suggests you're not going to change your mind.

[VinVega]

Conservatives: 3) Borrow and spend
Liberals: 3) Weakening the military

[sracer]

Most conservatives are opposed to what you call illegal immigration amnesty.
I don't know where you are deriving that conclusion from, but whenever the issue of illegal immigration comes up, liberals and conservatives alike fall over themselves in support of illegal immigrants, and how they should be given a way to become legal. THAT is amnesty and only a handful of conservatives are opposed to that.

The overwhelming majority believe that the problem is now too big to do anything other than "let them stay" (or some variation of that). Interesting how when the issue was raised 30 years ago, the response was that it was a very small number and not worth addressing. Gee, just like the banking mess.

[wabio]

Conservative: fiscal irresponsibility. Where's that cartoon showing the last 4 administrations again?

Liberal: Unwillingness to trim excessive social programs (see California). Although Clinton did attempt welfare reform.

[sracer]

The correct answers are:

Conservatives:

1. Enhance the threat to civil liberties.

2. Engage the country in unnecessary wars.

3. Redirect public funds for personal influence.


Liberals:

1. Enhance the threat to civil liberties.

2. Engage the country in unnecessary wars.

3. Redirect public funds for personal influence.

[DarkestPhoenix]

Most conservatives are opposed to what you call illegal immigration amnesty.

Tried with Reagan and McCain, IIRC. They are both pretty good examples of people defined as conservatives.

That's still the biggest threat, the fact our leaders do try it.

[classicman2]

My biggest concern I have is that liberals would return (haven't really totally left) to the McGovern-type foreign policy. That's a huge mistake, IMO. There are times when war is the last resort, and it's necessary to conduct that war.

[DarkestPhoenix]

Also, saying conservatives have a policy of spend, spend, spend just because they have to spend money on war doesn't equal social spending. You can say the war is unnecessary or whatever and make THAT argument, but that doesn't hold true going back further than 8 years.

Partly because cutting spending is immediately mischaracterized and translated by the left as "These people don't care about _______!"

Hell, I even heard people say Palin didn't care about special needs programs because she didn't INCREASE spending! It was called a cut when it was maintenance. WTF?

Saying things are great under Democrats and citing Clinton is laughable. Unless you want to credit him and Gore for inventing the internet, the rise of a technological boom was sheer luck on his part.

Even your first spoiler, Hahn, ADMITS that cutting taxes results in higher $$$ collected. If the liberals embraced this idea, I'd have less of a problem supporting them. The best way to help the economy is to further cut capital gains, first. Second, let those who have the most disposable income to dump into the economy (Which includes and is made up by a large part of the top 5%) keep their money to do so.

Sorry, that beloved middle class he praises all the time is not going to just wake up one day and decide to dump 5K into Wall Street. That's what we need.

[hahn]

Even your first spoiler, Hahn, ADMITS that cutting taxes results in higher $$$ collected. If the liberals embraced this idea, I'd have less of a problem supporting them.If only it were that simple. First off, let's start with this: I will agree that cutting taxes CAN result in more $$$ collected. (There, I just embraced the idea.) HOWEVER, you have to think about why. And this seems to be a problem for you hardcore cut-taxes-no-matter-what supporters.

You can only collect more $$$ by cutting taxes IF there is MORE spending. I hope you would agree with this because otherwise you are throwing basic mathematics out the window. Thus, you have to hope that consumers spend more and more. However, the RATE at which they increase their spending matters, because there IS a point at which they cannot spend anymore. You can check for yourself, but the average American family has negative savings now. They are in debt. Thus, they cannot spend anymore. ERGO, lowering the taxes now will no longer yield increases in the GDP.

You are also faced with a SECOND problem in lowering taxes. HOW FAR SHOULD YOU LOWER IT? I hope you would agree that you cannot lower the taxes to 0%. That would result in $0 collected no matter how much people and businesses spend. I hope you agree with this fundamental mathematics calculation as well. Thus, it's easy to see that the lowering taxes/collecting more money overall relationship is NOT linear. Likewise, you don't want to raise the taxes to 100% because of obvious reasons.

So I'm asking you a very simple question: What is the correct or optimal level of taxation? You argue for lowering taxes, therefore I assume you know what level it should be lowered to. I suspect you will not find the answer to be as simple as the question. But if you can answer this question with convincing evidence, I will from here on out agree with EVERYTHING you post on this forum. And you can quote me on that. Here's your opportunity to "convert" me. Let's see if you're up to the challenge.

[Jason]

Liberals aren't a threat to civil liberties?

Depends on which liberties you're more interested in. If you don't want your emails read and your phone calls recorded, conservatives are more of a threat. If you want to smoke in a grade school, liberals are more of a threat.

[bhk]

You can only collect more $$$ by cutting taxes IF there is MORE spending.
This is incorrect. We are talking about Federal income taxes. Not sales tax. The reason that tax revenues increased is that cutting tax rates was part of what stimulated the economy and expanded the tax base.


HOW FAR SHOULD YOU LOWER IT? I hope you would agree that you cannot lower the taxes to 0%. That would result in $0 collected no matter how much people and businesses spend. I hope you agree with that fundamental mathematics calculation as well. Thus, it's easy to see that the lowering taxes/collecting more money overall relationship is NOT linear. Likewise, you don't want to raise the taxes to 100% because of obvious reasons.

You keep lowering it until lowering federal income taxes further will reduce revenues. We haven't reached that point yet.

So I'm asking you a VERY simple question: What is the correct level of taxation? You argue for lowering taxes, therefore I assume you know what level it should be lowered to. If you can answer this simple question with convincing evidence, I will from here on out agree with EVERYTHING you post on this forum. And you can quote me on that.

See above.

[bhk]

If you want to smoke in a grade school, liberals are more of a threat.

Or give a speech in a college without being shouted down.

[starman9000]

Biggest threat when Conservatives are in power:

Corrupting religion

Biggest threat when liberals are in power:

Decrease in national pride (we are not great)

[hahn]

This is incorrect. We are talking about Federal income taxes. Not sales tax. The reason that tax revenues increased is that cutting tax rates was part of what stimulated the economy and expanded the tax base. Where does your income come from? An employer/corporation that must SPEND money for your income. I did not say it was consumer spending. Just spending in general. You seem to be certain that if the corporation saves money from less taxes, that they will pay its employees more money. Again, same principle. Only way to collect MORE money overall from taxes by lowering it, is to spend more. I don't know how to make that point anymore clear.

You keep lowering it until lowering federal income taxes further will reduce revenues. We haven't reached that point yet.Your argument that you could use this to gauge the correct level would be true if AND ONLY IF you assume that 1) the level of tax is the one and only factor in how much revenue is collected AND that 2) the average human/corporation spending vs. saving behavior remains completely constant. Both are ridiculous assumptions.

And that still doesn't come anywhere close to answering my question. I don't expect you to because there's really only one reason you argue for lowering of taxes and why you have no interest in what the correct level is. YOU want more money and you don't care what the consequences to the country are.

[bhk]

Where does your income come from? An employer/corporation that must SPEND money for your income.
OK I see what you are saying.
You seem to be certain that if the corporation saves money from less taxes, that they will pay its employees more money.

Either that or buy new equipment, or distribute it to shareholders. If they keep it for the CEO to swim in like Scrooge McDuck, they will have to pay more taxes on it.

Only way to collect MORE money overall from taxes by lowering it, is to spend more. I don't know how to make that point anymore clear.

The income that a corporation or any company gets is from doing business. If they do more business they earn more. Cutting taxes helps stimulate the economy and increases the business.

Your argument only true if you assume that 1) the level of tax is the one and only factor in how much revenue is collected AND that 2) the average human/corporation spending vs. saving behavior remains completely constant. Both are ridiculous assumptions.
No, actually the opposite. It counts on human behavior changing so that people realizing that they will keep more of what they earn gives them an incentive to work harder and make more. It also counts on stimulating the economy which broadens the tax base that in part has occured pretty much every time that federal income taxes have been cut in this country.

Not to mention the othe part of human nature: tax rates that are reasonable results in the upper brackets reporting more income.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6432

[hahn]

Either that or buy new equipment, or distribute it to shareholders. If they keep it for the CEO to swim in like Scrooge McDuck, they will have to pay more taxes on it.Again, you're not understanding. Let's go with an example. If a corporation saves $5 million a year in taxes because of a tax cut, they must spend MORE than $5 million in taxes in order for the government to collect more money, OR the total effect of whatever they do with that savings must result in total spending (consumer AND business) with taxes totaling more than $5 million. I already said, the average consumer is in debt and can no longer spend. Thus, there is not much that businesses can do to increase consumer spending anymore, thus, it would be financially foolish to spend more money to try and get consumers to spend more. So they cut back by reducing spending and cutting the workforce. This is quite plain to see in our current economic environment. The only thing cutting taxes overall will do now is to reduce tax revenue. Now that the consumers and businesses are in the mindset of saving instead of spending, it will not stimulate economic growth.

The income that a corporation or any company gets is from doing business. If they do more business they earn more. Cutting taxes helps stimulate the economy and increases the business.See above. And sorry to say that businesses do not automatically make more just because you cut their taxes. Consumers don't adjust their spending habits simply based on their taxes. Thus, business doesn't automatically increase if a corporation receives a tax cut. I don't know why this isn't obvious to you.

No, actually the opposite. It counts on human behavior changing so that people realizing that they will keep more of what they earn gives them an incentive to work harder and make more. It also counts on stimulating the economy which broadens the tax base that in part has occured pretty much every time that federal income taxes have been cut in this country.This really has nothing to do with my response to YOUR assertion but I'll respond to it anyways.

Again, I will partially agree with the assertion that cutting taxes CAN stimulate the economy. But where you and others like you go wrong is that you make the statement that cutting taxes WILL stimulate the economy. Under the current economic environment where the average consumer is worried about their future and realizes that debt is not good for them, it will not. CEO's who see many BIG companies go under will start stockpiling their cash reserves because they see a big financial storm coming.

This is a result of decades of reckless and rampant spending without regard to the level of debt that people were accumulating. How many home repairs, big screen TV's and expensive vehicles were bought on debt? The corporations made REAL money off of that debt. Corporations themselves went into debt thinking that the money would be returned many times over. The assumption is that consumer spending can grow infinitely. That is just patently false. There are a finite number of people in this country. Thus, there is a finite amount that they can spend. We got WAY ahead of ourselves and essentially spent not only the money we have in the present, but all the money that will earn in the future. You can cut taxes ALL you like and it will NOT result in an increase in the GDP. Counting on spending as the only way to stimulate economic growth is a recipe for disaster, which we are finally seeing. It amazes me that even now, people like you still don't get it.

[kvrdave]

Depends on which liberties you're more interested in. If you don't want your emails read and your phone calls recorded, conservatives are more of a threat. If you want to smoke in a grade school, liberals are more of a threat.

I would be more concerned with their idea that your thoughts or beliefs can make a crime worse, as in hate crime legislation. Or that as a business owner you may not have the option of allowing smoking in your business....even if it is a huka bar.


c-man, great idea for a thread. :up:

[Dr Mabuse]

Depends on which liberties you're more interested in. If you don't want your emails read and your phone calls recorded, conservatives are more of a threat. If you want to smoke in a grade school, liberals are more of a threat.

Now THAT'S an unbiased assessment.

:lol:

[bhk]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/liberals_rethink_free_speech.html


Liberals Rethink Free Speech
By Rich Lowry

Barack Obama has already brought change. He's ended the "chilling effect."

Any restrictions on speech -- real or imagined -- were once inevitably deemed to have a "chilling effect" on people who would otherwise exercise their First Amendment rights if they weren't so frightened by the possibility of running afoul of the law. Claims of a "chilling effect" were the most reliable weapon in the American Civil Liberties Union's absolutist campaign against, say, even the most common-sensical laws against obscenity.

But the politics of free speech has been subtly shifting. Opponents of the ACLU on the Right are increasingly worried about overreaching rules against "hate speech" defining legitimate opinions as out of bounds. Meanwhile, the same people who forever decry the country's imminent descent into the dark night of fascism are now comfortable regulating political speech in federal law and banning speech on college campuses. The Left has learned to like some chill with its free speech.

Enter the Obama campaign, which reflects the new ethos. It twice issued "Obama Action Wire" alerts for activists to call a Chicago radio station and try to shut down appearances by two Obama critics, writers Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso. No "chilling effect" here. CNN and the Chicago Tribune reported on the effort to silence Obama's detractors, but mostly by way of noting the Obama camp's tech-savvy mustering of its supporters.

When an outside group ran TV ads pointing out links between Obama and the former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, the Obama campaign asked the Bush Justice Department -- yes, that Bush Justice Department, the fount of all evil -- to open a criminal investigation.

The Obama campaign's effort dovetails with the work of an outfit called Accountable America, run by a former MoveOn.org operative. It is devoted to threatening conservative donors with legal action and exposure of any embarrassing details of their private lives if they give money to groups running ads against Obama. The New York Times account says the group hopes to create "a chilling effect," but the phrase is used non-pejoratively.

Liberal editorial boards have apparently lost their former zest for the First Amendment. Consider this approving sentence from a New York Times editorial: "The wholesale descent into Swift Boat campaigning has been blocked -- for now -- by a federal judge in Virginia." It was written about a judge denying an injunction against the Federal Election Commission sought by a pro-life group running radio ads attacking Obama. The group thinks the First Amendment protects political speech; unfortunately, the courts disagree.

But the Times goes beyond mere legalities. It asserts with no evidence that the group's advertising is "lies," then urges the FEC to "be vigilant for what will inevitably be fresh attempts to mislead voters with fresh lies." Here's a newspaper charging a governmental agency with policing and shutting down campaign ads it doesn't like.

It's all just a taste of what's to come if Obama wins and Democrats have even bigger majorities in Congress, emboldening them to try to crush their antagonists once and for all. "Hate is not a family value" was a popular bumper sticker on the left during the 1990s. Now, the left has embraced hate as, if not a family value, the organizing spirit of its long assault on George W. Bush, and anyone else in the way, from Joe Lieberman to Sarah Palin.

America's partisan politics has always featured its share of rancorous abuse, but there's something rancid at the heart of the new, blog-driven left that believes its bullying childishness has led the way out of the wilderness. This spirit will inevitably seep into an Obama administration. Whatever Obama's professions of his commitment to cross-partisan understanding, he's never confronted the left of his own party and has always been willing to engage in hardball when it suits his purposes.

Little Keith Olbermanns will surely be burrowed throughout his executive branch, eager to chill the speech of the "worst people in the world."
Little Keith Olbermanns....shudder..

[bhk]

Let's go with an example. If a corporation saves $5 million a year in taxes because of a tax cut, they must spend MORE than $5 million in taxes in order for the government to collect more money, OR the total effect of whatever they do with that savings must result in total spending (consumer AND business) with taxes totaling more than $5 million.

It doesn't work like that. Let's say a company makes enough money to pay 5 million in taxes. Then the tax rates are cut and because the economy is stimulated, they do enough business so that even at the reduced rate, they end up paying 7 million in taxes. That is what I'm talking about.


I already said, the average consumer is in debt and can no longer spend. Thus, there is not much that businesses can do to increase consumer spending anymore, thus, it would be financially foolish to spend more money to try and get consumers to spend more.

Cutting the federal income tax will mean people have more money to spend(money that they themselves have earned).
And sorry to say that businesses do not automatically make more just because you cut their taxes. Consumers don't adjust their spending habits simply based on their taxes.
This is just wrong. If you don't believe that people don't adjust their spending habits based on their taxes I just don't know what else to say to you. Indian reservations have made millions selling cigarettes. Just a quick example of people adjusting their behavior in response to taxes.
Again, I will partially agree with the assertion that cutting taxes CAN stimulate the economy. But where you and others like you go wrong is that you make the statement that cutting taxes WILL stimulate the economy.
It has happened pretty much every time it has been tried so the precedent is there.
You can cut taxes ALL you like and it will NOT result in an increase in the GDP. Counting on spending as the only way to stimulate economic growth is a recipe for disaster, which we are finally seeing. It amazes me that even now, people like you still don't get it.
Using "spending" in your definition is the only way to increase GDP. After all, what is the GDP?

[wabio]

Cutting the federal income tax will mean people have more money to spend(money that they themselves have earned).




True, but the cut would have to be quite substantial to get consumers to spend freely again IMO. Personally, I think the free-spending days and supercharged GDP days are over for quite awhile. IIRC, when Bush cut taxes, the average household saved ~$800. Not enough IMO to really change habits, warrant licentious spending, or provide any major economic stimulation.

[Burnt Thru]

It doesn't work like that. Let's say a company makes enough money to pay 5 million in taxes. Then the tax rates are cut and because the economy is stimulated, they do enough business so that even at the reduced rate, they end up paying 7 million in taxes. That is what I'm talking about.

again, you've just made an assumption that cutting taxes will result in economic stimulus. that simply isn't the case.

for your other point look at the level of consumer spending in other western democracies, then compare their levels of taxation. taxation and spending do not have a direct correlation.

[Adrian_Monk]

You are also faced with a SECOND problem in lowering taxes. HOW FAR SHOULD YOU LOWER IT? I hope you would agree that you cannot lower the taxes to 0%. That would result in $0 collected no matter how much people and businesses spend. I hope you agree with this fundamental mathematics calculation as well.

I disagree with the idea that taxes cannot be lowered to 0... Or at least very close to 0. If you'd like to continue taxation for something like a police force and a military, then I wouldn't be against that (since government's SOLE job should be to protect the people and their freedoms from eachother and from outsiders). Outside of that however, taxation is extremely immoral. Forcing everybody to pay for Joe Schmo's heart attack because he couldnt stop eating big macs is ridiculous (universal heath care advocates).

It's important to realize that allowing the free market to handle situations that are currently handled by taxation, would not only suffice, it would actually vastly improve the standards.

[Nick Danger]

Conservatives:

1 Restrictions on trade to protect industry.
2 Restrictions on personal freedom because sex and drugs are evil.
3 Increasing spending and borrow money to pay for it.

Liberals:

1 Restrictions on trade to protect workers.
2 Restrictions on personal freedom because people mustn't say anything bad about members of groups who have been the victims of past discrimination.
3 Increasing spending and raise taxes to pay for it. (Actually, I think this is the more honorable plan.)

And so on. Every year I have to decide which party would be less destructive.

[classicman2]

Your senator is retiring.

He fought the good fight concerning energy. Finally he gave up.

[BKenn01]

Conservatives

3. Ban on touching during lap dances

Liberals

3. My damn money transferred to Joe Lazy Ass

What a sucky choice.

[FlickMan]

For me, both parties are full of shit - the only difference is the diaper being worn by the republicans has more shit in it and stinks more

[BKenn01]

For me, both parties are full of shit - the only difference is the diaper being worn by the republicans has more shit in it and stinks more

Flickman, you live in Illinois and you think the Republicans suck. Dude wake up, the Dems have F-d your state all to hell. Outside of Chicago it is Minimum Wage City. Small biz cant afford to operate in that state thanks to the Dems.

[Hank Ringworm]

Ah, a thread, finally that encourages generalizations. I thought that kind of stuff got you suspended.


3) Conservatives act like it's 200 years ago.

3) Liberals act like it'll never be 20 years from now.

[Red Dog]

Conservatives

3. Ban on touching during lap dances

Liberals

3. My damn money transferred to Joe Lazy Ass



Those are pretty good responses.

[classicman2]

Ah, a thread, finally that encourages generalizations. I thought that kind of stuff got you suspended.


3) Conservatives act like it's 200 years ago.

3) Liberals act like it'll never be 20 years from now.

Generalizations are a necessity in politics - and in life also - especially if they're backed with some history.

[FlickMan]

Flickman, you live in Illinois and you think the Republicans suck. Dude wake up, the Dems have F-d your state all to hell. Outside of Chicago it is Minimum Wage City. Small biz cant afford to operate in that state thanks to the Dems.

I work for a small biz, 3 employees, they make 1.2mil a year and we all make between $16 to $30hr w/full bennies.

I am awake. Dems suck but Repubs suck even harder. yep Chicago sucks, but its still one of the best places to make a buck and live.

[Groucho]

Conservatives will force everybody to become Christian.
Liberals will force everybody into a same sex-marriage.

[Dr Mabuse]

Conservatives

3. Ban on touching during lap dances

Liberals

3. My damn money transferred to Joe Lazy Ass

What a sucky choice.

Somehow I missed this gem.

Awesome stuff here.

:lol:

[Hank Ringworm]

Generalizations are a necessity in politics - and in life also - especially if they're backed with some history.

Oh, I know. I love generalizations. They're especially helpful in keeping me from wasting my time.

I was just commenting on how generalizations are looked down upon by the DVDTalk moderators, and yet they are obviously useful, especially in political threads. I was also wondering how this thread, which blatantly asks for generalizations, is allowable, while generalizations in individual posts are cause for suspension.

All that said, my comments stand.

[FlickMan]

Conservatives will force everybody to become Christian.
Liberals will force everybody into a same sex-marriage.

As far as the Conservatives - that would be more likely to happen before the liberals did that

and I am Christian but VEHEMENTLY argue against Evans, Fundies and my fellow Caths over their views that would bring us to a Theocracy if they had their way

[wendersfan]

Oh, I know. I love generalizations. They're especially helpful in keeping me from wasting my time.

I was just commenting on how generalizations are looked down upon by the DVDTalk moderators, and yet they are obviously useful, especially in political threads. I was also wondering how this thread, which blatantly asks for generalizations, is allowable, while generalizations in individual posts are cause for suspension.In the original discussion we had about generalizations and their use here (before I was a mod, BTW, but my position is unchanged), the position was stated like this: generalizations are fine when they serve to promote discussion, but what isn't allowed are generalized attacks on groups of people - "Republicans care more about money than other people", "Liberals all hate America", that sort of thing. It's one thing to say that "Senator X has shown he cares more about money from lobbyists than he does serving his constituents", but it a completely different thing to say that he shares that behavior with every member of his party or person who shares his set of beliefs.

Is that clear enough?

[elektra]

As far as the Conservatives - that would be more likely to happen before the liberals did that

and I am Christian but VEHEMENTLY argue against Evans, Fundies and my fellow Caths over their views that would bring us to a Theocracy if they had their way


And Theocracy worked out so well for the middle east. I can agree with you that it would be bad for this country.

[elektra]

I think we're screwed either way.

Conservatives want to regulate our personal lives until we are "moral." While they continue on as they have.

Liberals hop on whatever bandwagon happens by and can't seem to stand for their own thing.

[classicman2]

elektra,

Where in the hell have you been?

The forum missed you - at least some of us missed you. ;)

[elektra]

elektra,

Where in the hell have you been?

The forum missed you - at least some of us missed you. ;)


Awwww, well thank you, darlin'.

Work, school and minor illness have kept me fairly busy. Nice to be back and I missed this crowd. I see you're still keeping us all on our toes.

[elektra]

Here are some things to think about.

I am 46 years old, single, in a long term relationship. The only debt I currently have is my monthly expenses. No credit cards. My ATM is an ATM Visa and the only reason why, is because my Credit Union switched to them a couple of years ago. I am also a Libretarian.

I make a decent living doing phone tech support for a Fortune 100 Company. I have a 401k, which you may already conclude has lost money over the last few weeks. So, I'm not too thrilled that we're a capalist society when it comes to individuals not being allowed to declare bankruptcy, but socialist the second some big corporation comes crying because their executives suck and srewed everyone over. These CEO's/board of directors/executives should be on the hook for this money.

Now, if you cut the taxes for this company, I can tell you right now, having worked for them for 15 years, that does not neccessarily mean that money will pass to employees. First and foremost, the money will go to the clients in dividends. Then they have to see what projects that have been put on hold can be funded. Ultimately they are designed to make us more money or save us money in some way. Or better how we do business. Then we are considered, but I'm certain that's after the CEO, board of directors and executives get their raises.

At this point in time, I have little confidence in our government or economy because with no consequences, again, for their actions, these wealthy dorks will screw the rest of the world over the first chance they get. So, even if my taxes were cut, I would not spend more. I would save. And that also does not inspire me to drop 5K on Wall Street. And I could potentially do it.

My spending is more conservative than before. And it's going to stay that way for a long time.

[hahn]

Now, if you cut the taxes for this company, I can tell you right now, having worked for them for 15 years, that does not neccessarily mean that money will pass to employees. First and foremost, the money will go to the clients in dividends. Then they have to see what projects that have been put on hold can be funded. Ultimately they are designed to make us more money or save us money in some way. Or better how we do business. Then we are considered, but I'm certain that's after the CEO, board of directors and executives get their raises.

At this point in time, I have little confidence in our government or economy because with no consequences, again, for their actions, these wealthy dorks will screw the rest of the world over the first chance they get. So, even if my taxes were cut, I would not spend more. I would save. And that also does not inspire me to drop 5K on Wall Street. And I could potentially do it.

My spending is more conservative than before. And it's going to stay that way for a long time.
Paging bhk - are you reading this?

[elektra]

It's true, hahn. In order for our company to stay competitive and make more money, they have to maintain their ratings in the market. Standard and Poors, Moody's, those ratings there. Solid ratings give the public more confidence in our products and services and increases revenue. It gives confidence to individuals who are looking for a respectable company to join to offer our products and services to the public. Assets are one of the first things the rating companys look at. So, that's why client dividends will always come first. We've already gotten communiations from the CEO that there will be no lay-offs, but most of us will not get raises or bonuses next year. So, some of you might conclude that I might be a tad pissed off. And you'd be essentially correct. So, the temptation to find the douche bags that screwed me and go all World of Warcraft on them is rising day-by-day.

Some people will get them because we just landed a major account that will put money in the company, but how much and how soon remain to be seen.

And since we're on the subject of taxes, how are we ever supposed to get out of the debt we're in?

edited to add: Our company is not stockheld, thank goodness, but is a mutual fund company. We're owned by the policyholders. So, we've been hurt some by this shake-up, but not as bad as others. And, still, no raises or bonuses even though we've not been that badly injured.

[Dr Mabuse]

And since we're on the subject of taxes, how are we ever supposed to get out of the debt we're in?

We never will.

It is literally impossible for our nation to do this.

If you have even known an individual to live too 'high' off of their income(sometimes an affluent income) and credit cards until they lost it all? That is the future of the US.

Things occur a little more quickly with an individual than they do on the scale of a national economy though.

[elektra]

So basically we're screwed?

[Ky-Fi]

Conservatives will force everybody to become Christian.
Liberals will force everybody into a same sex-marriage.

Yeah, you laugh at that, but it's HAPPENING in my state. I just hope the guy I end up with likes kung fu movies, spaghetti westerns, and....long walks on the beach. :shrug:


Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry
February 25, 2004 | Issue 40•08

BOSTON—Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.


"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to co-exist," Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said. "Our ruling in November was just the first step toward creating an all-gay Massachusetts."

Marshall added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions altogether."

Marshall said the court's action will put a swift end to the mounting debate.

"Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth, we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to allow gay marriages," Marshall said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed anyway."

The justices then congratulated the state's 4.8 million marriage-age residents on their legally mandated engagements.

The court issued the surprise order in response to a query from the Massachusetts Senate over whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage but not the title, are constitutional.

"If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it's that separate is never equal," Marshall said. "Therefore, any measure short of dismantling conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I'm confident that this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to our state's, and indeed America's, ongoing marriage controversy."

Marshall then announced her engagement to Holyoke kindergarten teacher Betsy Peterson, a pairing that had been randomly generated by computers in the census office earlier that day.


http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Massachusetts-Supreme-Jump-.article.jpg
A state-arranged couple from New Bedford, MA, honeymoons in Aruba.

Those who don't choose to marry in private will be married in concurrent mass ceremonies at Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Boston Convention and Exposition Center. Any citizen who is not gay-married or is still in an illegal heterosexual relationship after that date will be arrested and tried for non-support.

Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up" and "Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read, "On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."

According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.

"The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene are going to fry in hell."

The much-anticipated order sets the stage for Massachusetts' upcoming constitutional convention, where the state legislature will consider an amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas Finneran, would be delayed.

"This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said. "Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia."

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country, at 1.3 percent, according to the 2000 census. Under the new laws, the figure is expected to increase by approximately 98.7 percentage points.

[Hank Ringworm]

In the original discussion we had about generalizations and their use here (before I was a mod, BTW, but my position is unchanged), the position was stated like this: generalizations are fine when they serve to promote discussion, but what isn't allowed are generalized attacks on groups of people - "Republicans care more about money than other people", "Liberals all hate America", that sort of thing. It's one thing to say that "Senator X has shown he cares more about money from lobbyists than he does serving his constituents", but it a completely different thing to say that he shares that behavior with every member of his party or person who shares his set of beliefs.

Is that clear enough?

Very clear and sensible. Thank you, sir.

[elektra]

Yeah, you laugh at that, but it's HAPPENING in my state. I just hope the guy I end up with likes kung fu movies, spaghetti westerns, and....long walks on the beach. :shrug:


Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens To Gay Marry
February 25, 2004 | Issue 40•08

BOSTON—Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.


"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to co-exist," Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said. "Our ruling in November was just the first step toward creating an all-gay Massachusetts."

Marshall added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions altogether."

Marshall said the court's action will put a swift end to the mounting debate.

"Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth, we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to allow gay marriages," Marshall said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed anyway."

The justices then congratulated the state's 4.8 million marriage-age residents on their legally mandated engagements.

The court issued the surprise order in response to a query from the Massachusetts Senate over whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage but not the title, are constitutional.

"If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it's that separate is never equal," Marshall said. "Therefore, any measure short of dismantling conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I'm confident that this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to our state's, and indeed America's, ongoing marriage controversy."

Marshall then announced her engagement to Holyoke kindergarten teacher Betsy Peterson, a pairing that had been randomly generated by computers in the census office earlier that day.


http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Massachusetts-Supreme-Jump-.article.jpg
A state-arranged couple from New Bedford, MA, honeymoons in Aruba.

Those who don't choose to marry in private will be married in concurrent mass ceremonies at Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Boston Convention and Exposition Center. Any citizen who is not gay-married or is still in an illegal heterosexual relationship after that date will be arrested and tried for non-support.

Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up" and "Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read, "On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."

According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.

"The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene are going to fry in hell."

The much-anticipated order sets the stage for Massachusetts' upcoming constitutional convention, where the state legislature will consider an amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas Finneran, would be delayed.

"This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said. "Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia."

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country, at 1.3 percent, according to the 2000 census. Under the new laws, the figure is expected to increase by approximately 98.7 percentage points.

Is there a link to this article?

[JasonF]

Is there a link to this article?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30475

[elektra]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30475

Hi Jason,

Thank you. I suspected as much. :)