- Leon Einstein
- Feb 6, 2012
-
I must win every thread in GBS. I don't care how much banal semantic quibbling and shitty posts it takes.
|
Durgoc posted:
Yes, white christian males truly have the worst lives in America.
My dad was complaining about how Greeks get to open restaurants and run them for five years without paying taxes. First, I called him on his bullshit, and we googled it and shockingly, it isn't true. He was seriously flabbergasted, as he had believed it for his whole life. Secondly, I pointed out how he's wealthy and was able to retire at 50, and he has it better than any of the people he's complaining about. I hope I at least made him examine his views for at least a second or two.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 15:22
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 14:38
|
|
- Nintendo Kid
- Aug 4, 2011
-
by Smythe
|
Walter posted:
The "modern world" in the mid-16th century wasn't really all that modern. And some Native Americans had wheels (the Maya made toys with them), but with no large domesticable creatures to use as draft animals, I fail to see how wheels would have provided much benefit to them.
Having wheelbarrows and hand carts are pretty useful even today though? They weren't good at making large enough and smooth rolling enough axles and wheels is what I remember, which limited their usefulness to toys. Lack of large animals to pull wheeled stuff isn't too important.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 17:37
|
|
- SlipUp
- Sep 30, 2006
-
stayin c o o l
|
Domesticated animals absolutely are important in tandem for wheels for the purposes of transportation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 17:49
|
|
- Leon Einstein
- Feb 6, 2012
-
I must win every thread in GBS. I don't care how much banal semantic quibbling and shitty posts it takes.
|
Install Gentoo posted:
Lack of large animals to pull wheeled stuff isn't too important.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 17:50
|
|
- Nintendo Kid
- Aug 4, 2011
-
by Smythe
|
SlipUp posted:
Domesticated animals absolutely are important in tandem for wheels for the purposes of transportation.
Not for small loads. Like I said, wheelbarrows and handcarts are completely useful with only human power, even today! Rickshaws too. It's undoubtable that given enough time the native americans would have developed small, man-powered, wheeled transport. It would merely have required developing sturdy enough axles and wheels.
The Mormons had many of their number travel with their belongings thousands of miles using human-pulled handcarts, because they couldn't afford draft animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_handcart_pioneers
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 18:13
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Leon Einstein posted:
This attitude is common in pretty much anybody that would vote republican. My sister complains about how the mothers of the kids at her daughter's school (who are all on welfare, she knows knows this) buy their kids Gushers, and she can't even afford them. She complains about every single thing these "mooches" have while ignoring the fact that she has whatever she wants, and has at least 5 purses that cost hundreds of dollars each.
It seems like your sister wants to use her possessions as a tangible sign she is better than these other mothers of her daughter's classmates, but the whole Gushers thing is kind of throwing a wrench into that plan.
Leon Einstein posted:My dad was complaining about how Greeks get to open restaurants and run them for five years without paying taxes. First, I called him on his bullshit, and we googled it and shockingly, it isn't true. He was seriously flabbergasted, as he had believed it for his whole life. Secondly, I pointed out how he's wealthy and was able to retire at 50, and he has it better than any of the people he's complaining about. I hope I at least made him examine his views for at least a second or two.
This is the strangest racist thing I've ever heard. Where is your dad from that this is at all a thing that could ever possibly come up?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 23:36
|
|
- sexpig by night
- Sep 8, 2011
-
by Azathoth
|
Leon Einstein posted:
My dad was complaining about how Greeks get to open restaurants and run them for five years without paying taxes. First, I called him on his bullshit, and we googled it and shockingly, it isn't true. He was seriously flabbergasted, as he had believed it for his whole life. Secondly, I pointed out how he's wealthy and was able to retire at 50, and he has it better than any of the people he's complaining about. I hope I at least made him examine his views for at least a second or two.
That is my favorite example of random, laser precise, bigotry I've heard in a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 23:42
|
|
- The Read Menace
- Apr 4, 2003
-
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
Yeah, what's really funny to me is that I know so many conservatives who love Johnny Cash (I do, too) and think he was a bad-rear end for the whole Folsom Prison sessions thing, but at the time, Folsom Prison had an incredibly low recidivism rate because it was so focused on rehabilitation, low rates of violent crime within the prison, AND it barely cost anything to operate the prison. Now, Folsom has a recidivism rate of about 75% and it's part of what is currently bankrupting California.
Here's a good article about it:
http://www.npr.org/2009/08/13/111843426/folsom-embodies-californias-prison-blues
Johnny Cash was actually an advocate of prison reform, among other social issues.
He also spoke out against the Vietnam war, poverty, and racism.
Quite far removed from today's "country" musicians and your typical "country" music fan. If he was still alive you can be drat sure he would have been down at Occupy Nashville playing for the occupiers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 02:05
|
|
- The Read Menace
- Apr 4, 2003
-
|
Leon Einstein posted:
This attitude is common in pretty much anybody that would vote republican. My sister complains about how the mothers of the kids at her daughter's school (who are all on welfare, she knows knows this) buy their kids Gushers, and she can't even afford them. She complains about every single thing these "mooches" have while ignoring the fact that she has whatever she wants, and has at least 5 purses that cost hundreds of dollars each.
My dad was complaining about how Greeks get to open restaurants and run them for five years without paying taxes. First, I called him on his bullshit, and we googled it and shockingly, it isn't true. He was seriously flabbergasted, as he had believed it for his whole life. Secondly, I pointed out how he's wealthy and was able to retire at 50, and he has it better than any of the people he's complaining about. I hope I at least made him examine his views for at least a second or two.
I always have a simple response to these kind of blatantly racist complaints. Given the chance, would the racist in question become Greek/black/Mexican/Muslim so they could cash in on all these alleged free goodies? No, of course they wouldn't, because even they know these groups live much worse lives than them on average. What they really mean when they bitch about this stuff: Anything less than the evil other starving in a gutter is too good for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 02:14
|
|
- bairfanx
- Jan 20, 2006
-
I look like this IRL,
but, you know,
more Greg Land-y.
|
quote:
Do students need more math classes or better classes?
Requiring high school graduates to complete four years of math seems like a good idea on the surface.
But does it really add up in the long run?
It appears that the proposal will have to wait at least another year after the Senate recently approved the formation of a special task force to further study the four-year requirement.
The proposal has been floated by state Sen. Mike Freichs, D-Gifford, and others because students are going to college unprepared for math classes and entering the workforce without adequate math skills.
Under the proposal approved by a Senate committee, a panel of educators will submit a report to the General Assembly by March 2013 with an eye toward instituting new math requirements over the next four years. The legislation, Senate Bill 3244, is headed to the full Senate.
A fundamental question that the panel should address is whether the answer is more math classes or better math classes? Many students, and adults, have anecdotes about math teaching methods that simply don’t work. Since math generally builds on each concept, the student that fails to grasp one aspect of the curriculum can quickly fall behind and be lost.
So does it make sense to require an additional year of math if the teaching methods may be at least part of the problem?
In addition, the idea of students not being prepared for college-level math classes needs to be examined more closely. While the “blame” is often placed on high school math preparedness, it could also be a case of misplaced expectations by college instructors. The dividing line between what constitutes high school math and what is “college-level math” is blurry at best.
There are other, practical ramifications to an additional year of math. It may cost schools more to provide the instructors for additional classes. Given the state’s current budget situation and the budget constraints felt by many schools districts, that could be a huge factor. Adding a year of math could also affect the ability of students to take other classes, including some students who are earning college credits by taking dual credit courses.
There is plenty of evidence that high school graduates are not meeting the requirements that colleges and employers expect in the subject of math.
The problem is a real one. The solution, however, may not be as simple as adding more requirements. The discussion needs to center around whether students need more math classes, better math classes or a combination of both.
You know, I expect this kind of thing to be written in, but this is actually what the paper's staff thinks.
Notice that they don't define "better"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 19:39
|
|
- FishFood
- Apr 1, 2012
-
Now with brine shrimp!
|
Here in the lovely state of Utah, we have 2 local papers. One of them is owned by the LDS Church and one is private. Both of them get letters like this:
quote:Liberal incumbents are almost impossible to defeat in today's political environment. They dole out money to people with little regard as to the source of the money. And the people receiving the money could also not care less. The fact that much of the money is in the form of debt doesn't matter to them because the nation's debt is far beyond the capacity of most to comprehend.
So, when the conservatives come along and start talking about taking away "their money" because the nation can't afford it, who are the people going to vote for — those who will give out money or those who will take it away?
The more people depend on the government for their money, the stronger the voting base is for the liberals. But unfortunately, it has to stop somewhere. The only way for the trend to change is for people to realize it is wrong to depend on government for money as opposed to earning their money themselves.
Original is here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 21:52
|
|
- Mr Interweb
- Aug 25, 2004
-
|
Well here's your most retarded false equivalency article of the day:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/s-e-cupp-shocks-msnbc-panel-suggesting-democratic-party-moved-left-but-she-is-right/
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 01:13
|
|
- Pope Guilty
- Nov 6, 2006
-
The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.
|
I love that he's getting absolutely savaged in the comments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 01:22
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Wolfsheim posted:
Aside from the obvious political poo poo, I love that this dude cannot see a difference in medical testing on a live animal versus a dead fetus in terms of morality. He's either a moron or a sociopath.
I'm betting the author is one of those people who believes all animal rights philosophy and ethics are just the crap from the ALF and PETA, and maybe even the fundie "God gave man dominion over all animals" bullshit.
You know, someone like former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist who went around to animal shelters and lied about wanting to adopt cats so he could take them home and practice vivisection for med school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist#Medical_school_experiments
quote:Medical school experiments
While he was a medical school student in the 1970s, Frist performed fatal medical experiments and vivisection on shelter cats while researching the use of drugs on the mitral valve. By his own account, Frist improperly obtained these cats from Boston animal shelters, falsely telling shelter staff he was adopting the cats as pets.[41] In his book, Frist asserted that he succumbed to the pressure to succeed in a highly competitive medical school.
Frist's treatment of cats first became controversial in 1994, in his first Senate campaign, when the opposing camp in the Republican primary called him a cat-killer. The matter again created public controversy in 2002, after mention in a Boston Globe profile, published after his election as Senate majority leader.[42][43]
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 12:53
|
|
- SlipUp
- Sep 30, 2006
-
stayin c o o l
|
Install Gentoo posted:
Not for small loads. Like I said, wheelbarrows and handcarts are completely useful with only human power, even today! Rickshaws too. It's undoubtable that given enough time the native americans would have developed small, man-powered, wheeled transport. It would merely have required developing sturdy enough axles and wheels.
The Mormons had many of their number travel with their belongings thousands of miles using human-pulled handcarts, because they couldn't afford draft animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_handcart_pioneers
Like you said, small loads. I don't disagree with you at all. But consider the effect on human societal evolution from being able to transfer large loads further distances more effectively on a diet of things inedible to humans. Wheelbarrows and handcarts do not offer that and Mormon pulled handcarts are nowhere near as effective.
I'm not arguing that these other purposes aren't useful, but they kind of miss the big picture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 15:16
|
|
- Dr. Tough
- Oct 22, 2007
-
|
The local small town paper is obsessed with Obama, but they can't decide if he's stupid and ignorant or if he's scheming and evil. Today he is stupid and ignorant.
quote:
Obama: The Affirmative Action President
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer," a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:
To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass – held to a lower standard – because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:
And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist.
Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin – that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
Matt Patterson is a columnist for the Washington Post, New York Post and San Francisco Examiner. This August 18, 2011 article is reprinted with permission from https://www.americanthinker.com.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 16:41
|
|
- Johnny Cache Hit
- Oct 17, 2011
-
|
Dr. Tough posted:
The local small town paper is obsessed with Obama, but they can't decide if he's stupid and ignorant or if he's scheming and evil. Today he is stupid and ignorant.
Interestingly enough, the byline of that article appears to be a complete lie - the WaPo claims that while some of Matt Patterson's works have appeared in the Post, this one didn't, and calling him a columnist is a real stretch.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/omblog/post/reader-meter-the-hermanator-and-the-posts-matt-patterson/2011/11/04/gIQANIYsnM_blog.html
Other than that, it's a wonderfully racist piece. You can just hear Patterson trying his damnedest to blow the dog whistle as many times as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 18:26
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Exactly what I was thinking.
It's pretty obvious how biased this guy is and it's even funnier if you basically substitute George W. Bush for every criticism he has for Obama, which results in Obama looking as liberal and accomplished as FDR compared to Bush.
Seriously, Bush was at best a C- student who only got into Ivy League schools because of his family, ran every business he ever had into the ground before being bailed out each time by his father's friends, presided over an embarassing governorship of Texas where innocent men were executed on death row (Cameron Todd Willingham and Claude Jones) and education quality nosedived, only "won" the presidency because his brother was the governor of Florida, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 11:20
|
|
- Walter
- Jul 3, 2003
-
We think they're great. In a grand, mystical, neopolitical sense, these guys have a real message in their music. They don't, however, have neat names like me and Bono.
|
G.W. Bush was basically a legacy president who got himself elected based largely on his name. Not unlike how he got through the rest of his life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 13:19
|
|
- Saint Sputnik
- Apr 1, 2007
-
Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!
|
My town's paper's weekly editorial
The Buffet Rule is Bogus posted:President Obama is traveling around the country touting the merits of what he calls the “Buffett Rule.”
That’s a tax deal where the government would dramatically raise taxes on successful Americans and investors. It is one of the most ridiculously disingenuous proposals I have ever heard.
I get politics. I understand the populist appeal of saying things like: “This is not about a few people doing well. It’s about giving everybody a chance to do well. That’s what the American dream’s about. ... “You can still make it if you try. ... “You might have heard of this, but Warren Buffett is paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. Now that’s wrong. That’s not fair. And so, we gotta choose which direction we want this country to go in. “Do we keep giving those tax breaks to folks like me who don’t need ’em? Or give ’em to Warren Buffett who definitely doesn’t need ’em? Or Bill Gates? He’s already said, ‘I don’t need ’em.’ “Or do we want to keep investing in things that keep our economy growing and keep us secure? That’s the choice.”
So that’s the message. The proposal is that anyone making more than $1 million a year must pay at least 30 percent in income tax.
OK, so let’s start with some nuts and bolts. First of all, the majority of people who make more than $1 million already pay more than 30 percent in income taxes. See, people like George Clooney or Alex Rodriguez or the CEOs of big companies make most of their money from a paycheck. That’s earned income and it’s taxed at a rate of 36 percent.
Then there are people like Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney, who make most of their money via investments. Most of that income is in the form of dividends and capital gains, which is taxed at a rate of 15 percent. So yes, those folks are taxed at a lower rate. And it sounds oh so proper to tax those people so we can keep “investing in things that keep our economy growing and keep us secure.”
The problem with all this high-minded, haughty nonsense is outlined in a recent analysis by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation and pointed out in a Heritage Foundation article. The Buffett Rule, it seems, would raise a mere $47 billion over 10 years. Now, while that’s no small amount of money, it pales in comparison to President Obama’s own budget proposals, which call for adding $6.7 trillion to the national debt during the same time period.
To put that in perspective, let’s say you have a credit card with a balance of $6,700. You’d be making a $64 payment. And remember, these congressional analyses are generally wildly optimistic, so the picture probably is even more bleak than that. So – at best – the Buffett rule would cover about one-half of 1 percent of the president’s spending proposals.
But the nonsense that is the Buffett Rule goes far beyond its meager worth. Let’s get back to dividends and capital gains. Where do you suppose this capital comes from? Thin air.
There’s a reason income from investments are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. It’s because the money invested already has been taxed – sometimes several times at rates up to the top marginal rate of 36 percent.
The Heritage Foundation notes that once invested, it generates income that is taxed at the corporate level at a 35 percent rate. Then it’s taxed again at an individual rate of 15 percent on dividends and capital gains.
How many times and at what rate must that income be taxed before it’s enough for President Obama? Of course, when the president goes on one of his populist rants, he conveniently – and disingenuously – forgets to mention all but the last, 15 percent, individual rate. The president also makes it sound like rich people don’t pay enough taxes. But Heritage Foundation’s Curtis Dubay writes the following: The top 1 percent of income earners — those earning more than $380,000 in 2008 — paid more than 38 percent of all federal income taxes while earning 20 percent of all income.
Meanwhile, those in the top 10 percent ($114,000 and above) earned 45 percent of income and paid 70 percent of all taxes. By comparison, the bottom 50 percent of income earners — those earning less than $33,000 — earned 13 percent of all income and paid less than 3 percent of federal income taxes.
And in addition to the aforementioned meager financial gain the Buffett Rule would provide to the U.S. Treasury, it could have a chilling effect on investment and local governments all across the land.
Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO-Harris Private Bank, told NPR many wealthy investors would rethink what they do with their money.
“If you tax millionaires that are investing in, for example, municipal bonds, and they’re enjoying the tax benefit of that interest, you could see a whole rash of investors moving away from buying bonds of our state and local governments,” Ablin says.
On top of that, people who make money by buying and selling assets would suddenly be paying a lot higher taxes overnight. Will McBride, an economist with the Tax Foundation, told NPR people would rush to sell off assets right before the law takes effect.
“If this tax were to go into effect Jan. 1 of next year,” McBride says, “the stock market in December would not look pretty.” McBride also said over the long term the Buffett Rule would damage the economy because people would have less incentive to invest, harming small startups.
“You don’t want to heavily tax investment, because you’re taxing the thing that creates long-term economic growth,” he says. But what does he know.
You know, I absolutely agree that this country needs tax reform. The tax code needs to be simplified and made more fair. So why not do that? Why not propose meaningful tax reform? Because the Buffett Rule is polling more than 60 percent right now and it’s an election year, that’s why.
The president is a smart guy. He knows all this stuff. He also knows that the Buffett Rule, which, essentially raises the capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 30 percent, doesn’t have a chance of passing either house of Congress. But as long as he can paint those who oppose it as anti-middle class, he’s happy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 23:31
|
|
- ThePeteEffect
- Jun 12, 2007
-
I'm just crackers about cheese!
-
Fun Shoe
|
Saint Sputnik posted:
My town's paper's weekly editorial
If you are getting double-taxed, you have lovely accounting practices.
quote:
quote:
“If this tax were to go into effect Jan. 1 of next year,” McBride says, “the stock market in December would not look pretty.” McBride also said over the long term the Buffett Rule would damage the economy because people would have less incentive to invest, harming small startups.
“You don’t want to heavily tax investment, because you’re taxing the thing that creates long-term economic growth,” he says. But what does he know.
Like investors care or know what they're investing in, just as long as they think it can turn a quarterly profit. Also, that investment-heavy economy sure has led to long-term economic growth, hasn't it? Well, except for that whole "biggest collapse in decades" thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 01:00
|
|
- Ying Par
- Nov 13, 2005
-
Ut tandem populus R. verum Caesarem habeat
|
Just photocopying this talking points memo I got would be too easy, better paraphrase it with some condescending faux-folksiness
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 03:21
|
|
- Davethulhu
- Aug 12, 2003
-
-
Morbid Hound
|
Not exactly an editorial, but I was listening to Larry Elder, a conservative talk radio guy on Friday. Larry was reading an LA Times article discussing an upcoming NRA convention, and the opinions of Wayne LaPierre regarding Obama and gun control:
quote:The last few years, Obama "concocted a scheme to avoid the gun issue," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre has written. The idea was to "lull gun owners into a false sense of security," all the while "planning and plotting, behind closed doors, to launch a massive anti-gun onslaught when the time is right," LaPierre said.
That may be intentionally alarmist, but it in some way mirrors the hopes of the Brady Campaign's Gross.
Larry took umbrage at the phrase "intentionally alarmist." Personally, I would go with "clinically paranoid." As defense for this viewpoint, Larry cited an LA times editorial that called for gun control. The editorial was written 19 years ago. I couldn't stop laughing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 04:14
|
|
- Pope Guilty
- Nov 6, 2006
-
The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.
|
I love that Obama ignoring gun issues is proof that he's passionately anti-gun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 04:34
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Davethulhu posted:
Here's a good response to the whole "double taxation" thing:
Even better, it's called "capital gains," you only get taxed on the interest/profit you make on the investment, not on the principle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 05:04
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Saint Sputnik posted:
Also there's a little thing called tax brackets I think
That's for straight income, not capital gains. Capital gains get taxed at the flat 15% or 18% (I can't remember which because I'm too poor to have any investments) irrespective of how much money you earn from them. This is why Warren Buffet's yearly profits mean he's taxed at a lower level than his secretary who earns a paycheck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 11:02
|
|
- Bruce Leroy
- Jun 10, 2010
-
|
Here's a new one courtesy of Right Wing Watch, loving outside of marriage is the cause of the national debt:
The strong correlation between sexual immorality and overspending is beyond dispute. A perfect example in the Bible is the prodigal son in Luke 15. A perfect example in the world today is the United States.
Which came first...the chicken or the egg? Likewise, sensual indulgence is intricately interwoven with voracious spending habits. The prodigal son had it good at home. But he wanted more, and he wanted it immediately. His lust for money was fueled by his lust for sensual pleasure, and "vice" versa.
He took his inheritance which was intended to provide for future needs. He wasted it on wild living in the moment. He was clueless to what was happening while he was in the midst of his sensual storm. In America today, the promotion and practice of sex outside of marriage is doing more to increase the national debt than any other single factor. Blindness in one area produces blindness in the other. Just ask the prodigal son.
God made sex. God gave man and woman sexual desires. Sex within marriage between a man and a woman is a good thing. Outside of God's plan, there is chaos. When man feeds his sexual temptations, he creates financial confusion in his mind.....and this leads to economic disaster, among other things. Likewise, when man feeds his love for money, this often leads to sexual promiscuity. The two are somehow joined together in unholy matrimony. Remember....holy matrimony involves one man and one woman. Anything else is a counterfeit.
The prodigal son was feeding the desires of his flesh. Unfortunately, that mutant is a bottomless pit. It will bleed you dry and leave you with nada. America is bleeding badly today. Sexual immorality is rampant, as is overspending. This lack of self-control eventually catches up with the body, the soul, and the economic survival of the nation. The only way to fix both problems is to recognize where you went astray from God's plan. Without that recognition and a sincere turning to God in repentance, there is no way to avoid complete destruction.
In time, the prodigal son "came to his senses." (Luke 15:17) He remembered how good he had it back at home. He decided to humble himself before his father. It worked. His father was a loving man. "But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him." (Luke 15:20) What incredible mercy this wayward son was shown! In the same way, God's love is available for all those who come to their senses and decide to return home.
The Gospel is a message of forgiveness for those who have strayed from God. The death of Christ on the cross provides the way home to redemption and righteous living. The resurrection of Christ provides the assurance of eternal life for those who have come home to God through faith in Jesus. The story of the prodigal son ends with much jubilation. The story of America is still being written.
America began as a nation of people who honored the Lord and His Word. Sex outside of marriage was clearly seen as an abomination to God. As the people of our nation honored God, the Lord blessed this people with spiritual health and financial prosperity. That was then....and this is now. The sexual revolution has produced financial desolation. The nation is adrift and a long way from home. While some in our land call for people to return to the Lord in this one nation under God, others call just as intently for people to continue pursuing sexual immorality and massive spending. They don't necessarily use those words to describe it, but it's not hard to interpret their goal and their vision for our one nation under the united nations.
You and I are a part of this country. We cannot force people to "come home," but we can choose to do it ourselves. We can also lovingly invite others to do it. Who knows....God may have yet another revival up His sleeve for this wandering son known as America. Without the Lord's divine intervention and the repentance of His people, America will continue to bury herself in debt and in sexual destruction. The prodigal son turned around before it was too late. Let us fervently pray that professing Christians in America make the same decision.
The Lord gave this promise many centuries ago: "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14)
The solution is not complicated...but that doesn't mean it will be easy. Resisting lust and greed never has been man's strong suit. But it's a heck of a lot harder to resist when you have run away from home with pockets full of cash and a heart full of sensuality. Meanwhile, there is a loving Father at home who is watching, waiting, and longing for the safe return of His chosen one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 13:05
|
|
- Political Whores
- Feb 13, 2012
-
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
Here's a new one courtesy of Right Wing Watch, loving outside of marriage is the cause of the national debt:
I really love how these people always assume "my people" and "Chosen One' somehow refers to America. Not even the whole planet/species generically, but specifically America and its people. Like Abraham was specifically writing for a country that would exist 3500 years down the line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 13:13
|
|
- LP97S
- Apr 25, 2008
-
|
colonelslime posted:
I really love how these people always assume "my people" and "Chosen One' somehow refers to America. Not even the whole planet/species generically, but specifically America and its people. Like Abraham was specifically writing for a country that would exist 3500 years down the line.
That's one the few reason I like Jack Chick's crazy poo poo, in most of them he points out that the US is never mentioned in scripture and will most likely be destroyed early on during the tribulation. Then again I prefer crazy premillennialists to postmillennialists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 16:55
|
|
- Strudel Man
- May 19, 2003
-
ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT
|
Bruce Leroy posted:
That's for straight income, not capital gains. Capital gains get taxed at the flat 15% or 18% (I can't remember which because I'm too poor to have any investments) irrespective of how much money you earn from them. This is why Warren Buffet's yearly profits mean he's taxed at a lower level than his secretary who earns a paycheck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 19:35
|
|
- SteveVizsla
- Mar 19, 2009
-
Why do I always want to sock it to you so hard?
|
The Delaware State News letters to the editor are always a bunch of crazy conservative and/or racist and/or delusional hogwash. This one was in today's edition. The author is a woman who is running for state Representative. Yes, Delaware apparently has a congress-hopeful woman more batshit than Christine O'Donnell (although both came from other states to live here).
quote:
Reasons why I would repeal ObamaCare
As a congressional candidate, I am opposed to ObamaCare. I believe Obama is destroying this country with these new mandated regulations that he is imposing on each citizens’ individual rights. As a Congresswoman, I would vote to reverse this abomination of a bill. Healthcare should be left to the people of the United States and their doctors to deal with, like it has been for many years. Washington thinks that the health care issue should be solved by politicians and lawyers. However, I think not… Whenever my baby got sick, I never went to a politician or a lawyer, I took my child to a doctor. I believe that the health care issue can be resolved by the patients and their doctors through the free-market. Our government should not stick its nose where it does not belong. This government needs to stay out of our business because it is unconstitutional and steps on the 10th Amendment. We the People are being stripped of our liberties, forcing Americans to buy a product like health care whether they want it or not, and telling us if we don’t, we will have to pay a penalty. This is a violation of the interstate commerce act. Not to mention, but I will, it’s one step toward a government dictatorship. Let’s think about this for a minute. Could you imagine if the government gets away with forcing us to buy health care. That would open the door for government to force you to purchase other things. Obama is ruining American with his Socialistic ways. We need to repeal this 2500 page document before it is too late.
Secondly, as a Catholic, I am disgusted that Obama is mandating that the Catholic church must provide abortion coverage on insurance policies for employees that work for the church. This is wrong. Even the Muslim faithful and other faiths are upset about this too. It is wrong for Obama, or any other President, to be meddling in others’ faiths and Religions. And that’s got to be changed and when I go to Washington, I will change that. I am not going to have Obama dictating to people of different religious faiths what they are supposed to do or not do. That is their decision that they make on their religious faith. Obama needs to stop telling us what to do, he is destroying and dividing this country and this needs to stop. When I go to Washington, I will vote to reverse all of his horrible policies.
Lastly, Obamacare is a mandate that is infringing on every citizens’ rights. Its main focus is to impose new regulations on the health insurance industry. It is unconstitutional for a government to force individuals to buy health insurance, or anything for that matter. This law will also make it difficult for doctors to care for their patients, forcefully giving them guidelines on how they will have to practice medicine and treat their patients for the future. Over time, these measures that the government is putting in place will ration medical services, limiting the tests that doctors can perform on patients and also limiting patients’ medications. Unfortunately, Obamacare and its effects will leave many sick individuals with diseases left to die. Sounds harsh, well it is… These newly-created bureaucracies are called Death Panels. These Advisory boards will be empowered by the government. These death panels then get to decide if certain procedures and treatments cost too much to treat sick individuals. If it is costly, then the government gets to decide who lives and who dies. If you are on Medicare and you depend on the government for your health benefits, and you are sick, again the government will decide if you will continue to be treated or not. This could be the end of the way we practice medicine as we know it. Under the Obamacare health plan, everyone loses their liberties. When I go to Washington I will vote to repeal this law.
Death Panels! Socialists! Abortions paid for by taxpayers! The Interstate Commerce Act! Wait, what?
By the way, her current job is listed as "website designer." This is her website. Well, if she's so good at that job...
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 05:48
|
|
- SteveVizsla
- Mar 19, 2009
-
Why do I always want to sock it to you so hard?
|
She probably meant the Interstate Commerce Clause.
My favorite part of her website is "I want to bring to Washington my experience of balancing a budget." She balances the budget for her family, so she can do it for an entire country, too!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 06:03
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2024 14:38
|
|
- Political Whores
- Feb 13, 2012
-
|
SteveVizsla posted:
She probably meant the Interstate Commerce Clause.
My favorite part of her website is "I want to bring to Washington my experience of balancing a budget." She balances the budget for her family, so she can do it for an entire country, too!
"How will you reduce the deficit?"
"Coupons, and going to the dollar store"
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 06:05
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2012 15:22
