|
ARE YOU KIDDING?
Fiction != government policy.
This thread appears to have jumped the shark. Off to WoW.
Actually I was challenging the justification given:
For one because biblical passages deems those not of the same faith as lesser beings and discriminates against parts of the population. That alone shows that they have no place in a modern government.If you hold biblical passages to that, which is just a form of literature and fiction in many people's mind, then you should hold all forms of literature to that same standard. Unless someone just believes those issues are only wrong when religious literature talks about them but ok when other fiction writing talks about them. On the other hand if someone believes it is always wrong, then I would certainly expect to see them live that belief in their daily lives (not financially supporting a company that professes a respect for racist literature for example).
Pres Man,
Are you saying you think the Bible is a work of fiction? Because I'm pretty sure they tear up your party membership in that case. ;-)
ARE YOU KIDDING?
Fiction != government policy.
This thread appears to have jumped the shark. Off to WoW.
Actually I was challenging the justification given:
For one because biblical passages deems those not of the same faith as lesser beings and discriminates against parts of the population. That alone shows that they have no place in a modern government.If you hold biblical passages to that, which is just a form of literature and fiction in many people's mind, then you should hold all forms of literature to that same standard. Unless someone just believes those issues are only wrong when religious literature talks about them but ok when other fiction writing talks about them. On the other hand if someone believes it is always wrong, then I would certainly expect to see them live that belief in their daily lives (not financially supporting a company that professes a respect for racist literature for example).Pres Man,
Are you saying you think the Bible is a work of fiction? Because I'm pretty sure they tear up your party membership in that case. ;-)
Which party membership would that be?
|
|
Which party membership would that be?ARE YOU KIDDING?
Fiction != government policy.
This thread appears to have jumped the shark. Off to WoW.
Actually I was challenging the justification given:
For one because biblical passages deems those not of the same faith as lesser beings and discriminates against parts of the population. That alone shows that they have no place in a modern government.If you hold biblical passages to that, which is just a form of literature and fiction in many people's mind, then you should hold all forms of literature to that same standard. Unless someone just believes those issues are only wrong when religious literature talks about them but ok when other fiction writing talks about them. On the other hand if someone believes it is always wrong, then I would certainly expect to see them live that belief in their daily lives (not financially supporting a company that professes a respect for racist literature for example).Pres Man,
Are you saying you think the Bible is a work of fiction? Because I'm pretty sure they tear up your party membership in that case. ;-)
Well, Republicans are the stereotypical party of the more vocally religious and as I was going for comic effect, I see no reason not to use stereotypes regardless of their accuracy.
|
Woo hoo! The conventions are over - time to dig in for the real campaign season.
It's good to see both candidates are running on a platform of change and service - now it's just a matter of deciding what kind of change we think will do us all the most good, and who our government should focus on serving ;)
Well, Republicans are the stereotypical party of the more vocally religious and as I was going for comic effect, I see no reason not to use stereotypes regardless of their accuracy.Which party membership would that be?Pres Man,
Are you saying you think the Bible is a work of fiction? Because I'm pretty sure they tear up your party membership in that case. ;-)
Ah, I see, very good then.
As to your "question", it doesn't matter how I see the Bible (or other religious literature), as fiction* or not, it only matters that it can be looked at that way. Let's say someone wasn't religious (for this particular example let's stick with not christian so I can just stick with the bible as an example). Would that person be more likely to be pushing for the banning of the bible in government? I would hazard a guess and say yes. Would they also view the bible as fiction? Again I would hazard a guess and say yes. Thus they are pushing for banning something they see as fiction, why shouldn't they then hold all fiction to the same standard? Unless they are a hypocrit, I can't imagine why not?
Religious writings and speech are (or should be) just as protected as any other form of speech and writing. Yes even that speech and writing that we personal may find disgusting is still protected (in most cases). To differenate between religious writing and non-religious writing is to go directly against the protections of the US constitution (though in other countries they may not have the same protections). To require that people abandon their faith when they enter a government building is not what the "separation of church and state" is about. Having the government telling people how it is appropriate for them to show their faith in or out of the government buildings is going against this very idea of "separation of church and faith".
Freedom of Religion is not Freedom from Religion. I know that has been said, and is lame, but it actually refers to a much larger issue. Freedom of Speech isn't Freedom from Speech, you start singling out religious speech than you are stepping on those rights you whole so dear. You want to talk about case law wearing down people's rights, there you go, that is exactly what some people want to do.
*As an aside, I believe that some "fictional" works are not actually fiction. For example the The Star trek Encyclopedia I believe is a reference book. Also I believe the Bible often is placed in reference section.
|
Being the vice presidential candidate and saying God is commanding our military is no different from saying we are conducting a government sanctioned jihad. I pray to God myself that this is not why our soldiers are dieing and why we are spending trillions of dollars to occupy a desert nation half way around the world.
Did she really say that? Look at the statement again, she said we should be praying to have the plan that our leaders have be in line with the plan that God has. That is a lot different then saying that God is commanding our military.
|
|
Here is Sarah Palin in her own words. If you listen close she say that we should pray that our leaders are sending them on a mission from God. She does not say that they are on a mission from God. Once again we see that the media is willing to distort her words and the words of any other Republican to get Barack Obama elected.
|
|
Well, Republicans are the stereotypical party of the more vocally religious and as I was going for comic effect, I see no reason not to use stereotypes regardless of their accuracy.Which party membership would that be?Pres Man,
Are you saying you think the Bible is a work of fiction? Because I'm pretty sure they tear up your party membership in that case. ;-)Ah, I see, very good then.
As to your "question", it doesn't matter how I see the Bible (or other religious literature), as fiction* or not, it only matters that it can be looked at that way. Let's say someone wasn't religious (for this particular example let's stick with not christian so I can just stick with the bible as an example). Would that person be more likely to be pushing for the banning of the bible in government? I would hazard a guess and say yes. Would they also view the bible as fiction? Again I would hazard a guess and say yes. Thus they are pushing for banning something they see as fiction, why shouldn't they then hold all fiction to the same standard? Unless they are a hypocrit, I can't imagine why not?
Religious writings and speech are (or should be) just as protected as any other form of speech and writing. Yes even that speech and writing that we personal may find disgusting is still protected (in most cases). To differenate between religious writing and non-religious writing is to go directly against the protections of the US constitution (though in other countries they may not have the same protections). To require that people abandon their faith when they enter a government building is not what the "separation of church and state" is about. Having the government telling people how it is appropriate for them to show their faith in or out of the government buildings is going against this very idea of "separation of church and faith".
Freedom of Religion is not Freedom from Religion. I know that has been said, and...
Ok. That's a fair point. May I offer a counterpoint?
Saying something should be law with no argument for it other than "It's in the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah/LOTR/Jedi code/insert as applicable" should have no place in government. Giving the Bible more weight than other religious texts should have no place in government.
This would mean that arguing about abortion isn't a problem, despite what many Democrats seem to feel, as the view is not a religious one, it's one about an impossibility to define, i.e. what it is that makes a human life a human life and when does this this whatever it is become part of the human. But arguing against gay marriage because it's against Biblical teachings is a problem.
Of course, that's my position and as I'm a foreigner, I really don't have much to say on this that's relevant.
Here is Sarah Palin in her own words. If you listen close she say that we should pray that our leaders are sending them on a mission from God. She does not say that they are on a mission from God. Once again we see that the media is willing to distort her words and the words of any other Republican to get Barack Obama elected.
I think your point will fall on deaf ears here. But for those that are not close minded here is the the full text of her comment:
It would seem pretty obvious that the "also" was meant as "also pray for".
Ok. That's a fair point. May I offer a counterpoint?
Saying something should be law with no argument for it other than "It's in the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah/LOTR/Jedi code/insert as applicable" should have no place in government. Giving the Bible more weight than other religious texts should have no place in government.
I would agree it is poor rhetoric (just as in this thread the OP is complaining about poor rhetoric), but I am not sure I feel comfortable telling people they can't say what they believe (just as many people on that thread didn't). The answer to poor speech is not to limit it but to provide more speech to counteract it.
This would mean that arguing about abortion isn't a problem, despite what many Democrats seem to feel, as the view is not a religious one, it's one about an impossibility to define, i.e. what it is that makes a human life a human life and when does this this whatever it is become part of the human.
I agree, the question is when someone is a "person", which makes Obama's "above my pay grade" response so pathetic. Hello, if you think you should be president, there better not be any question that is "above your pay grade". You have an opinion state it. I probably wouldn't agree with McCain's statement, but I respect him for having the conviction to actual take a position. As they crudely say, "Sh!t or get off the pot."
But arguing against gay marriage because it's against Biblical teachings is a problem.
Of course there may be non-religious reasons as well. Some non-religious people don't support at either and are being forced into a "you're really secretly religious" box.
Of course, that's my position and as I'm a foreigner, I really don't have much to say on this that's relevant.
Ah, but what might seem irrelevant might actually be relevant, that is why it is never a good idea to limit speech even seemingly irrelevant speech like "bible talk".
Bugleyman:
Whether they are good or bad scientists, science has its fanatics, who espouse hypothoses as if they were facts, in the absence of empirical evidence. When they speak on public shows, some of these men and women seem to me to treat their hypotheses as articles of practically religious faith. Keeping them out of school science lessons is probably as good an idea as keeping deific counterparts out of school science lessons- or religious instruction lessons.
I apologise if I offended you in not being clearer.
You didn't offend me so much as annoy me; it just seems our POV is so dramatically different I simply can't relate.
I'm sorry I was surly about it. I should really learn when to just stop posting to a thread.
|
|
Ok. That's a fair point. May I offer a counterpoint?
Saying something should be law with no argument for it other than "It's in the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah/LOTR/Jedi code/insert as applicable" should have no place in government. Giving the Bible more weight than other religious texts should have no place in government.
I would agree it is poor rhetoric (just as in this thread the OP is complaining about poor rhetoric), but I am not sure I feel comfortable telling people they can't say what they believe (just as many people on that thread didn't). The answer to poor speech is not to limit it but to provide more speech to counteract it.
This would mean that arguing about abortion isn't a problem, despite what many Democrats seem to feel, as the view is not a religious one, it's one about an impossibility to define, i.e. what it is that makes a human life a human life and when does this this whatever it is become part of the human.I agree, the question is when someone is a "person", which makes Obama's "above my pay grade" response so pathetic. Hello, if you think you should be president, there better not be any question that is "above your pay grade". You have an opinion state it. I probably wouldn't agree with McCain's statement, but I respect him for having the conviction to actual take a position. As they crudely say, "Sh!t or get off the pot."
But arguing against gay marriage because it's against Biblical teachings is a problem.Of course there may be non-religious reasons as well. Some non-religious people don't support at either and are being forced into a "your really secretly religious" box.
Of course, that's my position and as I'm a foreigner, I really don't have much to say on this that's relevant.Ah, but what might seem...
There may indeed be non-religious reasons. There are even some that aren't the result of homophobia, as impossible as that sounds to some people. As I noted, it's only a problem to me when your only argument for or against something is "Because my religion says so". Because my religion might say just the opposite and I want my religion enforced just as much as you do. If you've got other arguments, let's hear them but as we don't worship the same God, why should your religion get to tell me what to do? (You and I used as it's easier than saying some guy #1 and some guy #2)
As for Obama's comment, well, yeah. Not much you can say to that apart from "Stop dodging the question, will you?". Of course, it's not as if "I was a POW." is any less of a dodge in most cases.
|
Ok, so when you see the entirety of the quote you see that she isn't saying that they are on a task for god. And even if she was saying that... SHE WAS IN HER CHURCH SAYING THAT! sorry for the all caps but for heavens sakes what person in their right mind thinks that something they believe is good isn't god's will if they believe in god. Do you really think there is a person on this planet who believes in god and thinks that something they think is good isn't in some way influenced by god. And to take comments made in a church, not at a town hall meeting, not in her office. At church saying that something is gods will how terrible. What you guys are basically saying is that someone can't hold government office if they have a religious background because they'll believe that what they are doing is gods will. okay maybe I'm taking this to far, but the vast majority of people who believe in god and take their spirituality seriously will believe that anything good in the world is gods will.
But again it's irrelevant because when you take the entire line as a whole instead of editing out relevant parts it she wasn't even saying that.
|
|
But arguing against gay marriage because it's against Biblical teachings is a problem.Of course there may be non-religious reasons as well. Some non-religious people don't support at either and are being forced into a "you're really secretly religious" box.
Actually, I know many gay people who are against gay marriage. One person that I talked to said that she found it liberating not to have the pressures of everyone expecting her to get married. Another said that if he and his life partner ever broke up, he would rather just have a clean break than a messy divorce. Yet another asked my why he as a gay man should want to get married when most heterosexual marriages end in divorce. These people and others I have met do not represent the majority I am sure, but it does show that even the gay community cannot agree on the issue.
|
|
Actually, I know many gay people who are against gay marriage. One person that I talked to said that she found it liberating not to have the pressures of everyone expecting her to get married. Another said that if he and his life partner ever broke up, he would rather just have a clean break than a messy divorce. Yet another asked my why he as a gay man should want to get married when most heterosexual marriages end in divorce. These people and others I have met do not represent the majority I am sure, but it does show that even the gay community cannot agree on the issue.
But arguing against gay marriage because it's against Biblical teachings is a problem.Of course there may be non-religious reasons as well. Some non-religious people don't support at either and are being forced into a "you're really secretly religious" box.
David,
Are they against gay marriage as an idea or against gay marriage for them? Last time checked, no one was proposing a law to force gay people to get married.Personally, my solution is to abolish civil marriage and have civil unions as far as the government is concerned for any orientation and marriage as far as the religion is concerned. Marriages would be unions, but not necessarily the reverse.
|
|
Actually, I know many gay people who are against gay marriage. One person that I talked to said that she found it liberating not to have the pressures of everyone expecting her to get married. Another said that if he and his life partner ever broke up, he would rather just have a clean break than a messy divorce. Yet another asked my why he as a gay man should want to get married when most heterosexual marriages end in divorce. These people and others I have met do not represent the majority I am sure, but it does show that even the gay community cannot agree on the issue.
But arguing against gay marriage because it's against Biblical teachings is a problem.Of course there may be non-religious reasons as well. Some non-religious people don't support at either and are being forced into a "you're really secretly religious" box.
David,
Are they against gay marriage as an idea or against gay marriage for them? Last time checked, no one was proposing a law to force gay people to get married.Personally, my solution is to abolish civil marriage and have civil unions as far as the government is concerned for any orientation and marriage as far as the religion is concerned. Marriages would be unions, but not necessarily the reverse.
Well my lesbian cousin is against the idea in general, because while the law might not force her to get married her mother still would. I'm assuming the others are against the idea in general as well since they are part of a group called "Gays Against Gay Marriage." As for your solution, I too have proposed the idea on more than one occasion.
|
|
Well my lesbian cousin is against the idea in general, because while the law might not force her to get married her mother still would. I'm assuming the others are against the idea in general as well since they are part of a group called "Gays Against Gay Marriage." As for your solution, I too have proposed the idea on more than one occasion.Actually, I know many gay people who are against gay marriage. One person that I talked to said that she found it liberating not to have the pressures of everyone expecting her to get married. Another said that if he and his life partner ever broke up, he would rather just have a clean break than a messy divorce. Yet another asked my why he as a gay man should want to get married when most heterosexual marriages end in divorce. These people and others I have met do not represent the majority I am sure, but it does show that even the gay community cannot agree on the issue.
But arguing against gay marriage because it's against Biblical teachings is a problem.Of course there may be non-religious reasons as well. Some non-religious people don't support at either and are being forced into a "you're really secretly religious" box.
David,
Are they against gay marriage as an idea or against gay marriage for them? Last time checked, no one was proposing a law to force gay people to get married.Personally, my solution is to abolish civil marriage and have civil unions as far as the government is concerned for any orientation and marriage as far as the religion is concerned. Marriages would be unions, but not necessarily the reverse.
That would be a pretty big indication, yes. It's just that the points made don't seem to be arguments against gay marriage just arguments why they wouldn't get married. No biggie.
That would be a pretty big indication, yes. It's just that the points made don't seem to be arguments against gay marriage just arguments why they wouldn't get married. No biggie.
Well it might also be concerns about say "Common-law marriages" as well.
Just as an aside, I remember hearing a story on NPR when California was changing their civil union rules (making them more in line with marriages) and it gave more rights to the couples, that some couples were actually getting the unions annulled. There was a story of a couple where one of the partners had children from a previous marriage and wanted his life insurance and property to be transfered to his children when he died instead of to his partner. I guess the new rules wouldn't have done that so they were getting their relationship officially annulled but were staying together (evidently his partner understood his desires [no pun intended]).
Here is Sarah Palin in her own words. If you listen close she say that we should pray that our leaders are sending them on a mission from God. She does not say that they are on a mission from God. Once again we see that the media is willing to distort her words and the words of any other Republican to get Barack Obama elected.
Yeah, when I read that one article I thought she sounded like a nut. Of course the truth comes out when you hear it in her own words. Modern journalism is dead.
As I noted, it's only a problem to me when your only argument for or against something is "Because my religion says so". Because my religion might say just the opposite and I want my religion enforced just as much as you do. If you've got other arguments, let's hear them but as we don't worship the same God, why should your religion get to tell me what to do?
And that is what debates are for, for you to say just that.
|
|
Heathy has a discriminating palate, and a twisted sense of humor.But....but...she doesn't sound like a cook that way.Kook, not cook. A cook is someone who prepares and cooks food. Surely a werewolf with your discriminating palate would know that.
I thought the latter was an entry requirement onto these boards? Don't tell me I twisted mine for nothing.
|
|
I thought the latter was an entry requirement onto these boards? Don't tell me I twisted mine for nothing.Heathy has a discriminating palate, and a twisted sense of humor.But....but...she doesn't sound like a cook that way.Kook, not cook. A cook is someone who prepares and cooks food. Surely a werewolf with your discriminating palate would know that.
And here I thought it was the former.
Well my lesbian cousin is against the idea in general, because while the law might not force her to get married her mother still would. I'm assuming the others are against the idea in general as well since they are part of a group called "Gays Against Gay Marriage." As for your solution, I too have proposed the idea on more than one occasion.
So why exactly should homosexuals be free from the busybody badgering of relatives? Blatant discrimination, I tell you!
As for me, I'd rather just call it marriage for everyone. Let the churches continue to define who's married in their eyes in contrast to who's married by the state definition (they do that already) and just keep the terminology the same. It simplifies things significantly and is a lot easier to implement.
I once thought civil unions would be enough. But the argument I heard from a marriage advocate convinced me. When you say you're married, people have a pretty good idea what that means. There are tons of legal distinctions from state to state, particularly regarding property, but it usually means that the spouse qualifies as next of kin, can get on insurance, can make medical decisions in the hospital, and so on. There's an extensive body of law behind it.
But when someone says that so-and-so is their civil union partner it means... what? Who the hell knows? There isn't an extensive body of law behind it, nor extensive tradition. Everything must be defined anew.
Marriage is just simpler.
|
|
Soo of topic right now, at least the religious discussion had some relevance to Palin but the gay marraige thing isn't supported by any of the candidates so is kinda outside the scope of the thread.
So anywho anyone else think that the theme of the RNC was pretty much the title of this thread?
That's change you can believe in. Lol
We got some of that change too!
I was listening to snippets from McCain's speach last night and I couldn't help but think of this thread.
Well my lesbian cousin is against the idea in general, because while the law might not force her to get married her mother still would. I'm assuming the others are against the idea in general as well since they are part of a group called "Gays Against Gay Marriage." As for your solution, I too have proposed the idea on more than one occasion.So why exactly should homosexuals be free from the busybody badgering of relatives? Blatant discrimination, I tell you!
Reminds of this joke I heard. "I believe gays should have the right to marry. They have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us."
|
|
I'm going to be voting for McCain, here's why.
McCain, the good and bad
-I can relate to his service in the military, and I trust that he will work toward preserving our national security and quality of life for those currently serving.
-I believe in domestic drilling. Not anytime, anywhere, but more nonetheless. No, it will not solve our energy needs, but it will help.
-I approve of his VP Palin. She is not the most experienced choice, but so far the dirt-digging on her has turned up nothing solid and that seems rare in a politician. I like that she is pro-life, that she is a married mother of five, and that she has a conservative voting record.
-I believe McCain is the most qualified candidate to address issues of economy and foreign relations.
-I don't like many of McCain's choices in his voting record; I think he panders too much to special interest groups.
Obama, the good and bad
-He is well-spoken and charismatic, and talented at uniting people of different interests. Could be a strong quality in foreign relations.
-He has very little experience to draw upon.
-The experience he has is worse than none at all; his stint as a community organizer was for the ACORN group, known for strong-arm tactics and bullying, bad bookkeeping and fraudulent voting practices.
-His voting record does not appeal to me and does not conform even closely with the American majority.
-His stance on illegal immigration is too soft for me.
-He is for higher taxes and more social welfare programs.
-He is for giving more money and support to the UN (USA is already by far the largest contributor) and would push for a tax on Americans to fund more UN programs.
-He continues to dodge questions about his background and former associations. He would not likely be able to pass an FBI security clearance, but he might soon be choosing their directors.
In case I haven't been clear, I don't particularly like either presidential candidate. I feel McCain is the lesser of two poor options, given that he votes in my interests at least half of the time. I also like Sarah Palin, though she may have little or everything to do with the next 4 years. I feel Obama has all the wrong ideas about government's role in the life of its citizens.
I haven't finalized a decision yet, I still want to hear more. But one of the big things that jumped out at me as worrisome about Obama was when he was asked about raising the tax on capital gains. He said it was not off the table for him. Even after it was pointed out that more tax money came in when it was lowered, he still thought it might be a good idea. To me that seems bad for two reasons 1)it seems like he is more interested in punishing people for making money than actually caring about increasing tax revenues. If it has been proven that tax revenues increase at a lower rate, and your goal is to get the most tax revenues then why not use the lower rate? And 2) not everyone that gets capital gains is filthy rich. A lot of people's retirement planning is effected by those, those are the people that Obama claims to be working for but he suggests that he would be ok with shooting them in the foot. I have an in-law that is disabled, retired, and widowed. She still able to live on her own independently because of her social security and her investments, trying to get higher rates on taxes for investments hurts her ability to be independent, I dislike that.
|
|
I haven't finalized a decision yet, I still want to hear more. But one of the big things that jumped out at me as worrisome about Obama was when he was asked about raising the tax on capital gains. He said it was not off the table for him. Even after it was pointed out that more tax money came in when it was lowered, he still thought it might be a good idea.
What worries me is that he told George Stephanopoulos that he would raise capital gains taxes because it was "fair."
|
|
Reminds of this joke I heard. "I believe gays should have the right to marry. They have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us."
Absolutely.
Speaking of jokes:
I heard someone asked Palin if she was worried about media attacks. Her response was something along the lines of "the only difference between a pit bull and a hocky mom is lipstick".
And again with Sarah, I saw an article that jokingly referred to her as "Caribou Barbie".
|
|
I haven't finalized a decision yet, I still want to hear more. But one of the big things that jumped out at me as worrisome about Obama was when he was asked about raising the tax on capital gains. He said it was not off the table for him. Even after it was pointed out that more tax money came in when it was lowered, he still thought it might be a good idea.What worries me is that he told George Stephanopoulos that he would raise capital gains taxes because it was "fair."
Okay time for a little schpiel on my part. I haven't voted for a democratic or republican candidate since I first began voting at 18 I am now 26. This year I was honestly considering voting for Obama despite many disagreements with his policies. The reason why is that to me it is very important to break up the old white boys club that is the presidency. Not to mention the message that it would send to black americans like my wife that our country truly has reached a turning point. I believe in sacrifice for what you think is right, and I believe this is something that is right. But when I heard that statement I literally said out loud that I knew I couldn't vote for him. I can't have someone in office enacting policy, not because it will assist the government but to enforce an arbitrary idea like fairness. What is fair? it's different to every person. not to mention that capital gains tax actually affects more than just investment bankers.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Even after it was pointed out that more tax money came in when it was lowered, he still thought it might be a good idea.
Just wanted to point out this isn't a simple equation like higher rate = lower receipts, or lower rate = higher receipts. There is usually a spike right after a capital gains cut, but that's a no-brainer because many people and institutions will wait to sell when they know a tax cut is imminent. Over the long term, tax cuts like the one in 2003 have (as expected) cut revenue. Of course, excessively high capital gains tax cuts also cut revenue, by discouraging investments. It isn't a no-brainer issue.
|
|
New polling data shows that Sarah Palin is the most popular candidate in the race right now. Joe Biden is the least popular. 8 in 10 Republicans, 5 in 10 Independents, and 4 in 10 Democrats say that her pressence on the ticket makes them more likely to vote for McCain. Just to take this back to the opiginal topic.
New polling data shows that Sarah Palin is the most popular candidate in the race right now. Joe Biden is the least popular. 8 in 10 Republicans, 5 in 10 Independents, and 4 in 10 Democrats say that her pressence on the ticket makes them more likely to vote for McCain. Just to take this back to the opiginal topic.
Man, if he only could have gotten Joe Lieberman as his running mate, I'd be wetting my pants for them right now. I'm leaning:
55% McCain/Palin45% Obama/Biden
Can't wait to see the debates, this election is going to be tough (not like the last one with Senator Herman "I lied about other vets when I got back" Munster).
I have to say, feel kind of sorry for Biden. I mean he is getting totally ignored. Poor guy, he finally gets nominated for probably the highest position he will ever have a shot at and nobody seems to care.
New polling data shows that Sarah Palin is the most popular candidate in the race right now. Joe Biden is the least popular. 8 in 10 Republicans, 5 in 10 Independents, and 4 in 10 Democrats say that her pressence on the ticket makes them more likely to vote for McCain. Just to take this back to the opiginal topic.
It's strange when a VP candidate completely overshadows the presidential candidate. Has this ever happened before? I don't believe I've ever seen it.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, I have to share something. Its not particularly witty, or even really that funny, but its been driving me insane lately, and I need to get it out.
Sometimes, when my mind wanders, I lapse into Spoonerism. This leads to many hilarious instances of me telling people about plake fants and knials and dobs, etc. Usually, I'll misspeak, and then everyone will have a good chuckle, and it'll be done with.
But the other day, I was thinking about Sarah Palin, and in my inner monologue, I accidently thought "Parah Salin". As in "last time I was in Hawaii, I went Parasailin'."
See, I told you, not funny, but it IS stuck in my head now, and I can't get it to go away. Everytime I talk about Sarah Palin, I have to stop myself and make sure I say her name properly. Its Maddening!
|
|
Bugleyman:
Whether they are good or bad scientists, science has its fanatics, who espouse hypothoses as if they were facts, in the absence of empirical evidence. When they speak on public shows, some of these men and women seem to me to treat their hypotheses as articles of practically religious faith. Keeping them out of school science lessons is probably as good an idea as keeping deific counterparts out of school science lessons- or religious instruction lessons.
I apologise if I offended you in not being clearer.
You didn't offend me so much as annoy me; it just seems our POV is so dramatically different I simply can't relate.
I'm sorry I was surly about it. I should really learn when to just stop posting to a thread.
hey, one of the things i like about you is the passion you have in your convictions. i don't agree with a lot of your points, as i'm (at least economically) more conservative than you, but your default positions in a discussion are 1) debate civilly, and 2) ask pointed questions, which are both cornerstones of a proper discussion on issues.
and, dude, this is the internet and we're discussing politics/religion, two VERY heated topics. you've shown considerable constraint in your posts, as far as i'm concerned.
(and as an aside, i had a REALLY cool response yesterday to your question/answer to my last post here, but the post monster ate it in the early thursday weirdness with the boards. the discussion has moved past that point, but i didn't want you to think i was ducking your - and vattinese's - comments, but i had to spend the night in the hospital with my gf, so i didn't get a second chance to respond)
(oh, and she's fine, she had some minor surgery, nothing serious, but she'd never spend the night in a hospital before, and had some anxiety...)
|
|
In case I haven't been clear, I don't particularly like either presidential candidate. I feel McCain is the lesser of two poor options, given that he votes in my interests at least half of the time. I also like Sarah Palin, though she may have little or everything to do with the next 4 years. I feel Obama has all the wrong ideas about government's role in the life of its citizens.
Other than not being as supportive of Sarah Palin's positions, this expresses my views perfectly.
Even after it was pointed out that more tax money came in when it was lowered, he still thought it might be a good idea.Just wanted to point out this isn't a simple equation like higher rate = lower receipts, or lower rate = higher receipts. There is usually a spike right after a capital gains cut, but that's a no-brainer because many people and institutions will wait to sell when they know a tax cut is imminent. Over the long term, tax cuts like the one in 2003 have (as expected) cut revenue. Of course, excessively high capital gains tax cuts also cut revenue, by discouraging investments. It isn't a no-brainer issue.
The tax cuts from 2003 have not cut revenue. According to the IRS, tax revenue from 2003 was roughly 2 trillion. In 2007, the IRS collected roughly 2.7 trillion.
|
|
[threadjack]
There was a story of a couple where one of the partners had children from a previous marriage and wanted his life insurance and property to be transfered to his children when he died instead of to his partner. I guess the new rules wouldn't have done that so they were getting their relationship officially annulled but were staying together (evidently his partner understood his desires [no pun intended]).
While pun is technically correct, I would have gone with double entendre, which Random House says is "a word or expression with two meanings, one often indelicate." Pun does not have that connotation. Actually, I would not have ammended the statement at all, because while it draws attention to the double entendre, it weakens its punch.
Nudge nudge, wink wink.
[/threadjack]