Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Fast-Food and Homophobia Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 
   

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
08-04-2012 04:25 AM
jdang307
Quote:
Originally Posted by kushman View Post
Nice try jdang, but that picture fails to address the other 95% of the argument, and you somehow think you proved me wrong. For anyone watching, this is what it's like trying to debate the republicans in America these days. And I guess since they have roads in North Korea that invalidates the fact that they enable us to conduct business on a daily basis, that makes sense.
Dude, it was a joke. Did you not see the smiley? Calm down.

I'm not a Republican. I'm a conservative. I voted for John Kerry because Bush is no conservative and I thought his going into Iraq was a huge mistake and I hated the decision.

So take your assumptions and shove it!



Let me ask you this. In his speech where he said "You didn't build that" Barack Obama said, the people who were successful did not do so because they are smart, or they were hardworking. Here are his words.

Quote:
I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
Well tell me, the smart people out there, the hardworking people out there that Obama references, and are not successful. Did they not have access to the roads, bridges, internet and American system that everyone else has? They did right? But they're not successful. So it cannot be the bridges, and roads, and internet that made the difference. It was the entrepreneur. So yes, they did build that.

Again, I'm not against raising some taxes. I think we should raise them all across the board. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. All of them. So I'm not saying, we need to coddle the rich or the successful. Trust me, they can handle the minor increase in taxes. If we are going to raise taxes, we need to raise all of them. We need to broaden the tax base. Raising taxes only on the rich will only yield about $5 billion a year. That's not going to get anything accomplished.

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of what Obama tried to say. The fundamental difference between what Conservatives want and what Liberals want is the amount of gov.t interference in our affairs. Are things better today than yesterday? Govt. has their hand in more things today than 1, 5, 20, 30, 40 years ago. Are things really better? They fucked shit up, and we want them to be more involved? Govt. is necessary. They have functions that only govt. can provide. Public safety, national defense, regulation of the commerce. That is great. Only they can handle that, nobody disputes that.

But ever since the Great Depression have things gotten better with Gov.t intervention? Have they eliminated or even smoothed out recessions? No. Since they've jumped into education with the DOE have our test scores improved? No, we spend much, much more than we did before the DOE but our children's test scores have remained stagnant for 50 years. Since they started the Department of Energy has our energy independence increased? Nope.

I'm not an anarchist. We're all for good, efficient govt. We just differ on how much gov't there should be.

The top 20% of earners, pay 70% of all taxes. So when anyone tells you the upper class isn't paying enough, they're bullshitting you.



Govt. provides very useful services, and yes the Rich has taken advantage of it, and yes they pay for it. As you can see, the bottom 60% of tax payers pay much less in taxes than their share of total income. And that's not wrong. That's fair. But to say the top 20% hasn't paid their fair share is ludicrous. They pay 70% of all taxes collected. Whether we want them to pay more, well that's a worthy discussion. But what we cannot say is they haven't paid a reasonable or fair share. They pay 70% already. What's fair. 99%? Maybe..




EDIT: Eh, it's 3 am and I'm drunk. Ignore all that shit I just wrote above, I'm not fooling anyone. Democrats and Republicans all suck, they take care of themselves, and we all get fucked. That's just the way it is.
08-04-2012 04:16 AM
jdang307
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucasdg View Post
Sure, I understand that upbringing may have been more left than his policies. But in his defense everyone is allowed to find their own path to where they sit on issues and it's doubtful he is as red at heart as some would have us believe - people change their mind and evolve their philosophies. Secondly, I think you could say the same about many candidates on the other side of the fence who play down their extreme right views to appeal to a broader base. On both sides are a bunch of careerists who just want to get ahead at all costs, and we're foolish to think otherwise.
Yah that's cool. I've always said, Barack doesn't govern from the far left. He's a statist for sure, but every President has ruled from the center.

That's the nature of the beast. Bill Clinton attempted to ram through his liberal agenda. And then the country turned on him, and voted in the first Republican congress in decades. So he moved to the center, and some liberals will claim Clinton moved to the right. Remember, it was Clinton who deregulated the financial industry and it was Clinton who declared, "The era of Big Government is over."

People blame Bush for deregulation but the big deregs happened under Clinton.

Bush is perceived to be a far right radical but he was as liberal as ever. He expanded govt. involvement in education with No Child Left Behind. He expanded the medicare prescription program by hundreds of billions.

The fact of the matter is, once someone becomes President, the realities of the position takes hold. Obama tried to run the leftist agenda for just a bit. He dipped his toes in the water. During the midst of the great recession he tried to pass Cap and Trade. It died in the Senate, but passed the House. He took so much heat for that, the stimulus, and eventually ACA/Healthcare, he stopped. It almost mirrors Clinton's first two years. Democrats got clobbered both times in the midterms.

My point is, Obama did have a radical upbringing, even if he does not govern that way now. The GOP is accused of becoming more radical, yet moderates keep getting elected. I'm just saying, what people are saying is happening, doesn't flesh out in reality. If the GOp shifted far right, why did a far right candidate not get nominated? It just isn't true. The Tea Party has succeeded in getting the Republicans to act more like Republicans, because the Republicans of the last few years have acted like Democrats (expanding govt and deficits), but as a whole, the GOP is right where they've been. Electing weaklings like Romney.

As you can tell I'm not a fan of Romney. He's the worst of McCain and Jon Kerry rolled into on.
08-03-2012 09:30 AM
backstop13
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboMaster View Post
Love this, people do not realize how many systems exist in the background as a function of government that keep society functioning at the high level of complexity in which it exists today. You could not achieve today's world by greatly suppressing governmental control and services, because A. there would be no satisfactory contract between all citizens and B. if there was, there would be no adequate way to regulate the bandits from raiding the townsfolk.

Not saying I want government to solve all of our problems or that it works perfectly, but people forget how intrinsic it is to the functioning of a complex system simply because it is fairly transparent.

All I can say is think back to the time before the U.S Government had a big part in everyday life. It was mild chaos with little to no accountability between people and Wild-Wild-West antics abound.

Maybe some people want that, and that's fine, but that's not me.
with all that said, this is how the Zombie Apocolypse turns into a shit fest
08-03-2012 09:20 AM
HoboMaster
Quote:
Originally Posted by kushman View Post


Sorry, couldn't help it.
Love this, people do not realize how many systems exist in the background as a function of government that keep society functioning at the high level of complexity in which it exists today. You could not achieve today's world by greatly suppressing governmental control and services, because A. there would be no satisfactory contract between all citizens and B. if there was, there would be no adequate way to regulate the bandits from raiding the townsfolk.

Not saying I want government to solve all of our problems or that it works perfectly, but people forget how intrinsic it is to the functioning of a complex system simply because it is fairly transparent.

All I can say is think back to the time before the U.S Government had a big part in everyday life. It was mild chaos with little to no accountability between people and Wild-Wild-West antics abound.

Maybe some people want that, and that's fine, but that's not me.
08-03-2012 07:50 AM
kushman Nice try jdang, but that picture fails to address the other 95% of the argument, and you somehow think you proved me wrong. For anyone watching, this is what it's like trying to debate the republicans in America these days. And I guess since they have roads in North Korea that invalidates the fact that they enable us to conduct business on a daily basis, that makes sense.
08-03-2012 02:14 AM
lucasdg
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdang307 View Post
Barack had an extreme upbringing. He doesn't govern as one because he's smart enough to know he can't. It would kill his party and his legacy. He cares about his legacy with his big ego. He has radical roots but he's also pragmatic. The money is in the middle. The votes are in the middle. You have to appear to be somewhat close to the middle. This isn't Europe.
Sure, I understand that upbringing may have been more left than his policies. But in his defense everyone is allowed to find their own path to where they sit on issues and it's doubtful he is as red at heart as some would have us believe - people change their mind and evolve their philosophies. Secondly, I think you could say the same about many candidates on the other side of the fence who play down their extreme right views to appeal to a broader base. On both sides are a bunch of careerists who just want to get ahead at all costs, and we're foolish to think otherwise.
08-03-2012 02:00 AM
jdang307

08-03-2012 01:57 AM
jdang307
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShredLife View Post
just a load of bullshit.

it has been shown when people use the phrase "it has been shown" to bolster their argument that they really have no sources but are just regurgitating someone else's opinion.
he wrote that book before joining the AEI, something you would discover if you did a bit of due diligence. He was affiliated with RAND prior to the AEI.

Even liberals who critiqued the book did not disagree with his findings. They argued that the religious aspect of giving skewed the results and if you removed them, it would be more equal. But they did not question his study of 10 different datasets.

And it makes perfect sense. Liberals think govt. should be the ones to take care of the needy. Hence - higher taxes. Nobody is saying Liberals are less compassionate. They just think govt. will do it for them.

Welfare by the way is 12% of the Federal Budget. Pensions for workers is 22%.
08-03-2012 01:52 AM
kushman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan2011 View Post
I don't want Barack Obama telling me that my business that I created wasn't possible without him.


Sorry, couldn't help it.
08-03-2012 01:34 AM
jdang307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donutz View Post
The comment about taxes was aimed more at the extreme repubs who think any taxes are bad. In fact during biblical times government budgets were much simpler -- NO charity. In fact not much beyond military, improvements and partying (I kid, slightly).
Except for maybe the uber libertarians or anarchists, you won't find any republicans who think any taxes are bad. Any more tax hikes in the middle of a shitty recovery, is a bad idea. Democrats even know this. That's why they extended the Bush tax cuts, and that's why they will probably extend it again. Hiking taxes on the rich is not about revenue. The White House has specifically said this. It's about "fairness" they say. Well that's bull shit.

I actually think we should raise taxes. yeah, a fiscal con like myself. But we need to raise them on everyone. Not just the rich. The tax hike that Obama and the Democrats propose right now is projected to raise $5 billion a year.

Yes, I said $5 billion a year.

Quote:
But all of this is still beside the point, which is the question of whether or not Jesus' teachings espouse a socialist attitude. I think part of the problem may be the use of the S-word. That word has become so demonized in American culture (especially right wing) that it actually gets used as a generic curse-word, like a synonym for "asshole". Better eat your dinner, Tommy, or the socialist will come tonight and get you. Boogitty boogitty.
I do think Socialism has been demonized in the US. In Europe hell half the democrats in this nation would fit into the socialist party over there. I think Obama has socialist/marxist sympathies, but I don't think he's a Socialist as the word is demonized. He's a European Socialist for sure. Or he would like to be. He knows he can't because America would reject that like they rejected the Dem party in 2010. He's learned his lesson for now.

I think of Obama and most Dems as another S word. Statist. That word should really become more popular as it describes him and many other Dems very aptly.

Quote:
Looking back on some of nolefan's comments, I think he may be thinking of socialism as a necessarily governmental institution. Which it isn't, despite the common usage. At it's simplest, socialism is simply the belief that we have an obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves, that living high on the hog while someone else is digging food out of the ditch is immoral and shameful. So yes, Jesus was a socialist. It's unlikely that he gave a rat's ass about forms of government, though. In fact if you read behind the standard orthodoxy, he was really anti-establishment of any kind.
I disagree. Socialism by its definition is, a govt. institution. What you are saying, is more akin to the ideals behind Marxism, or even Communism. There are many different definitions of socialism now (just like Fascism nobody can agree on one definition) but at its simplest, it has mean socially (state) owned means of production (In Marxism it's the state before Communism).

Jesus was about helping thy neighbor in need. That is not socialism. Socialism is about thy neighbor and everyone else owning everything.That's it. Nothing about helping they neighbor. Communism is about everyone being equal. So it's not helping thy neighbor either. You don't need that in communism because everyone is supposed to be equal in wealth (yeah that worked out well).

Jesus was about generosity. Picking your fellow citizen up when they are down.

Socialism/marxism/communism wants to get rid of that altogether. In abandoning the exploitative capitalist system, in Marx case the Communists would aid the proletariats in overthrowing the bourgueosie (too lazy to look up spelling) and creating a classless society. Socialism is a step in between the revolution and true communism (that's just one definition of Socialism of course).

In a sense, both Jesus and socialism/marxism/communism all share an altruistic goal. However, Jesus was concerned with empathy. Socialism et. al demand equality. And they will demand it with the end of the barrel of a gun.

Jesus never envisioned or espoused a classless society, with everyone being equal. He supposedly said, render unto Caesar which is Caesar's, render unto God which is God's. The meaning of that phrase is much more complex than the popular media uses it for, but it illustrates a point. Caesar as emperor. Submit to Caesar which is Caesars. Under Socialism there is no Emperor. Society itself is leader.

Now, if we're talking about Jesus being a European style Socialist? Basically Social Democrat? The only thing the two have in common maybe, and this is huge maybe, is empathy but then that would imply Republicans don't have empathy. Which isn't true but that is up for debate and I see that as more of a compelling discussion (even if I don't agree).
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome