Articles like this give me hope

[Thump553]

Read the article. The churches may very well be phased out of their political importance over the years.

I did. It's wishful thinking. I'd absolutely love to believe that but if anything I think religions are becoming more intrusive into US politics. Frankly I'm at a total loss to explain how the teleevangalist crowd got so much political power in the US in the first place. It certainly is contrary to nearly all the church teaching I got as a youth.

Given current trends I think it is much more likely that these young Republicans will be shoved out as RINOs if they ever try to advance to any stage of power within the GOP.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Yes, the one that is continuing to go backward every month.

The economy needs to produce between 200k and 250k jobs each and every month just to keep up with population growth. That is far from happening.

Yeah but you need to accept that Bush and Government Goldman caused this economy, not Obama. He isn't Jesus, he can't work miracles and turn the shit that was our economy at the end of Bush's presidency into chocolate. Of course, that would take rational critical thinking on your part and I think we all know you are completely incapable of that.

So go back to calling me a welfare recepient and oiling up your guns in preparation of your next KKK militia meeting you fucking redneck douchebag.

 

[Atreus21]

Did you see who you are responding to? I dont think he knows how to read personally.

You and Hal2Kilo seem to be in the same boat.

 

[Atreus21]

Yeah but you need to accept that Bush and Government Goldman caused this economy, not Obama. He isn't Jesus, he can't work miracles and turn the shit that was our economy at the end of Bush's presidency into chocolate. Of course, that would take rational critical thinking on your part and I think we all know you are completely incapable of that.

So go back to calling me a welfare recepient and oiling up your guns in preparation of your next KKK militia meeting you fucking redneck douchebag.

I don't think Obama can use Bush as the excuse for his running trillion dollar deficits yearly.

 

[nehalem256]

I did. It's wishful thinking. I'd absolutely love to believe that but if anything I think religions are becoming more intrusive into US politics. Frankly I'm at a total loss to explain how the teleevangalist crowd got so much political power in the US in the first place. It certainly is contrary to nearly all the church teaching I got as a youth.

Given current trends I think it is much more likely that these young Republicans will be shoved out as RINOs if they ever try to advance to any stage of power within the GOP.

So you were taught to have promiscuous sex with people of both sexes and then get abortions afterward....

What church did you go to?

 

[BoberFett]

Yeah but you need to accept that Bush and Government Goldman caused this economy, not Obama. He isn't Jesus, he can't work miracles and turn the shit that was our economy at the end of Bush's presidency into chocolate. Of course, that would take rational critical thinking on your part and I think we all know you are completely incapable of that.

So go back to calling me a welfare recepient and oiling up your guns in preparation of your next KKK militia meeting you fucking redneck douchebag.

Then it's a good thing Obama has nothing to do with Goldman...

And nice job on that last paragraph, you really showed us what a tough guy you are, internet warrior stud extraordinaire.

 

[soulcougher73]

And some social conservatives say they are deliberately playing down their own views on issues as a tactical move to attract more young voters to the Republican Party.

I think this paragraph shows what this article and movement or whatever you want to call it is about. Nothing like lieing to attempt to attract more members.

 

[cybrsage]

Over the past 30 years, the only president that showed he was serious about fixing the federal budget was a Democrat.

Not challenging you, just curious who this person was. It was not Obama and not Clinton, but I do not know much about the dems who came before them.

 

[cybrsage]

Haha retard judging Obama on campaign promises. I suppose you think Romney is going to come in and get all the shit he promises to get done on 'Day One.' Positions matter. Campaign promises have been empty since before I was born.

Yet we can still hold them to their promises - if not, then we have to say Obama is simply a liar who we cannot trust (since he purposefully lied to us).

If Obama is simply a liar who we cannot trust, you really do not want to vote for him. If you say he is not a liar, then we can use his failures against him and again you really do not want to vote for him.

 

[dank69]

Not challenging you, just curious who this person was. It was not Obama and not Clinton, but I do not know much about the dems who came before them.

So you don't remember the progress Clinton made that was then pissed away by BBBush?
Here, let me remind you:

 

[dank69]

Yet we can still hold them to their promises - if not, then we have to say Obama is simply a liar who we cannot trust (since he purposefully lied to us).

If Obama is simply a liar who we cannot trust, you really do not want to vote for him. If you say he is not a liar, then we can use his failures against him and again you really do not want to vote for him.

Romney is a liar so you really don't want to vote for him.

 

[nehalem256]

So you don't remember the progress Clinton made that was then pissed away by BBBush?
Here, let me remind you:

You mean the person responsible for both the Internet and Housing bubble. It sure is easy to increase revenue when you blow up bubbles and manage to avoid the fallout for them.

 

[soulcougher73]

You mean the person responsible for both the Internet and Housing bubble. It sure is easy to increase revenue when you blow up bubbles and manage to avoid the fallout for them.

Don't miss the "Expenses % to GDP" line on the graph. Always went down under Clinton. Dang..he was a closet Republican all this time.

 

[soulcougher73]

Romney is a liar so you really don't want to vote for him.

How do you quantify if he is lieing vs. just changing his mind (flip flopping) on something?

 

[Thump553]

So you were taught to have promiscuous sex with people of both sexes and then get abortions afterward....

What church did you go to?

Where in the world did you get the delusion that I was taught promisuous sex and abortions in church? I certainly never said that, or even alluded to it. What I was referring to was the old render onto Caesar what is Caesar's, render onto God what is God's" doctrine-straight from the Bible and a cornerstone of mainstream US Christainity until the fancy boys mostly took it over. I guess I'm old school where it is considered unamerican to impose your religious doctrines upon others.

Methodist btw, including a couple of years in the Midwest, including old fashiioned tent revival meetings.

 

[irishScott]

Actually, it's austerity that isn't working so well in Europe. The more austerity, the worse off they do as well. I also never claimed to be an expert, which is why I defer to the actual experts when it comes to this stuff. You should try it instead of thinking you know better than them, people like you are why Republicans still have enough power to block real recovery. If the economy gets fixed properly the deficit becomes easier to manage because you can raise taxes back to where they should be and handouts/unemployment won't be such a drain since less people will need them.

Obamacare is aimed at getting healthcare costs under control which will help the economy as well. It will help our businesses to compete. I'm sure you believe the Republicans when they tell it won't work, just like you probably believed them when they told you Clinton's plan to raise taxes would tank the economy. I can't help you fix your analytical thinking but at least I can walk you through some of this. As for investing in green energy, perhaps you think we shouldn't invest in future technology? Maybe we should just stick with what we have and let other countries lead the way for us? Of course not, you aren't that stupid. Unfortunately what you don't trealize is that investing in future technology comes with some risk, and of course a few companies may go belly up in the process. that doesn't mean we should just sit on our hands and it doesn't mean it isn't a good investment overall.

Your last paragraph is pure speculation on your part and most economics experts disagree with you.

So wait, you accuse me of not thinking critically, yet accept the word of "experts" without question? If having an economics degree is a requirement for this discussion then maybe you should start citing sources instead of posting "most economists think X" as a justification for everything you say.

And I love how you blame Republicans for being able to forestall "a real recovery" when the Democrats had unobstructed power for 2 years, and completely steamrolled the entire Republican congress, who was in unanimous dissent, to pass Obamacare. I also suppose the protest vote that saw Republicans sweep the house was due to that Orwellian Republican propaganda monster hiding under your bed right?

People like me understand, with regard to Obamacare, that it's over 2000 pages of bureaucratic bullshit. It may help some people, but can you say with a straight face that you know, or are aware of someone who knows, the full effects? If you do then you or whoever you know has a greater knowledge of the bill than most, hell I'd wager all congressmen and senators. Yes we need healthcare reform. No we do not need the massive waste of money that is Obamacare.

Yes, we should invest in the future, but invest wisely. How many billions are you willing to lose, during an economic recession with a monster deficit?

Would it shock you to know that I'm for raising taxes on the rich in the short term?

 

[dank69]

So wait, you accuse me of not thinking critically, yet accept the word of "experts" without question? If having an economics degree is a requirement for this discussion then maybe you should start citing sources instead of posting "most economists think X" as a justification for everything you say.

Part of critical thinking is examining evidence presented by people more knowledgable than ourselves, unless you are of the belief that it is possible to know everything.

And I love how you blame Republicans for being able to forestall "a real recovery" when the Democrats had unobstructed power for 2 years, and completely steamrolled the entire Republican congress, who was in unanimous dissent, to pass Obamacare. I also suppose the protest vote that saw Republicans sweep the house was due to that Orwellian Republican propaganda monster hiding under your bed right?

Unobstructed? So you didn't notice the abuse of the filibuster during that time period? Convenient. As for Republicans sweeping the House, I attribute that to uneducated people with short memories that don't understand a single fucking thing about our government and our economy. Except for what Billy-Bob told them that Kenyan Muslim did this week to invoke Sharia Law while they were picking up a sixer at the LQ. I suppose you think the general population isn't borderline retarded?

People like me understand, with regard to Obamacare, that it's over 2000 pages of bureaucratic bullshit. It may help some people, but can you say with a straight face that you know, or are aware of someone who knows, the full effects? If you do then you or whoever you know has a greater knowledge of the bill than most, hell I'd wager all congressmen and senators. Yes we need healthcare reform. No we do not need the massive waste of money that is Obamacare.

No, we will have to wait and see what the full effects will be, just like the full effects of Clinton's tax increases that Republicans said would destroy our economy. Funny how you admit to also not knowing the full effects but you take for granted that it will be a waste of money.

Yes, we should invest in the future, but invest wisely. How many billions are you willing to lose, during an economic recession with a monster deficit?

Like I said, investing in the future carries with it some elements of risk that cannot be avoided. A few failures are to be expected. I don't have any statistics to tell me what percentage are failures so I can't guess at what would be an acceptable rate.

Would it shock you to know that I'm for raising taxes on the rich in the short term?

No, from your posting history I know you aren't a moron so I expect you to at least approach some things rationally.

 

[hal2kilo]

Don't miss the "Expenses % to GDP" line on the graph. Always went down under Clinton. Dang..he was a closet Republican all this time.

Bill Clinton was the best republican president ever. The republicans just never got it for some reason.

 

[irishScott]

Part of critical thinking is examining evidence presented by people more knowledgable than ourselves, unless you are of the belief that it is possible to know everything.

I am of the belief that I do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that rockets are relatively long, usually tubular objects that utilize rapidly expanding gasses to produce thrust and aerodynamically shaped fins for flight stabilization.

Unobstructed? So you didn't notice the abuse of the filibuster during that time period? Convenient. As for Republicans sweeping the House, I attribute that to uneducated people with short memories that don't understand a single fucking thing about our government and our economy. Except for what Billy-Bob told them that Kenyan Muslim did this week to invoke Sharia Law while they were picking up a sixer at the LQ. I suppose you think the general population isn't borderline retarded?

So you didn't notice the Democrats' filibuster proof vote, which is how they passed Obamacare through the Senate in the first place?

The general population has more common sense than you think.

No, we will have to wait and see what the full effects will be, just like the full effects of Clinton's tax increases that Republicans said would destroy our economy. Funny how you admit to also not knowing the full effects but you take for granted that it will be a waste of money.

Funny how you apparently think we should pass laws that even the writers of the bill haven't read in full, all based on what some of those pages might do without even a theoretical model of the full effects.

 

[First]

If he recognizes abortion for the horror that it is, I'd argue it's evidence of his sanity and that those who rationalize infanticide yet have otherwise palatable views are the truly unhinged.

The only unhinged people are those who think abortion is infanticide but masturbating isn't.

there's a large contradiction in invoking Ron Paul, who is firmly anti-abortion.

No actually, Ron Paul has consistently said he would let state's decide one way or another; which is another way of saying he'd let abortion (continue) to be legal in all 50 states if that's what they individually decided.

Republicans never, not once, ran deficits to the tune of a trillion dollars per year.

lol. As if that's relevant when all that matters is how much you spent as a % of GDP, not what the absolute nominal number is.

Not a good posting day for you Atreus21.

 

[First]

Yes, the one that is continuing to go backward every month.

The economy needs to produce between 200k and 250k jobs each and every month just to keep up with population growth. That is far from happening.

False. Economy needs about 100K-125K to keep up with growth.

 

[werepossum]

Reading comprehension fail.

Yes at present some social conservatives are keeping their mouths shut in order to attract the younger generation. The point you're missing is why they're doing that. The upcoming generation that's going to inherit the Republican party is much more socially moderate. Gay marriage? We largely don't care. Abortion? We support limits, not bans. At least that's my experience having had many a debate with my Republican classmates. There are some hardliners but they're a minority.

You mention the political importance of churches, there will probably come a time in the next few decades where they matter less and less politically.

What you say is true, but I'd be a lot more impressed if Republicans were actually standing for freedom rather than being dragged kicking and screaming. Right now our side talks a good game, but we mostly want to keep government out of your life only as long as you're doing what we think you should be doing - i.e. we're merely the flip side of Democrats. Less emphasis on social issues where that means government constraining your choices is good, but an actual proactive pro-freedom stance - we recognize that you should have the same rights to marriage whether or not we agree with homosexuality, we recognize that you should have the right to your own body up to the point that your baby is viable - would be much better.

Not this shit again. Wasn't there a thread weeks back where we had to debunk this nonsense? Yes, the Constitution limits the power of the government it establishes. No doubt about it. No, the purpose of the Constitution was not to "limit government." That would imply that the Constitution was adopted because people were concerned about a central government that was too large and too strong. In fact, the Constitution was enacted to replace the Articles of Confederation, which had established a government considerably smaller and weaker than the one established by the Constitution. It's purpose was actually to strengthen and increase it. This is, what, 5th grade civics?

- wolf

I actually took his post to mean not that the Constitution was written at all to limit the power of government - that's clearly nonsense - but that the Constitution was written as it was to limit the power of government. That I think is inarguable.

 

[a777pilot]

Yeah but you need to accept that Bush and Government Goldman caused this economy, not Obama. He isn't Jesus, he can't work miracles and turn the shit that was our economy at the end of Bush's presidency into chocolate. Of course, that would take rational critical thinking on your part and I think we all know you are completely incapable of that.

So go back to calling me a welfare recepient and oiling up your guns in preparation of your next KKK militia meeting you fucking redneck douchebag.

LOL!

You're funny.

No, I don't have accept that is is all Bush's fault. It all statred with the 110th Congress.

As far as the bank bail out is concerned, I was against it then and still am. I have a Republican Congress Critter and I e-mailed him and told him that if he votes for that bail out, as it was structured, I would never ever vote for him. He did and I haven't.

Please show me were I called a welfare recepiant.

 

[a777pilot]

False. Economy needs about 100K-125K to keep up with growth.

With economic growth maybe, but not even close for population growth.