TheSlamma
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2005
- 7,625
- 5
- 81
Have you been to a suburban megachurch in this country? I ened up at one for a funeral for a long time co-worker.. they made a plug for their coffee shop before the reception!(which BTW was nicer then most starbucks I have been in)Originally posted by: bamacre
Newborns already owe way too much money to the government.
Huckabee is a nutjob, and I can't believe people are voting for that guy.
They flat out tell the zealots there who to vote for.. and right now they are all saying Zealotbee. Ban the burbs from voting and ban country music plz.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,007
- 572
- 126
I think the FairTax idea is an interesting one. Considering the rotten state of affairs with current taxation, I'm up for almost anything different.
Personally, I wouldn't mind taking home all my income and paying taxes only on my expenditures, rather than income, expenses, capital gains, and everything else.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Romney has a more measured approach, but ultimately the same goal:
Romney supports a two-step process in which states get authority over abortion after Roe v. Wade is overturned, followed eventually by a constitutional amendment that bans most abortions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...2/AR2007082202863.html
And McCain? Flip flopped. Now in favor of a constitutional amendment, though he admits it is unlikely such would ever get passed:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/...roe-v-wade/#more-12135
STEPHANOPOULOS: You're for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.
MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn't advanced in the six years he's been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn't done?
MCCAIN: I don't think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should ? could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you'd be for that?
MCCAIN: Yes, because I'm a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don't believe the Supreme Court should belegislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.
***********************
So ALL the Rep front runners are in favor of (or at least pay lip service to) a constitutional ban. How far they'd go to get it done once in office probably varies.
Romney supports a two-step process in which states get authority over abortion after Roe v. Wade is overturned, followed eventually by a constitutional amendment that bans most abortions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...2/AR2007082202863.html
And McCain? Flip flopped. Now in favor of a constitutional amendment, though he admits it is unlikely such would ever get passed:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/...roe-v-wade/#more-12135
STEPHANOPOULOS: You're for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.
MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn't advanced in the six years he's been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn't done?
MCCAIN: I don't think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should ? could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you'd be for that?
MCCAIN: Yes, because I'm a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don't believe the Supreme Court should belegislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.
***********************
So ALL the Rep front runners are in favor of (or at least pay lip service to) a constitutional ban. How far they'd go to get it done once in office probably varies.
Your idea of a "fair" tax is anything but fair. A flat sales tax would be a massive and disproportionate burden on the poor, including and especially the working poor, who already have to spend every dime they make and more just to survive... if they manage at all in today's broken economy.
... following the one we've already suffered for seven years.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Pabster
Huckabee is a scary man, indeed. Besides being another Arkansas liberal [fiscal], he's a religious predator.
I am against abortion in most cases but the idea of adding a constitutional amendment is not something I agree with. I much prefer Thompson's approach, allowing the states to decide. Federalism, folks.
:thumbsup:
I find it funny/sad that some people who bring up church/state think it's what we were founded upon yet completely ignore other founding principles - such as Federalism.
Newsflash states rights went away following the Civil War.
Fricking nut-jobs. Please, fundamentalists, just go make your own country and keep it stuck in the dark ages indefinitely. Nobody but the idiots like you.
That's it, I've got to take a break. :laugh:
This may be your best post in quite some time :thumbsup:
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
It doesn't matter if he drowns cats for jollies. Many republicans WILL NEVER vote non-republican. It doesn't matter wtf the main candidate stands for. They simply define themselves as republican and voting in any other way is against the stupid grain of their semi-conscious life philosophy.Originally posted by: bamacre
Newborns already owe way too much money to the government.
Huckabee is a nutjob, and I can't believe people are voting for that guy.
And taking all hot women between the age of 19 and 22 and selling them to the sex trade in Dubai is an interesting one, too. It doesn't mean it's a good one!
It is merely another distraction. Gov will get its money one way or the other, whether it's from your income or your spending.
Actually, supposedly it wouldn't be because they'd get some stupid check cut to them every month or something for essentials. The whole thing reads to me like the result of a highschool economics class. I can't believe people are buying it at all.
It would never get the votes it needs anyway.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 173
- 106
All a proposed Constitutional amendment really does is allow the issue to be voted upon by the American people.
I wouldn't spend any time worrying about it, if you read the process for passing a Constitutional amendment you'll see it hasn't a snow-ball's chance in h3ll of passing.
Fern
I wouldn't spend any time worrying about it, if you read the process for passing a Constitutional amendment you'll see it hasn't a snow-ball's chance in h3ll of passing.
Fern
What you call hypocrisy I call the ineluctable results of personhood and our reciprocal obligations to persons. Without a definition of what a person is my right to father my sperm with any woman can be defended and with personhood comes personal obligation. Once a person is defined so are the legal obligations. That is no more slavery than paying taxes.
Or how about the right of the country to meet its self defense with a draft? Hum, how about the slavery that says you have to drive on the right side of the road.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,007
- 572
- 126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
It doesn't matter if he drowns cats for jollies. Many republicans WILL NEVER vote non-republican. It doesn't matter wtf the main candidate stands for. They simply define themselves as republican and voting in any other way is against the stupid grain of their semi-conscious life philosophy.Originally posted by: bamacre
Newborns already owe way too much money to the government.
Huckabee is a nutjob, and I can't believe people are voting for that guy.
And taking all hot women between the age of 19 and 22 and selling them to the sex trade in Dubai is an interesting one, too. It doesn't mean it's a good one!
It is merely another distraction. Gov will get its money one way or the other, whether it's from your income or your spending.
Actually, supposedly it wouldn't be because they'd get some stupid check cut to them every month or something for essentials. The whole thing reads to me like the result of a highschool economics class. I can't believe people are buying it at all.
It would never get the votes it needs anyway.
I'm surprised to find myself responding, but I thought I had to defend some of my points.
I am guilty of never voting democrat, for what I consider a good reason. Republicans, generally, are pro-life. I can't in good conscience vote for anyone if they are willing to say that killing one's own children is permissable in a civilized society, to say nothing of the most civilized nation on earth. If someone's pro-life, I'll listen to what you have to say. If you're not, it doesn't matter what you say, because your credibility has been completely undermined for the reason I mentioned earlier. How can you say you care about people at all if you will allow such a practice to continue?
I don't call this a stupid semi-conscious life philosophy. I call it a critical moral judgement based on the convictions I hold most important. I would think everyone should consider things so carefully before they vote for anyone.
When I said the Fairtax is an interesting idea, I meant that it was worthy of considering, since the tax code now is complex to the point that there are innumerable loopholes. A simple solution may very well be the best, for this reason. And you say, in response to the prebate to the poor idea, that it sounds like something out of a highschool economics class. That may be, but you don't say why that's bad. Nor do you say why the Fairtax is inherently wrong.
Lastly, whether or not we think something will get the votes it needs is no reason to or not to vote for it. Ron Paul supporters will support Ron Paul, even though his outlook isn't bright. Why? Because they believe he is the right man for the job. Not because he's the most likely to get the job. It's a principle.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Sadly, Huckabee often reminds me of the religious kooks we're currently fighting on the other side of the world... but I'm grateful that Huck peacefully uses the democratic process to effect change, rather than strapping bombs to his voters' chests. I guess that's always a plus, eh?!
DOH!
DOH!
Atreus21: We have the right not be slaves because of a constitutional amendment protecting it.
M: No, we are protected by the constitution, but the right is fundamental, inalienable and universal.
A: The slavery of women you mention is a simple slavery to nature, to which we are all subjected. You could just as easily say we are slaves to urinate. It's a natural result of drinking, or at least consuming something. Women are slaves to their uteruses in the same manner. Pregnancy is a natural result of having unprotected sex; it's what the act of sexual intercourse is designed to bring about. Just because someone is unprepared for a natural consequence to their actions doesn't give them the right to say it's like slavery.
M: We are not all so subjected. Only those who are accidentally women. Pregnancy is one consequence of rape. You are saying that a child who is raped has to have the baby if the rape causes a pregnancy. How holy of you. And why are people responsible for irresponsibility. If they were responsible they would be responsible no? You just want to punish people who want out of the consequences of their actions. How irresponsible of you. You're probably a male full of judgment and testosterone driven anger. You are in the grips of a hallucination that a fetus is a person and your delusion has made you a prick. I say fuck you and your beliefs, no? I want to be like you too.
A: This is why the abstinence idea is so important. If you have no intention of getting pregnant, and you have sex using some sort of birth control, which fails, who is to blame for you getting pregnant?
M: Obviously nobody is to blame because there's nothing to cause blame about. You do what you can not to get pregnant and deal with it if you do.
A: At the end of the day, it was you who decided, with full knowledge of the possible consequences, to play the odds; to do the singular act which alone can create babies, and you created a baby. That is squarely your responsibility, therefore.
M: I am at cause. That creates no responsibility because there is no obligation. I don't have to protect myself from pregnancy if I am a woman just because you think I do. Sorry, fuck you, again since that's what you want to do with me with your religious morality.
A: You can't cry foul because of a self-inflicted wound. You can't stand in the middle of an interstate and say, "If someone hits me, I'm the last person to blame."
M: Hit somebody in the middle of an intersection and see what happens. There is no foul. It's all in your head.
A: My rights do end where another's begin, as you say. Regrettably, people don't extend that ethos to unborn children.
M: That is exactly what I said. They don't extend those rights until they meet the legal definition of person.
A: No one has a right to kill an innocent, let alone their own child.
M: We are not talking about a child or an innocent person. It's a matter of legal definition, one that is secular and human made as only we can have under our Constitution.
A: Lastly, I don't understand this detestation of religion with which so many people on the left are seized. Ironically, it's irrational.
M: Couldn't agree more.
There's a simple reason that religion is a good thing: Without it, there are no intrinsic rights.
M: But of course there are. Rights ARE intrinsic, then depend on nothing.
A: Without it, your right not to be murdered is only good so far as the governments ability to protect it; that is, people wouldn't care about murdering you if they thought they could get away with it. Yet that is not the case.
M: Don't be silly. I have no doubt in my mind at all that I could get away with murder but I have much better reasons not to kill anybody than those you provide. I would be violating their right to life. If I were to kill somebody, the act would make me a piece of shit because it would be a confession that I am too small and worthless to live in their presence. It would be an admission that I can't face up to my emotions and my responsibilities as a person. I would paint a fuck me right across my forehead. If I act out of my feelings of inferiority I actually become inferior and not just in my feelings. Ain't gonna happen.
A: It's not because I fear the government that I don't murder people. It's because I believe it is objectively illegal; it is apart from the government's jurisdiction. This offers to me a very simple argument of why religion is a good thing, in general.
M: Well I can live with being objectively illegal, but I'll be damned if I condemn my own soul by proving my worthlessness in actions. You see, with or without God there is only God's truth or the truth of those who aspire to be what they can.
M: No, we are protected by the constitution, but the right is fundamental, inalienable and universal.
A: The slavery of women you mention is a simple slavery to nature, to which we are all subjected. You could just as easily say we are slaves to urinate. It's a natural result of drinking, or at least consuming something. Women are slaves to their uteruses in the same manner. Pregnancy is a natural result of having unprotected sex; it's what the act of sexual intercourse is designed to bring about. Just because someone is unprepared for a natural consequence to their actions doesn't give them the right to say it's like slavery.
M: We are not all so subjected. Only those who are accidentally women. Pregnancy is one consequence of rape. You are saying that a child who is raped has to have the baby if the rape causes a pregnancy. How holy of you. And why are people responsible for irresponsibility. If they were responsible they would be responsible no? You just want to punish people who want out of the consequences of their actions. How irresponsible of you. You're probably a male full of judgment and testosterone driven anger. You are in the grips of a hallucination that a fetus is a person and your delusion has made you a prick. I say fuck you and your beliefs, no? I want to be like you too.
A: This is why the abstinence idea is so important. If you have no intention of getting pregnant, and you have sex using some sort of birth control, which fails, who is to blame for you getting pregnant?
M: Obviously nobody is to blame because there's nothing to cause blame about. You do what you can not to get pregnant and deal with it if you do.
A: At the end of the day, it was you who decided, with full knowledge of the possible consequences, to play the odds; to do the singular act which alone can create babies, and you created a baby. That is squarely your responsibility, therefore.
M: I am at cause. That creates no responsibility because there is no obligation. I don't have to protect myself from pregnancy if I am a woman just because you think I do. Sorry, fuck you, again since that's what you want to do with me with your religious morality.
A: You can't cry foul because of a self-inflicted wound. You can't stand in the middle of an interstate and say, "If someone hits me, I'm the last person to blame."
M: Hit somebody in the middle of an intersection and see what happens. There is no foul. It's all in your head.
A: My rights do end where another's begin, as you say. Regrettably, people don't extend that ethos to unborn children.
M: That is exactly what I said. They don't extend those rights until they meet the legal definition of person.
A: No one has a right to kill an innocent, let alone their own child.
M: We are not talking about a child or an innocent person. It's a matter of legal definition, one that is secular and human made as only we can have under our Constitution.
A: Lastly, I don't understand this detestation of religion with which so many people on the left are seized. Ironically, it's irrational.
M: Couldn't agree more.
There's a simple reason that religion is a good thing: Without it, there are no intrinsic rights.
M: But of course there are. Rights ARE intrinsic, then depend on nothing.
A: Without it, your right not to be murdered is only good so far as the governments ability to protect it; that is, people wouldn't care about murdering you if they thought they could get away with it. Yet that is not the case.
M: Don't be silly. I have no doubt in my mind at all that I could get away with murder but I have much better reasons not to kill anybody than those you provide. I would be violating their right to life. If I were to kill somebody, the act would make me a piece of shit because it would be a confession that I am too small and worthless to live in their presence. It would be an admission that I can't face up to my emotions and my responsibilities as a person. I would paint a fuck me right across my forehead. If I act out of my feelings of inferiority I actually become inferior and not just in my feelings. Ain't gonna happen.
A: It's not because I fear the government that I don't murder people. It's because I believe it is objectively illegal; it is apart from the government's jurisdiction. This offers to me a very simple argument of why religion is a good thing, in general.
M: Well I can live with being objectively illegal, but I'll be damned if I condemn my own soul by proving my worthlessness in actions. You see, with or without God there is only God's truth or the truth of those who aspire to be what they can.
jman19
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2000
- 11,221
- 654
- 126
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: Pabster
Huckabee is a scary man, indeed. Besides being another Arkansas liberal [fiscal], he's a religious predator.
I am against abortion in most cases but the idea of adding a constitutional amendment is not something I agree with. I much prefer Thompson's approach, allowing the states to decide. Federalism, folks.
Huckabee is, IMO, the worst or second worst Republican candidate - fiscally liberal and a social conservative to the point where he thinks our nations' most important document should be amended to the word of HIS god.
Im pretty sure almost every religion is against abortion. That said Huck is merely pandering to the religious right. Much like Romney was pandering to the auto workers in Michigan.
Yes, but look at the way he phrased it - what if you are polytheistic? He clearly is referring to the god of Abraham.
:thumbsdown: to Huck
Isn't that very similar to what happened in roe v wade.
obviously some judges forced thier personal beliefs ,on a whole country, through judicial rulings..
Just depends on whose ox is being gored.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter