[quote]Malevolence wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Taxes are a valid issue/concern. They affect how/where we spend our remaining dollars. They can cripple personal and business budgets. The US was founded largely on the premise of fighting unfair taxes and tyranny by King George. Lowering taxes is absolutely a valid platform to run on.
Personally, I don’t see the appeal in supporting someone who kicks me in the nuts, just because they also bought me a cake.
Lowering taxes is fine, I support it, but then… who is going to pay for these wars? Already they cost more than any liberal social programs ever could. Where is the fiscal conservative responsibility there?
Yes, War is constitutionally mandated, but in the face of extremely negligent spending and poor accounting that this war has induced, the argument for lowering taxes out of a sense of fiscal responsibility or financial diligence loses its luster.
“Support our troops! so long as someone else foots the bill!” :-/
[/quote]
Personally if I have to choose between someone who is going to kick me in the nuts or one who is going to blow my brains my out I’ll take the former.
If we didn’t waste so much money on UNconstitutional socialism we’d have the money to prosecute wars. I support this war, but even if it were a complete mistake it wouldn’t be the fiscal danger it’s being made out to be.
Nothing else makes any difference if we are not safe and I’ve already said, if mistakes are made in that quest I won’t like it, but welcome to the big bad world.
Lower taxes increase revenues because a larger private economy generates more taxable… everything, if you want to look at that as the motivation one way or the other.
By all accounts, she gave a good speech. There are certainly things to attack and holes. Not sure if the Democrats are politcally savvy enough to do a good job with it though. It’s often a big weakness for them. She definitely did her job.
The worst thing that I saw was the treatment of community organizers. I think she could’ve highlighted Barack’s inexperience in a manner less offensive to them.
Personally if I have to choose between someone who is going to kick me in the nuts or one who is going to blow my brains my out I’ll take the former.
If we didn’t waste so much money on UNconstitutional socialism we’d have the money to prosecute wars. I support this war, but even if it were a complete mistake it wouldn’t be the fiscal danger it’s being made out to be.
Nothing else makes any difference if we are not safe and I’ve already said, if mistakes are made in that quest I won’t like it, but welcome to the big bad world.
[/quote]
Personally, I think that it is more my responsibility to keep myself safe than the Government’s. They may be charged with that task. But I don’t believe in trusting them for my personal well being.
I also don’t live in fear of terrorism or radical assholes on the other side of the world coming to kill me, and think it is borderline insane to allow a Government any more power as a result of that fear. I think that is a more dangerous thing to allow the Government to ‘take care of’ than social programs.
When it is abundantly clear by the hideously poor handling of an armed conflict in Iraq, both financially and politically. (although I have to commend the tremendous talents of our armed forces to do their best to minimize civilian casualties and erroneous loss).
How can you still place your faith in the Government to protect you from the big bad world?
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
tedro wrote:
First, this nation was founded on the moral principles of Christianity as described in the Bible. To say you don’t accept this morality is to put yourself in direct opposition to this country’s beginnings. Choose to accept them or not, but so long as you are in this country you agree to oblige them.
This nation was founded by Secular Humanists and Deists, who understood that Christian values are completely, utterly, 100% meaningless and irrelevant in the application of lawmaking. Accept it or not, but as long as you live in this country you agree to oblige that.[/quote]
Deism doesn’t exclude Christianity.
Just because a handful of them may have been against organized religion, does not mean that the majority were still not Christian.
Jefferson was arguably the most notable deist and secularist, but even he allows religion and morality to come through in our founding documents.
…endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
While his religiuos views were not mainstream at the time, the Christian basis to them is evident.
Personally if I have to choose between someone who is going to kick me in the nuts or one who is going to blow my brains my out I’ll take the former.
If we didn’t waste so much money on UNconstitutional socialism we’d have the money to prosecute wars. I support this war, but even if it were a complete mistake it wouldn’t be the fiscal danger it’s being made out to be.
Nothing else makes any difference if we are not safe and I’ve already said, if mistakes are made in that quest I won’t like it, but welcome to the big bad world.
Personally, I think that it is more my responsibility to keep myself safe than the Government’s. They may be charged with that task. But I don’t believe in trusting them for my personal well being.
I also don’t live in fear of terrorism or radical assholes on the other side of the world coming to kill me, and think it is borderline insane to allow a Government any more power as a result of that fear. [/quote]
Terrorism is a real threat and there are things the government should do and needs to do to combat it. The foolish thing is thinking it’s discrete and crystalized in one country. Especially when, to the extent it’s true, we get the wrong country.
And then bungle things once there with startling ineptitude. But that’s neither here nor there. Bush’s mistakes in Iraq are in the past. The only remaining issue is whether Obama or McCain has the best plan to clean up the mess they inherited.
Just because a handful of them may have been against organized religion, does not mean that the majority were still not Christian.
Jefferson was arguably the most notable deist and secularist, but even he allows religion and morality to come through in our founding documents.
…endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
While his religiuos views were not mainstream at the time, the Christian basis to them is evident.[/quote]
No, that is you projecting. Believing in God, does not = believing in Christian dogma. Religious ideals overlap, because basically every religion deals with the same basic problem of organizing people to function together in a group.
Things like don’t kill and don’t steal and bath regularly, are extensions of that, and are not mutually held by Christianity, or any religion.
But again, regardless of that. The fact remains that, Christian values or not. They have no place in lawmaking. Period.
[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Settle down I don’t hate God I hate people who try to push their morality down my throat. And don’t bring my mother into it, internet warrior, I am catholic we don’t believe in abortion either. I am scared of religion cause of all the senseless murder it has caused throughout time.
[/quote]
And you’re a Catholic? LMAO.
Tell me one fucking law that has been paased could could come anywhere close to pushing religion anywhere but further away from you. Just one.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
But again, regardless of that. The fact remains that, Christian values or not. They have no place in lawmaking. Period. [/quote]
Name a law passed in the last 30 years that was a result of someone’s Christian values or dogma.
I don’t understand the fear people have of Christians holding an office.
We have a first amendment for a reason, yet that’s not good enough for some people. If one professes a faith, he is labeled a religious fanatic, and should therefore sit in the corner and shut up. Why?
Terrorism is a real threat and there are things the government should do and needs to do to combat it.
What are those things? and how do they relate to the things that I personally need to take care of to keep myself alive?[/quote]
Nothing you do will keep yourself alive if a terrorist bomb hits where you are. You think there wouldn’t have been more attacks beyond just September 11 without money and resources invested in national security?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
But again, regardless of that. The fact remains that, Christian values or not. They have no place in lawmaking. Period.
Name a law passed in the last 30 years that was a result of someone’s Christian values or dogma.
I don’t understand the fear people have of Christians holding an office.
We have a first amendment for a reason, yet that’s not good enough for some people. If one professes a faith, he is labeled a religious fanatic, and should therefore sit in the corner and shut up. Why? [/quote]
I don’t mind it whatsoever if there is a Christian in office. I was responding to the notion that this nation was founded on Christian values. It wasn’t.
Oh, and the US was actually founded on Freemasonry. Rent National Treasure 1&2, and let Cage guide you through the secret histroy of our country. Rent it. Learn it. Love it. Live it.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
But again, regardless of that. The fact remains that, Christian values or not. They have no place in lawmaking. Period.
Name a law passed in the last 30 years that was a result of someone’s Christian values or dogma.
I don’t understand the fear people have of Christians holding an office.
We have a first amendment for a reason, yet that’s not good enough for some people. If one professes a faith, he is labeled a religious fanatic, and should therefore sit in the corner and shut up. Why?
I don’t mind it whatsoever if there is a Christian in office. I was responding to the notion that this nation was founded on Christian values. It wasn’t.[/quote]
You said that Christian values have no place in lawmaking. That has nothing to do with the founding of our nation.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
But again, regardless of that. The fact remains that, Christian values or not. They have no place in lawmaking. Period.
Name a law passed in the last 30 years that was a result of someone’s Christian values or dogma.
I don’t understand the fear people have of Christians holding an office.
We have a first amendment for a reason, yet that’s not good enough for some people. If one professes a faith, he is labeled a religious fanatic, and should therefore sit in the corner and shut up. Why?
I don’t mind it whatsoever if there is a Christian in office. I was responding to the notion that this nation was founded on Christian values. It wasn’t.[/quote]
Sure, it was. Many of our laws are an extension of Judeo-Christian values.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:
Settle down I don’t hate God I hate people who try to push their morality down my throat. And don’t bring my mother into it, internet warrior, I am catholic we don’t believe in abortion either. I am scared of religion cause of all the senseless murder it has caused throughout time.
And you’re a Catholic? LMAO.
Tell me one fucking law that has been paased could could come anywhere close to pushing religion anywhere but further away from you. Just one.
[/quote]
Alcohol Prohibition-moral crusaders against the evil alcohol. Our current drugs laws were started by moral crudasers against the “evil weed”