Page 5 of 13 [ 208 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next

Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 136
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

02 Dec 2007, 9:34 am

Kitsy wrote:
Anubis wrote:
You never know, he might just be that surprise winner. Most of the others look like lying crooks.


I hope so. Has anyone else picked up on how other candidates are starting to say things Ron Paul would say? It makes those candidates look even more like lying crooks.


Hopefully that will go to his advantage.


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


Kitsy
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,015

02 Dec 2007, 9:38 am

Averick wrote:
Cyanide wrote:
Averick wrote:
I like Ron Paul, but he doesn't have a chance in hell.

He's the most popular candidate with the 18-24 age demographic, by far.
That demographic is why Kerry lost the election in '04; he didn't get enough votes from them.
I think he might actually have a surprising victory for the Republican Party nomination...


I know but it'd take a massive army..

I don't want to be negative.


He has a massive army. Ever watch after the debates when cameras pan at the audience and all the ron paul signs held up even at democratic debates?


_________________
I am the DAN Monster. I have your child. You owe me twenty five thousand dollars.

xx Dan Monster


jfrmeister
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Location: #2309 WP'er

02 Dec 2007, 11:54 am

Kitsy wrote:
I still don't feel this is the place of the federal government and also you aren't going to like this one bit but the first amendment has been violated when the decision was reached to take prayer out of school.

People often recite half of the freedom of religion amendment to suit their agenda. It clearly states

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

When children are told they cannot pray in school, it is unconstituional and teachers and principals feel the need to silence those who do want to pray because it's the message of no prayer at all instead of teachers shall not lead the class into prayer which was the original intent of the new anti-religion in class rules.

I don't think it's right or American for that matter to let one religion or anti-religion prevail over all. If people want to pray, let them. Teachers are people too. If they want to pray let them. If someone in school does not want to pray, let that person do what it is they want to do instead...so long as it isn't hurting the class of course.

This is and has taught a form of intolerance. Just because this form of intolerance is led by an atheist doesn't mean it's not intolerance. Christians can be intolerant as well. They shouldn't get all their wishes placed on others either. In America, the real intent behind the first amendment and religion has been twisted.

The intent was to keep our country from becoming like the intolerant kings of the past who persecuted those who didn't abide by their religion. This is why it says congress shall not pass no laws. We are not to exclude other religions from being American. This is what the government should abide by. If citizens have their little religious wars, that's something else entirely. The government has no right to pass laws prohibiting someone's practice of religion.

If you are muslim, you should be able to practice your religion, if you are wiccan same deal, if you are satanic, if you are atheist you can practice your non belief, if you are christian, if you are buddhist, Kaballah, I hate scientology but even scientology

Lines have to be drawn though. If your practice revolves around stepping over boundaries involving hurting others, that is not okay.


Prayer was never thrown out of school. The secularists merely prevented an official prayer period from being established. I think the secularists rightly saw this as the camel's nose under the tent, much like teaching ID.

There is nothing preventing students and teachers from praying on their own.


_________________
"The christian god is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - Thomas Jefferson


Kitsy
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,015

02 Dec 2007, 1:29 pm

Rules of prayer as it stands now.

"at any time before, during or after the school-day," as long as your prayers do not interfere with other students.
In meetings of organized prayer or worship groups, either informally or as a formal school organization -- IF -- other student clubs are also allowed at the school.

Before eating a meal at school -- as long as the prayer does not disturb other students.

In some states, student-led prayers or invocations are still delivered at graduations due to lower court rulings. However, the Supreme Court's ruling of June 19, 2000 may bring this practice to an end.

Some states provide for a daily "moment of silence" to be observed as long as students are not encouraged to "pray" during the silent period.


Notice. If it does not interfere with or disturb other students. If you are praying before a meal in the cafeteria and another student sees you and gets offended...isn't that a form of disturbance? So basically what that says is that one student holds higher power to another student meaning if the disturbed student so wishes, they can make the person stop praying and complain plus hold higher preference for winning their case.

Maybe the students should take their meal to the bathroom so they can pray there. Solution? Sorry but I see how if you pray you are game for bullying.

Then of course there are private schools but that's suggesting that only the rich should be able to pray.

Then you have the, well you have church to go to, there is always a place to pray but think of how many hours students attend school. Also what do muslims do?


_________________
I am the DAN Monster. I have your child. You owe me twenty five thousand dollars.

xx Dan Monster


Last edited by Kitsy on 02 Dec 2007, 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 136
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

02 Dec 2007, 1:31 pm

Would they go to the lengths of assassinating Ron Paul? Or would the minimal taxes work to their advantage? I am personally sceptical of Libertarianism as an ideology of the greedy rich who don't want socialised education, healthcare, or any welfare.


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


Kitsy
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,015

02 Dec 2007, 1:35 pm

Anubis wrote:
Would they go to the lengths of assassinating Ron Paul? Or would the minimal taxes work to their advantage? I am personally sceptical of Libertarianism as an ideology of the greedy rich who don't want socialised education, healthcare, or any welfare.


It's really hard to keep up with agendas. They seem to change alot. Ron Paul would be a threat but what corporations don't get is ....they are getting a tax break too. It takes a real jerk to get pissed off that the poor also gets a tax break.


_________________
I am the DAN Monster. I have your child. You owe me twenty five thousand dollars.

xx Dan Monster


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Dec 2007, 3:54 pm

Rjaye wrote:
Just a question: how many of you have stocks, business loans, or ever had to worry about estate taxes? Anyone with a stock portfolio, and the like? And do you make enough in interest to worry about taxes on it?

Just wondering.

I have some money on the stock market. Does anyone make enough money to have to worry about it? Worry is subjective. Not only that, but if less taxes on this leads to greater economic growth then shouldn't we all be worried about those taxes?
ed wrote:
I find it strange that a Libertarian would want (state) governments to decide, instead of leaving it up to the individual.

Actually that isn't quite so strange. Libertarians like state governments more than national governments, and libertarians are divided on this issue as some see liberty from a natural rights standpoint and see abortion is a violation of the right to live of the child, and others take many different stances. Like, I think that libertarians are as divided on abortion as the average populace.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Dec 2007, 3:56 pm

Anubis wrote:
Would they go to the lengths of assassinating Ron Paul? Or would the minimal taxes work to their advantage? I am personally sceptical of Libertarianism as an ideology of the greedy rich who don't want socialised education, healthcare, or any welfare.

I don't know who they are or their motives. If they are as powerful as you seem to act then they wouldn't likely care. Such skepticism is understandable, but it is perhaps also true that even from a welfare perspective, these programs would do better if made more private and market based.



Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 136
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

02 Dec 2007, 4:54 pm

How can you privatize welfare? Charities? Don't make me laugh. Some things are better state-funded, so as to ensure that the system remains fair. However, I would advocate mixing the funding up a little for healthcare, so that there is a proportionally small charge for various medicines and treatments. That would lower the overall burden by a percentage. Minimal initial university fees, say, about £500 to enrol in a particular course, and then £2000-5000 per course as a gradual course payment, perhaps.

And alot of non-essential government campaigns can be translated into funding and cooperating with various independent charities instead. The British government has far too many useless farce schemes, such as "political correctness comittees", and many other commissions which are essentially without purpose.

My most important values are ensuring justice, accountability, true democracy, personal freedom to a sane degree, equal opportunity of medical treatment, education to everyone's best ability regardless of economic status, and also making sure that citizens are well-informed and that big business does not have an undue and unfair influence over politics. No group should be able to destroy the freedom to choose, or obscur truth which is not a matter of national security. All products should be thoroughly tested, and no company should be allowed to get away with flaunting the law. Despite the regulations, companies must still be able to thrive as long as they do not decieve people on a huge scale and cause psychological harm... e.g weight loss product companies which thrive on lies, insecurity, extreme peer pressure, and anything else which thrives on such things, or provides a highly misleading view.


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

02 Dec 2007, 4:57 pm

Anubis wrote:
Would they go to the lengths of assassinating Ron Paul? Or would the minimal taxes work to their advantage? I am personally sceptical of Libertarianism as an ideology of the greedy rich who don't want socialised education, healthcare, or any welfare.


To me, Libertarians seem to care about economic growth more than anything else. A lot of them are against safety regulations, minimum wage, and child labor laws. That would pretty much bring us back to the days of the industrial revolution when factories would pay their workers such horrible wages, that their kids would have to go work for even less money just so that they could barely survive.
Economic growth isn't good if it isn't benefitting the middle class at all, like today. Supposedly our economy's growing, but my family sure isn't seeing any of it. Nobody I know is seeing it either. So who is benefitting? Probably the rich, as always.



Triangular_Trees
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,799

02 Dec 2007, 4:57 pm

I'm kind of sick of hearing about him.

That being said he is so far the only candidate that I can't think of a very good reason for why he/she shouldnt be president.

My boyfriend love R.P. so once I helped him and some other locals put out Ron Paul flyers/chalk messages. I was amazed by how many people stopped to tell us they agreed with us, appreciated what we were doing, offered suggestions for the best tactics etc.

Some members in our group had taped signs to the doors of this one campus building (not either of our campuses) when the night janitor told us we shouldn't do that because security would remove our signs, and told us where we could put them. So we went back and were tearing these down when I noticed the night security guard staring at us. He told us he'd leave them up.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Dec 2007, 5:15 pm

Anubis wrote:
How can you privatize welfare? Charities? Don't make me laugh. Some things are better state-funded, so as to ensure that the system remains fair. However, I would advocate mixing the funding up a little for healthcare, so that there is a proportionally small charge for various medicines and treatments. That would lower the overall burden by a percentage. Minimal initial university fees, say, about £500 to enrol in a particular course, and then £2000-5000 per course as a gradual course payment, perhaps.

Oh, I didn't say privatizing welfare, I said from a welfare perspective. Welfare reform is still very necessary in order to make sure that welfare does not have distorted incentives. Not only that but still, why should the state have such total control over the other industries? I mean, welfare I can see as justifiable due to externalities, but in health care and education it is quite arguable that the state intervention is a major problem.

Quote:
My most important values are ensuring justice, accountability, true democracy, personal freedom to a sane degree, equal opportunity of medical treatment, education to everyone's best ability regardless of economic status, and also making sure that citizens are well-informed and that big business does not have an undue and unfair influence over politics. No group should be able to destroy the freedom to choose, or obscur truth which is not a matter of national security. All products should be thoroughly tested, and no company should be allowed to get away with flaunting the law. Despite the regulations, companies must still be able to thrive as long as they do not decieve people on a huge scale and cause psychological harm... e.g weight loss product companies which thrive on lies, insecurity, extreme peer pressure, and anything else which thrives on such things, or provides a highly misleading view.

Justice can be a bit of an empty term, accountability ends up being ridiculous outside of a contractarian property rights framework, democracy is not inherently good and possibly evil, sane degree is such a qualification that anything can be justified under it, there will never be equal opportunity of medical treatment nor equality in education, a well informed citizenry is hard to create with a legislators pin. No group should be able to destroy the freedom to choose, but how do we define obscuring truth? Attacking a propaganda compaign against you could be termed "obscuring truth". All products are tested, thoroughness ends up being a subjective line there. If a law was meant to be flaunted then it shouldn't be a law. Companies do not deceive so much as culture does in many cases, an advertisement is not going to do anything on a large enough scale to control a culture. Weight loss is popular in a society that fears being fat, just as weight gain tablets would thrive in a culture that fears being thin.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Dec 2007, 5:18 pm

Cyanide wrote:
To me, Libertarians seem to care about economic growth more than anything else. A lot of them are against safety regulations, minimum wage, and child labor laws. That would pretty much bring us back to the days of the industrial revolution when factories would pay their workers such horrible wages, that their kids would have to go work for even less money just so that they could barely survive.
Economic growth isn't good if it isn't benefitting the middle class at all, like today. Supposedly our economy's growing, but my family sure isn't seeing any of it. Nobody I know is seeing it either. So who is benefitting? Probably the rich, as always.

That depends on the libertarians. Also, no, really it wouldn't. Horrible wages and things like that are marks of an underdeveloped labor market, not one that is highly developed as is found in a modern 1st world nation.

Economic growth is always good, the issue is that there are many pressures on our economy that are impacting the distribution of gains. To claim that nobody is seeing economic gains is also to perhaps ignore the gains from improved technology, which I think most people are benefiting from in some form or fashion, if only by the opportunity to access this advanced technology if necessary to do so.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

02 Dec 2007, 7:19 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
pandabear wrote:
No, savings accounts are savings. When you buy a share of stock, you are buying it from another shareholder -- not from the corporation. The corporation isn't using this money. You've just bought a piece of the company, which will give occasionally you money in the form of dividends.

No, savings accounts are a type of savings and stock investment is another. I know about stock investment, but yes, the company is using the money. The entire stock market is just simply a means of investment, just where companies control how much you can invest into them. When you buy a stock, you aren't necessarily doing anything but if a lot of people buy stock and there is a lot of demand for stock then more will happen. The company is using the money from their stock, which is why it is a piece of the company, and the stock market is simply a way that corporations finance themselves.


Don't you remember what happened in 1929? The stock market crash, followed by the great depression?

A savings account crash has never happened.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Dec 2007, 9:55 pm

pandabear wrote:
Don't you remember what happened in 1929? The stock market crash, followed by the great depression?

A savings account crash has never happened.

I wasn't alive at the time. I don't see your point either. Savings accounts aren't going to crash because they are federally insured, due to banking laws. If it weren't that way then banks could fail, people could lose their money, and savings accounts could be lost. Heck, the Great Depression had more to do with bank failures then it did with the stock market, and that is due to the role of banking in the money supply.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

02 Dec 2007, 10:17 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Economic growth is always good, the issue is that there are many pressures on our economy that are impacting the distribution of gains. To claim that nobody is seeing economic gains is also to perhaps ignore the gains from improved technology, which I think most people are benefiting from in some form or fashion, if only by the opportunity to access this advanced technology if necessary to do so.


Disagree with you there. Economic growth can be based on exploitation of humans or the premature long term depletion of essential resources, which is not good.

Take the example of helium, a finite resource so light that drifts into outer space when released into the atmosphere. We can sell helium to fill shiny balloons, or we can use it to cool the massive magnets in medical imaging devices. Over the past decades, the market has not understood that helium is limited, so we pissed a good amount of it away. Sure, lots of people made money inflating mylar yellow smiley faces, but that growth came at a high opportunity cost.