|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
posted October 29, 2010 03:02 AM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 03:03, 29 Oct 2010.
|
The Tea Party is not a single unified movement, the most popular topic with them i controlling government spending, but out of the groups listed less than 50% said it was their top priority.
I guess that's why I thought it was originally a Libertarian movement that was co-opted, astroturfed and hijacked by the Republicans, but it seems that those are just small, separate Tea Party groups that are more Republican than Libertarian leaning that have gotten all of the attention of the media and in reality, they can't agree on one thing.
That's both a relief and a shame.
It's good that the groups that actually care about bad spending by both parties (which if you look historically at the major legislation they both pass, are the same damn party) still exist and the ones that veer off message and go into tax cuts only with no spending reduction are only small potatoes. The sad part though is that said small potatoes are still real. Cutting taxes only greatly accelerates economic decline due to soaring debt. A balanced budget is needed.
Mind you, Obama's budget is still less than Bush's last one, but I still don't think he's any better. That's just my personal opinion though.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 03:27 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 03:31, 29 Oct 2010.
|
Quote:
Mind you, Obama's budget is still less than Bush's last one, but I still don't think he's any better.
Really? Are you sure?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 04:09 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:14, 29 Oct 2010.
|
Quote:
Because humans are slaves to their biochemistry. Every human has a biochemical need to reproduce. So when you are able to tell humans that it is wrong to satisfy those biochemical needs in certain ways, and when you are able to demand penance from people who are too weak to obey, then you control people and you control wealth. How do you think the Catholic Church was able to amass such a fortune? The threat of eternal damnation, of course, is a powerful motivator to give up your earthly possessions.
I'm not a slave to biochemistry or any sexual impulse. I can control how I react. 
Obviously you have not done proper research. The Old Testament was around long before the Catholic church. Therefore your premise that the Catholic church made up the "sexual sins" is obviously incorrect.
Sorry, sin is sin because God says so regardles of what any anti-theist writings tell you.
Quote:
Silly Church. As if an omnipotent deity has nothing better to do with his time than be concerned that some teenager is spanking it to internet porn.
If you can't profit from it, you must condemn it!
Silly athesits, always looking for conspiracies when there are none.
Quote:
The Bible does mention masturbation just once, the story of Onan. However, god idn't displeased with Onan because he masturbates; he's displeased because he doesn't obey: he's supposed to make his sister-in-law pregnant after his brother died, and he doesn't want that, which is why he masturbates.
Actually, the story of Onan is not about masturbation at all. Onan had sex with with brother's wife, supposedly to raise up an heir to his brother, but then he pulled out and climaxed on the ground instead.
Quote:
Everything else is interpretation, and that interpretation is done by humans.
The best shot is Jesus's statement that you betray your wife already when doing it only in your thoughts. Masturbation would therefore be adultry when a person did it while betraying wife or husband with someone else in their thoughts while doing it.
Still, in this case ADULTRY would be the sin, not masturbation.
Yes, the sin would indeed be adultry. An intentional breaking of a sacred covenant by intentionally focussin your thoughts sexually on another woman.
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Lots of sins fall into the self-gratification bit. The I want what I want whether or not I have a right to it or not thing.
Quote:
Another thing is of course that most religions didn't have anything against sex at all. Maybe that's the reason why so many don't exist anymore..
Is that why the religion of atheism is in worldwide decline, because it doesn't say any sexual behaviour is wrong?
Quote:
the bible condemn avidity but encourages marriage, while the marriage is really just a way to possess someone, that makes no sense. you buy a car so that you are the only one who can drive it. you marry a girl, so that you are the only one who can have sex with her.
I hope you never marry or at least not until you get a clue about what marriage is.
Marriage is a mutual commitment to one another for life. You each place the needs of the other above your own needs. A mutual self-sacrificing for one another. And yeah, you'll only have sex with each other. If you think that is a shackle you obviously have never been in love.
Quote:
At this stage, though, they are drawing their potential from the Republicans, mostly, not from the Democrats, which will make sure that the DEMOCRATS will cement their position, because the opposition is splitting.
This could be stopped only, if the Republicans would move away further from the Tea Party to the Democrats, trying to draw Democrats that disagree with the current course as being too "progressive" - which might take some time, but could very well happen.
Sorry, the Tea Party movement is a conservative movement and the "Tea Pary" folks who get elected will vote pretty much along Republican lines because the Republican Party in general is conservative. The dems, who are primarily socialists, are going to lose tons of seats and will lose the Presidency in 2012.
Hopefully there will be a return to the Tenth Ammendment and the power of the federal government will wane.
Oh, Obama's Health Care Bill is pretty much guarenteed to be declared unconstitution when it reaches the Supreme Court unless a Constitutionalist judge dies and Obama gets to appoint another socialist judge.
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 05:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Mind you, Obama's budget is still less than Bush's last one, but I still don't think he's any better.
Really? Are you sure?
Oh you're right. I admit when I'm wrong I must have gotten my number mixed up. Obama's first year had deficits 20 billion higher than Bush's last. I take back my statement because I looked at it wrong. Sorry for that =)
As I said though, Obama is still continuing Bush's trends. I don't imagine any president to follow will be all that great either. America is not about it's presidents though. America is more the sum of the labours of its people. The leadership is just a figurehead that passes laws that annoy people. Can't say much different for my country.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 08:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Another thing is of course that most religions didn't have anything against sex at all. Maybe that's the reason why so many don't exist anymore..
Is that why the religion of atheism is in worldwide decline, because it doesn't say any sexual behaviour is wrong?
Off-topic, of course, but still... Nah, the reason is, that sexual freedom and contention makes people peaceful. Unaggressive.
While suppression and guilt about it make people aggressive.
As with everything, the key to success and survival is to find a middle ground. If your society is too hedonistic, people will be too content to do more than necessary. Considering that we didn't always have it nice and comfy, but life was pretty harsh, it's clear that too hedonistic a society will fall victim to anything "untoward" like natural desasters, aggressive neighbours and so on.
If on the other hand a society is too restrictive, if there are too harsh rules there will be a lot of sublimation´(part of which will fuel "development"), but since there is so much that people can't really follow, there will be a generally high amount of guilt and fear which will raise the aggression potential to rather unhealthy levels.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 03:10 PM |
|
|
@Shyranis
Quote:
As I said though, Obama is still continuing Bush's trends.
Continuing them and worsening them. I remember in the debates between McCain and Obama, Obama repeated over and over again how he was going to go through the budget "with a scalpel" and make serious cuts to get the budget under control. And he's done exactly the opposite - the budget and deficit have both INCREASED during Obama's two years in office compared to the Bush Presidency.
Well, he's going to pay for it next week.
And while it's true that Congress is ultimately responsible for how much money we spend, the President does have veto power. If I were president, I would veto every bill until Congress gave me line-item veto powers. And then I would veto every nonsense pork earmark attached to every bill. It's about time that Congress stopped using local interests to bribe politicians into supporting bills. A national bill should be passed because it's the right thing to do, not because Congress is going to throw some money towards building a bridge in Alaska.
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 06:03 PM |
|
|
|
This is a little off subject but you know I got my BA in Economics a while back and you know...for the life of me I can't see how a budget deffict would be increasing unemployment in the nation. Please inform me on how this works. Thank you.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 10:40 PM |
|
|
Government deficits crowd out private investment, which will reduce future employment.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 29, 2010 11:33 PM |
|
|
|
What gives you that idea?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 12:29 AM |
|
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 12:51 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 00:53, 30 Oct 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
the bible condemn avidity but encourages marriage, while the marriage is really just a way to possess someone, that makes no sense. you buy a car so that you are the only one who can drive it. you marry a girl, so that you are the only one who can have sex with her.
I hope you never marry or at least not until you get a clue about what marriage is.
Marriage is a mutual commitment to one another for life. You each place the needs of the other above your own needs. A mutual self-sacrificing for one another. And yeah, you'll only have sex with each other. If you think that is a shackle you obviously have never been in love.
lol, and how often does it work that way in reality?
so you can only have sex with your partner, and you shouldn't lust after other people. even if it was no problem to you, other people may still lust after you, and then we have a problem because you are supposed to tell them no. and then there is jealousy.
the point isn't that it's a shackle, it's that it sets a division. between MY wife and other girls. like between MY car and other cars.
marriage gives you the right to possess a girl, and you take that right, because if you don't, someone else will take the girl you want.
if you could just pick up any car in the street, there would be no point in owning one, it's not much different with a girl (except that she could still disagree, but there wouldn't be an angry husband saying she's his)
Quote:
Basic macroeconomics. Y = C[Y-T] + I[r] + G.
basic indeed 
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 01:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
or the life of me I can't see how a budget deffict would be increasing unemployment in the nation
Well, it's not directly answering the question, but in theory government expenditures increase employment. And in practice that is also true. If the same money is spent in the private sector it also increases employment.
A couple weeks ago I was glancing through the budget of my local city government, looking at some of the recent projects. One thing that caught my eye was $132,000 to install a traffic light. I just shook my head and wondered how the hell they can spend $132K installing a traffic light?
I worked in construction for many years and I know you could build a moderate house for 132K.
I don't know exactly what's involved in installing a traffic light, but I know approximately what's involved and how long it takes. Let's say it takes 4-5 people 2-3 days to do the job.
To build a moderate house you would have concrete workers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, roofers, drywall installers, carpet layers, painters, and all kinds of other people. You might have a total of 50 people. At any given time you might have 3-10 workers for a period of 2-3 months to build that house.
That's the difference between the government spending money compared to the private sector.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 01:31 AM |
|
|
@Bin
The problem is that your local government doesn't just have to pay the contractor (who is probably unionized and charges outrageous costs and gets outrageous benefits). They have to pay all the beaurocrats that it takes to arrange and sign off on every level of the project. It government it's not just a simple matter of hiring a contractor to do the work. Everything has to be approved by eight supervisors.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 02:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Shyranis
Quote:
As I said though, Obama is still continuing Bush's trends.
Continuing them and worsening them. I remember in the debates between McCain and Obama, Obama repeated over and over again how he was going to go through the budget "with a scalpel" and make serious cuts to get the budget under control. And he's done exactly the opposite - the budget and deficit have both INCREASED during Obama's two years in office compared to the Bush Presidency.
Well, he's going to pay for it next week.
As he should.
He's also declared that an American citizen can be killed no matter where they are at any time just because the government believes he's bad. In this case, an American Muslim leader who preaches violence against American military targets.
What's next? Saying all those people who want to blow up the IRS should be dragged out in the street and shot? He's expanding on the practices of the previous government, and I fear his replacement will only continue to escalate matters.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 05:13 PM |
|
|
There is no way in heck that Government deffict spending has crowded out private investment because there is no private investment to crowd out; that's why we are in a recession.
Quote:
@Shyranis
As he should.
He's also declared that an American citizen can be killed no matter where they are at any time just because the government believes he's bad. In this case, an American Muslim leader who preaches violence against American military targets.
What's next? Saying all those people who want to blow up the IRS should be dragged out in the street and shot? He's expanding on the practices of the previous government, and I fear his replacement will only continue to escalate matters.
Ok this is absurd. Obama is not going to kill you for disagreeing with him (or Glen Beck would be so dead now) and he is not going to kill your grandmother and he's not going to raise taxes for the middle class! (he's lowred them hence some of the deficit).
Where does this stuff come from! I think the only reason Obama is going down in the polls is because people come up with all this weird stuff. I have no idea where it comes from but it's driving me up the wall.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 11:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
ther people may still lust after you, and then we have a problem because you are supposed to tell them no.
Why is that a problem?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 30, 2010 11:48 PM |
|
|
|
because it may frustrate them
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 31, 2010 12:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
because it may frustrate them
The fact that a selfish person may become frustrated when a married person turns down their advaces only means there is a problem with the selfish person, not the institution of marriage. Selfish people get frustrated when they don't get what they want when they want it. So what?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2010 01:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There is no way in heck that Government deffict spending has crowded out private investment because there is no private investment to crowd out; that's why we are in a recession.
It's true that investment now is lower than it usually is, but fiscal policy is ineffective - and as long as there is investment (and there is!) government spending will necessarily crowd it out. Remember your GDP identity.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 31, 2010 02:17 AM |
|
|
While it may be true that excessive deficit spending generally harms the long term economy, *within limits* how the money is allocated, what it's spent on and how efficiently it's spent has far more impact than the actual amount. I think that most people would agree that not all government expenditures are the same and that they affect the economy in different ways. That's true whether it's deficit spending or surplus spending.
I haven't followed the whole tea party movement, but the impression I had was that it was mostly a protest against outrageous government spending. There are multiple reasons why people are against such excessive spending. There are people like me who are just against big government. Excessive government spending means excessive government and government interference in areas that are none of their business. There are others who look at it from an economic point of view and don't want to see these huge deficits that their grandchildren will have to pay for. Still others may be against the programs the money is being spent on.
The impression I had was that originally the tea parties somewhat crossed party lines. It was conservative leaning because small government and fiscal responsibility are traditional conservative issues. However those fiscal policies have widespread support with the moderates and to some degree with the semi-liberals. So there was tea party support from a broad range of people from the right to the moderate left.
As the movement gained momentum with widespread grass roots support, the political strength of the movement became apparent. The natural opportunists to take advantage of it were the neo-conservatives. The movement became a powerful sounding board for their cause. As far as I know most of the original support was against deficit spending. But when the opportunists got involved they used it as an overall political tool and used it as a soapbox to push their entire neo-conservative agenda.
I say "neo-conservative" because as far as I'm concerned, people like Gingrich, Palin, and O'Donnell are NOT what conservatism is all about. They are part of a growing fringe group who has kidnapped a political party and tried to make it their own. I shouldn't say "tried" because they've been quite successful (unfortunately).
While I support the original intent of the tea parties and I've considered going to them in the past, if someone like Palin showed up I think I'd puke, hopefully on her. Those people are just plain crazy and they've taken what may have been a good thing and ruined it. The impression I had was that the original movement was more like the traditional Republicans of 20+ years ago. Because of these idiots who have taken over, maybe the name should be change from Tea Party to People-Who-Belong-in-a-Straight-Jacket Party.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
