|
Mr Hankey's post only said that this person wanted 'THINGS' and would continue to elect a leader that they felt likely to provide those. How do you know those things are someone else's money? Perhaps taxation was a bad example to make my point but we all want someTHING from our government, be it less government, less tax, more social security, 4 day weekends etc.
|
|
|
|
|
_Josh_ wrote: How do you know those things are someone else's money?
Educated guess
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: In one case, someone gets to keep more of the money they earned.
If that was the single concern then they wouldn't want police, fire, schools or even a military. Because if those did not exist then taxes would be even lower and they would "keep more of the money they earned". Or at least until someone one else took it at gun point which would be the result.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: they wouldn't want police, fire, schools or even a military.
Don't be silly. I'm not suggesting that people should pay no taxes. Obviously the government does supply some needed services that need to be paid for.
The problem lies in certain entitlement programs where failure is rewarded and success is punished. The idea behind any entitlement program should be subsistence - thus providing a VERY BASIC safety net and plenty of motivation to provide for ones self.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: The idea behind any entitlement program should be subsistence
In your opinion of course.
In a democracy other peoples opinions come into play.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: In a democracy other peoples opinions come into play.
Of course
The problem arises when "other people" decide to take my hard earned money to reward themselves while refusing to even make an effort.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
Everybody wants something I think I want another beer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
He lost because he did not wear his magical underwear[^].
Nihil obstat
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting theory. But you are right, that undershirt just does not give a polished image. Obama always has a polished image.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being a Mormon makes it difficult to separate oneself from extremism.
|
|
|
|
|
That's funny. To Mormons, Obama is an extremist.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
So are gays, right? And blacks until the late 60's?
|
|
|
|
|
No. Maybe you need to get to know Mormons first.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb31 wrote: No. Maybe you need to get to know Mormons first.
I think I can help out here.
You're thinking the word extremist means "radical idealogue who is willing to use violence to further a social agenda". For example, half of Obama's former associates would fit this definition perfectly.
However, when the term extremist now means "little old ladies who find gay marriage to be 'icky'".
I hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
Baptizing holocaust victims would be considered extremist.
[edit after univote]
I know there are a few that will downvote any comment on Mormons, but think about the definition. Extremism is not even an offensive term. It means outside the existing societal norms, and yes Mormons are:
OED:
extremist/ɪkˈstriːmɪst/
▶noun
chiefly derogatory a person who holds extreme political or religious views.
Wiki:
The term extremism is almost invariably used pejoratively, however the term may also sometimes be associated with person(s) who have different view(s) which is not consistent with the existing norm(s). It need not necessarily imply that the person is a threat to the society or the government or any other agency.
modified 7-Nov-12 16:40pm.
|
|
|
|
|
wizardzz wrote:
Baptizing holocaust victims would be considered
extremist.
You illustrate the point nicely.
Mormons don't baptize holocaust victims - that would be extremist. That is, dig up some dead guy, against relatives wishes, and baptize the corpse. Yeah, I'd be opposed to that. However, what they really do is proxy baptisms which is no more or less silly than a ton of other religious practices.
Do you really care if the extent of Mormon intrusion into your life is some guy whispering your name while he's baptized in Salt Lake? This is a terrorist act these days? This is what upsets people? Really? Mormons can proxy baptize me every day for the rest of my life - I'm sure I don't give an elephant on how they waste their time. Buy me a ticket to Salt Lake and I'll show up and watch.
Compare with Obama's associates - you know, the one with a history of blowing sh*t up - and you'll see how we use the term 'extremist' differently.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: Compare with Obama's associates - you know, the one with a history of blowing sh*t up - and you'll see how we use the term 'extremist' differently.
So you have your own definition of extremism? Because how I used it, is in accordance with the Oxford English Dictionary, as it does not reference violence. But go ahead, if you must change the definition of word to suit your argument, feel free.
Did I ever once defend Obama or any associate. The conversation was about why Romney lost, and how he was associated with right extremism. Now, according to the definition of extremism, being a Mormon did not help him disassociate himself from extremists in his party. Many right leaning religious folk view it as a cult, surveys of evangelicals have shown this.
modified 7-Nov-12 16:54pm.
|
|
|
|
|
wizardzz,
I think you make a good point, especially about the technical definition of extremism, but my objection still stands.
Whatever extremism you may find in Romney's associations you can find even moreso in Obama's, including, but not limited to, the violent sorts. So for someone to claim that people voted for Obama to avoid extremist connections is downright silly.
Obama has Romney beat in the extremist catagory 10x over.
That doesn't mean Obama is wrong or that the extremist views are wrong.
I'm just not buying Slate's analysis.
No, this one came down to people voting for whoever promised to hand out the most goodies.
Preaching hard work and individual resposibility doesn't get votes.
Give out a free phone and win.
Pass the blame, the buck, the tab off to someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
Why didn't you bring up Rev. Wright in your argument? Or did nobody really discuss Obama's old church as extremist outside of Chicago? That church is f***ed up.
|
|
|
|
|
wizardzz wrote:
Why didn't you bring up Rev. Wright in your
argument? Or did nobody really discuss Obama's old church as extremist outside
of Chicago? That church is f***ed up.
That's what is so bizarre about this thing.
You'd of thought that would have been on the news 24/7 the first time around.
It's why I think this has nothing to do with extremist views.
|
|
|
|
|
To be fair, he distanced himself from Wright incredibly quick, probably at the advice of Rahm. Southside preachers have a history of being hate spewing scumbags, so maybe people figured he probably just got married at the nearest church. (His house is far into the southside, so it was probably difficult to find a non-hate spewing church). Oh yeah, Farrrakhan is one of his neighbors. I've only been down there once, after a late night at the bar, to drop people off, years before Obama was even known. Drove right past Farrakhan's house, armed security at all hours. It was quite scary that a religious leader was able to hire such heavily armed private security detail, at a time when citizens were banned from owning a handgun.
|
|
|
|
|
wizardzz wrote: To be fair, he distanced himself from Wright incredibly quick, probably at the advice of Rahm.
True as that is it was after sitting in that church for 20 years.
Did he ever say Wright was wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of?
I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday... The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either.... What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for, and what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people. ...[A]fter seeing Reverend Wright's performance, I felt as if there was a complete disregard for what the American people are going through and the need for them to rally together to solve these problems. ...[W]hatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed, as a consequence of this.
|
|
|
|