And Mitt Picks...

[OutofDate1980]

There is a difference between a zygote and a fetus. Just saying. ...

That's a different debate, not germane to the Ryan bill.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr212ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr212ih.pdf

(B) the life of each human being begins
16 with fertilization, cloning, or its functional
17 equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function
18 or disability, defect, stage of biological develop
19 ment, or condition of dependency, at which time
20 every human being shall have all the legal and
21 constitutional attributes and privileges of
22 personhood; and

 

[ElasticNinja]

There is a difference between a zygote and a fetus. Just saying.

Anyway, honest question. Is there anything about Romney/Ryan or the Republican party that you like? Anything at all?

To be fair I'm probably more neutral than him and its hard to find any things they are one up over the Democrats. Obviously his constant blaming of Republicans and linking everything back to them frustrates us all but meh.

 

[A.Nonymous]

To be fair I'm probably more neutral than him and its hard to find any things they are one up over the Democrats. Obviously his constant blaming of Republicans and linking everything back to them frustrates us all but meh.

Honestly, there are things about both parties I like. I like the Democrats stance on a lot of social issues. I do not like their idea that the wealthy should be punished. Nor do I like their idea that the fix for every social ill is to give people money they haven't earned. I really loathe the anti-wealth mentality that pervades the party from top to bottom. On the Republican side, I think they way too uptight on a lot of social issues. I tend to like their fiscal policies though this voice in the back of my head screams that they're just paying lip service and have no desire to actually implement any of them. I dislike how neither party represents the people any more. Both of them seem to be puppets for various special interests. I find this particularly annoying in the Democrats as they will run around and rant about how evil rich people are and then happily take money from them or are shocked when their own wealthy donors don't give. I loathe the corruption and hypocrisy in both parties and would kill for a 3rd party with a realistic chance of being elected that was actually honest and transparent.

Anyway, still waiting to see what, if anything, Outofdate1980 likes about the Republican party.

 

[Rico ANDROID]

Spoiler

"If I Am Elected:...."

"...i will do away with education! oops!.."

 

[Rico ANDROID]

Actually what #203 says makes sense. There should be common ground among all and these "PUBLIC SERVANTS" need to stop the fighting among themselves and between "parties"... Thats why nothing is being done "for the people" because both parties go after each other and do not fulfill one ounce of a public servant duty.

BOTH parties taking bribes, inside-scoop stocks, getting rich, paying less taxes (ratio) than the "average android forumist" and always taking an opposite of what the other says.

What ever happened to "We The People"? I dont hear one word in that expression that represents division, separation or one person or group better than the other.

(cough: although i MUST say that we Androdians ARE the KINGS!)

 

[ElasticNinja]

Honestly, there are things about both parties I like. I like the Democrats stance on a lot of social issues. I do not like their idea that the wealthy should be punished. Nor do I like their idea that the fix for every social ill is to give people money they haven't earned. I really loathe the anti-wealth mentality that pervades the party from top to bottom. On the Republican side, I think they way too uptight on a lot of social issues. I tend to like their fiscal policies though this voice in the back of my head screams that they're just paying lip service and have no desire to actually implement any of them. I dislike how neither party represents the people any more. Both of them seem to be puppets for various special interests. I find this particularly annoying in the Democrats as they will run around and rant about how evil rich people are and then happily take money from them or are shocked when their own wealthy donors don't give. I loathe the corruption and hypocrisy in both parties and would kill for a 3rd party with a realistic chance of being elected that was actually honest and transparent.

But you see, the Democrats are basically a center right party. Given it has no socialist wing as such you wont get many people moaning about rich people in general.

 

[A.Nonymous]

But you see, the Democrats are basically a center right party. Given it has no socialist wing as such you wont get many people moaning about rich people in general.

Democrats are a center left party. It does have a socialist wing albeit not a particularly powerful one.

 

[Rico ANDROID]

Only moan I have about rich is they can be pretty evil amd damgerous in certain positions. We already know "money" buys power, favors, "get out of jail free cards" to name a few. The only rich persons I moan about arenthe ones in a political ring who knows nothing about the common citizen, whose tax "ratio" is lower than mine, meanimg I pay more and living on less where HE pays less living on MORE.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Democrats are a center left party. It does have a socialist wing albeit not a particularly powerful one.

Their liberal wing is fairly centrist to center-left. But when you follow the policies and what Democrats vote for it is certainly not a party of the center left. Where are the socialists advocating state capitalism, and nationalisation of energy, parts of heavy industry and banks? Sure a few of them advocate fixing every social issue, when they are in center or center-right parties they are simply called populists.
Times change. The Democrats were once center-left, the Republicans were once center-right. But most Labour Parties and Socialist and even Social Democratic parties were founded as Marxist groupings. That does not mean they are still center right. Today they are all centerists or on the center-right.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Only moan I have about rich is they can be pretty evil amd damgerous in certain positions. We already know "money" buys power, favors, "get out of jail free cards" to name a few. The only rich persons I moan about arenthe ones in a political ring who knows nothing about the common citizen, whose tax "ratio" is lower than mine, meanimg I pay more and living on less where HE pays less living on MORE.

They can be evil. But the poor can be evil as well. Evil doesn't seem to be limited by social status.

 

[jbenham]

Aint that the truth. Not going to mention Obama's name, but there are some that are not poor that want to make you think that they are. Doesn't matter how much money Romney has, he started from scratch. He donated his entire inheritance to charity and created thousands of jobs on his own,

 

[OutofDate1980]

Aint that the truth. Not going to mention Obama's name, but there are some that are not poor that want to make you think that they are. Doesn't matter how much money Romney has, he started from scratch. He donated his entire inheritance to charity and created thousands of jobs on his own,

Any facts to back up your claims ? This is going to be fun.

 

[jbenham]

This is from Forbes-

An Inside Look At The Millions Mitt Romney Has Given Away - Forbes

 

[ElasticNinja]

This is from Forbes-

An Inside Look At The Millions Mitt Romney Has Given Away - Forbes

Yeah, giving away like $1.5 million dollars via his foundation to charities makes up for him not giving anything back to the governments he uses. And LOL, the Mormons are a charity financially, I would feel pretty bad if I gave those loons any money.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Yeah, giving away like $1.5 million dollars via his foundation to charities makes up for him not giving anything back to the governments he uses. And LOL, the Mormons are a charity financially, I would feel pretty bad if I gave those loons any money.

Well, there's certainly no ethical or moral imperative to give to the government. In fact, people scheme and scam to get out of giving money to the government. If the man was willingly donating money to the government he would lose tons of respect from me and a bunch of other people. Only a fool donates to the feds. And the Mormons are his church. You can disagree with his religion all you want and that's fine. I won't fault a guy for giving to his church.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Well, there's certainly no ethical or moral imperative to give to the government. In fact, people scheme and scam to get out of giving money to the government. If the man was willingly donating money to the government he would lose tons of respect from me and a bunch of other people. Only a fool donates to the feds. And the Mormons are his church. You can disagree with his religion all you want and that's fine. I won't fault a guy for giving to his church.

Well lots of Americans use the argument of, "I dont pay much tax but I give to charities". Romney pays sweet feck all tax and gives a few dollars too charity.
And generally if you can afford to pay for the services you get, I think there is an ethical and moral argument that Romney should be paying at least 40% tax on what he has earned.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Well lots of Americans use the argument of, "I dont pay much tax but I give to charities". Romney pays sweet feck all tax and gives a few dollars too charity.
And generally if you can afford to pay for the services you get, I think there is an ethical and moral argument that Romney should be paying at least 40% tax on what he has earned.

Should I pay 40% as well? I get the same services he does.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Should I pay 40% as well? I get the same services he does.

Well you need proportionally more disposable income than him, dont you?

 

[A.Nonymous]

Well you need proportionally more disposable income than him, dont you?

Why would that matter? Your argument is that he is benefiting from government services therefore he should pay X% is it not? I also benefit from those same services (roads, national defense, etc....)

 

[ElasticNinja]

Why would that matter? Your argument is that he is benefiting from government services therefore he should pay X% is it not? I also benefit from those same services (roads, national defense, etc....)

Because the government cant provide you with everything, especially in the US, so you need disposable income to pay for most of your needs. The whole point of a progressive tax system is that you pay a lower rate on the most essential part of your income.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Because the government cant provide you with everything, especially in the US, so you need disposable income to pay for most of your needs. The whole point of a progressive tax system is that you pay a lower rate on the most essential part of your income.

That's where I have a problem with the theory. In theory both Romney and I benefit from the same system. We live under the same political system. We benefit (and suffer) from the same economy. We are protected by the same army. We are represented by the same people. We are governed by the same laws. So, in theory, we benefit the same. Why should one of us pay more and the other pay less for the same benefits?

 

[saptech]

Doesn't matter how much money Romney has, he started from scratch. He donated his entire inheritance to charity and created thousands of jobs on his own,

How does he start from scratch but donated his inheritance to charity? It sounds contridiction to me.

 

[ElasticNinja]

That's where I have a problem with the theory. In theory both Romney and I benefit from the same system. We live under the same political system. We benefit (and suffer) from the same economy. We are protected by the same army. We are represented by the same people. We are governed by the same laws. So, in theory, we benefit the same. Why should one of us pay more and the other pay less for the same benefits?

Romney has made more money, thus has taken advantage of far more government services than you indirectly.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Romney has made more money, thus has taken advantage of far more government services than you indirectly.

In what way specifically has he taken advantages of more services?

 

[ElasticNinja]

In what way specifically has he taken advantages of more services?

The you think those millions come out of thin air?
He needs an economy for that. Educated workers. Transport. Security. People dont get rich on their own. Its possible to become poor on your own, but not rich. Dont kind yourself.