What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

social security is a "bad Ponzi scheme."
Click to expand...

1. The government never should have borrowed from it.
2. It should have always been indexed and means tested.
3. It should always have been considered insurance more than anything else.

As for Ponzi, I think the term is stupid and never should have been used by idiots on the left or the right.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

ScoobyDoo said:
1. The government never should have borrowed from it.
2. It should have always been indexed and means tested.
3. It should always have been considered insurance more than anything else.

As for Ponzi, I think the term is stupid and never should have been used by idiots on the left or the right.
Click to expand...

Tell "Tingles," Russert's not taking any calls.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Old Pio said:
We elected the "peace" candidate in '64 and it got us 600K troops in Vietnam. Anybody lying to that extent this time around?
Click to expand...

It's hard to tell until someone is elected. Then you find out if they really want to "bring the troops home", or just wanted to say what it would take to be elected. Both parties do it; create "facts" to bolster pre-conclusions. But if we keep rewarding them for it, it's not going to change. I still can't see myself voting for anyone that's running now.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Why can't we do elections the way the Brits and Canadians do it? Three months of election ads and that's it.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

ScoobyDoo said:
How is a debate meaningful if it's not truthful? They should have fact checkers on the panel challenging the lies that they tell. The last 1/2 of the debate can be reserved for setting the record straight.
Click to expand...
It would wreck the very foundation on which our political government is run ... If you ever injected truth into politics you'd have no politics
- Will Rogers
Click to expand...
.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

geezer said:
It's hard to tell until someone is elected. Then you find out if they really want to "bring the troops home", or just wanted to say what it would take to be elected. Both parties do it; create "facts" to bolster pre-conclusions. But if we keep rewarding them for it, it's not going to change. I still can't see myself voting for anyone that's running now.
Click to expand...

We are significantly to blame. Everyone in Washington knows social security is going to implode, but very few are willing to mention it. Those who do are dismissed as cranks or unelectable for having stepped on "the third rail." We talk about raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" as the way to pare down the natonal debt. The fact is, if we confiscated all income from "millionaires and billionaires," it wouldn't make a significant dent in the debt. So as long as we are in denial. And we keep electing charletons. We'll continue on our merry way. I remember David Brinkley's annecdote about the candidate whose opponant kept referring to his wife as a "well known thespian."
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

MountieBoyOz said:
Why can't we do elections the way the Brits and Canadians do it? Three months of election ads and that's it.
Click to expand...
That's what indeterminate length terms will do for you.

I'd much prefer to see the presidency increased to six years with no repeat term allowed. That would take away the obsession of the opposition from destroying everything the sitting president proposed purely as a political maneuver.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

These debates are like the early days of spring training. After a bit, the players who can't make the bigs are sent to the minor leagues. Those that survive get to compete in the Fall Classic.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

5mn_Major said:
OK...this was the example you picked.

It may be your perspective that this passage is about stoning...but it's not that of Christianity. The passage was about judgement...and the relative comparison with stoning is what makes the point more powerful.
Click to expand...
The passage was that there was a group of people trying to trap Jesus. He either let's the woman go violating jewish law (which he was the perfect jew) or he'll say to stone the woman and violate Roman law. It's a catch 22. It's actually a rather clever use of the requirement for witnesses in order to get ou tof the situation.

Even accepting that he's really trying to say don't judge to the men (by blackmailing to remove their testimony, since they were guilty of other things.) why didn't he simply state "murdering people is wrong"? Or a better question is why is this kind of moral dictate even there to begin with? Because he's not there to undermine or remove jewish law as he said until it was later retconned out. Because like most of what he did they are a reference to old testament law usually lost in translation. (see the entire thing about him being tempted by the devil with every part of it is him using an OT law to justify an action) That this was about following the law is reinforced in the next part after he leaves the woman, where he talks about how he can be a witness for himself and doesn't need to have someone back up his story. (Because I said so is a good reason to the people he's talking to. That's their intellectual level)

Why do I say that? Stoning was abolished in the west long ago (wiki infers it was abolished in 30AD)...and therefore in Christian domains, its been a nonfactor. The implications of harsh judgement has been devastating throughout the centuries...and therefore, this passage been a lesson for the ages.

Its easy to misunderstand Christianity. Some of the smartest people have (admittedly much of that comes from misinformation).
Click to expand...
Wrong, wiki points out that the jewish group called the Sanhedrin abolished capital offense for jewish crimes that carried the death penalty. This is not referring to all laws that carried the death penalty and did not include the West in any large part. And guess who they didn't mention when making that decision? (Jeebus like every other contemporary source) I don't know how you're supposed to be taken seriously about this if you are reading wikipedia in such a half assed way.

If anyone wants to continue this start a new thread please.

MountieBoyOz said:
Far be it from me to use logic, but if Tea Partiers are such sticklers for the Constitution, then why do they use God in arguments. I seem to remember a part of the constitution that has a little something about the separation of church and state. Is that still in there?
Click to expand...
Not in the constitution explicitly but that is the purpose as evidence by the opinions of the founding fathers who came up with it and the treaty of tripoli. But then you get people like Ron Paul who think the opposite. http://youtu.be/NyfnHOPAhHo (It's hard not to pick on Ron Paul)
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

The only political speech I've watched in a long time was Marco Rubio's a couple weeks ago. He sounded like a guy I could vote for, based on that limited exposure: "Conservatism is about empowering people." Is he still too young to run?
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

Kepler said:
That's what indeterminate length terms will do for you.

I'd much prefer to see the presidency increased to six years with no repeat term allowed. That would take away the obsession of the opposition from destroying everything the sitting president proposed purely as a political maneuver.
Click to expand...

Didn't the Confederacy try that?
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

geezer said:
It's hard to tell until someone is elected. Then you find out if they really want to "bring the troops home", or just wanted to say what it would take to be elected. Both parties do it; create "facts" to bolster pre-conclusions. But if we keep rewarding them for it, it's not going to change. I still can't see myself voting for anyone that's running now.
Click to expand...

And in 2000 the guy who promised no more nation-building was put in office. How'd that work out?
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

geezer said:
The only political speech I've watched in a long time was Marco Rubio's a couple weeks ago. He sounded like a guy I could vote for, based on that limited exposure: "Conservatism is about empowering people." Is he still too young to run?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what he means. We've spent over a decade empowering the hell out of job creators and we're in a bigger mess now than ever.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

ScoobyDoo said:
I'm not sure what he means. We've spent over a decade empowering the hell out of job creators and we're in a bigger mess now than ever.
Click to expand...

Much better for the economy that we "empower the hell" out of people who spend their lifetime on the dole.
 
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel

[QUOT
E=Priceless;5202967]And in 2000 the guy who promised no more nation-building was put in office. How'd that work out?[/QUOTE]

There's always hope and change. Is that working out better?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top