RustyNails
Member
Dat VP slot
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing
- Thread starter Invisible_Insane
- Start date
- Status
What does my significant other have to do with Huntsman's hideous children?
It took way more than the civil war.
And by the way, slavery is still not illegal in the US.
The 13th amendment is pretty damn clear that it's fine to have slaves as long as they broke the law first.
Which by the way, is exactly what they did in the south after the war.
I've already conceded that point that I should put it more into context, but at the same time I think the side that pines nostalgically at the founding fathers' vision is also kind of failing to do the same thing. There's no way in hell their idea of freedom and equality is what we have today. They had no way of knowing it or imagining it. Maybe there were a few, but even then, I doubt it. My point still stands that these people are put on a pedestal for creating a document, which was a good starting point. They're not gods and they're not all seeing people. They were men of their time, and their time consisted of one of the most vile acts we've ever had in this country. And it was common place and accepted!
My point still stands about everything between freeing the slaves and how we have it now. We had to do a lot of work to get equality, including laws about hiring. We still have racists in our country, and if those laws were to go away then that would mean some African Americans wouldn't be getting their liberty. All I'm pointing to is that the document in and of itself doesn't give everyone liberty, because we can freely take it away without the protection of a government.
And as just a sort of curiosity, did any of the founding fathers crusade for women's rights or women's voting?
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Lol. I think you know what I mean.
Dough!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-christianity/2011/08/12/gIQAziaQBJ_blog.html
There we go. Sorry boot that.
I was speaking of the 3/5ths Compromise specifically. But otherwise, yeah, the struggle did not end there.
In my dream scenario Romney chooses Paul as his VP to capture the illogical liberal youth vote. A few months pass by, and Paul convinces Romney to repeal MLK Day in exchange for Paul's public support for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Shrennin
Didn't get the memo regarding the 14th Amendment
That I don't know. If any were, I would imagine it to be John Adams because his wife had strong opinions on the subject.
I'm also not going to continue in the argument because it's kinda off topic and I somehow disabled my right wrist a couple of minutes ago. It hurts typing so this will be my last post.
There is no way he'd pick Paul as the Veep. He's trying his damndest to pander to the far right, not scare them off.
Never happen, but that might be one thing that would make the Obama campaign go "Oh fuck" as far as the youth vote is concerned.
Might as well worth mentioning that for the majority of the existence of the US, women did not have the right to vote.
Also unlike slavery, women suffrage had practically no founding fathers supporters.
You think them campaigning on repealing MLK day and bombing Iran would be a concern to the Obama campaign?
BruiserBear
Banned
Whenever a network does one of these "live reactions to the candidates words" with a real time meter at the bottom of the screen, I want to shoot my tv.
CNN is making me want to shoot my tv tonight.
Also, every time Romney declares he'll repeal Obamacare I lol. This guy enacted statewide healthcare for the state he was governor of not that long ago, but like every political clown now he runs around saying the total opposite because he knows it's the only way he can win.
CNN is making me want to shoot my tv tonight.
Also, every time Romney declares he'll repeal Obamacare I lol. This guy enacted statewide healthcare for the state he was governor of not that long ago, but like every political clown now he runs around saying the total opposite because he knows it's the only way he can win.
I think Paul would accept if it meant taking away federal recognition of a communist, world-class adulterer who seduced underage girls and boys and forced racial integration on us all.
Libertarians should vote Democrat, IMO.
The actual instances where our freedoms are impeded are mainly social. The freedom to do what you like with your body, the freedom not to be searched on ridiculous "probable" cause, the freedom to marry whoever you want, a woman's freedom not to have to carry a fetus to term... these are all actual violations of our liberties, and these are issues where the Democrats will help a lot more than Republicans ever will.
Our economic liberties aren't really compromised, IMO. Maybe there's some regulation we could cut, but we can get the Democrats on board with a more efficient regulatory environment before we can get Republicans on board with an end to the drug war.
The actual instances where our freedoms are impeded are mainly social. The freedom to do what you like with your body, the freedom not to be searched on ridiculous "probable" cause, the freedom to marry whoever you want, a woman's freedom not to have to carry a fetus to term... these are all actual violations of our liberties, and these are issues where the Democrats will help a lot more than Republicans ever will.
Our economic liberties aren't really compromised, IMO. Maybe there's some regulation we could cut, but we can get the Democrats on board with a more efficient regulatory environment before we can get Republicans on board with an end to the drug war.
ShockingAlberto
Member
If not for his views on abortion and admitting that Rumsfeld and Bush pressured him to raise the terror alert level for election season, Ridge would make a damn strong running mate for Romney.
Also that he endorsed Huntsman. That part is important.
Also that he endorsed Huntsman. That part is important.
Invisible_Insane
Member
I'm not sure that it makes any sense to say that libertarians should find common cause with a party whose goals are to preserve or expand social welfare in appropriate cases. Don't confuse being socially liberal with the idea that the government has no right to dictate what appropriate behavior is; there's precious little overlap between the two.
What I'm saying is that if one's primary concern is liberty, it doesn't make any sense to vote Republican, as they support policies that noticeably infringe upon far more of our liberties than Democrats do.
How often are you bothered by the fact that you can't hire someone at $2 an hour?
Now, how often are you bothered by the fact that any gay friends you might have can't get married in most states?
TL;DR: Restrictions on our social liberties are far more noticeable and affect far more of us than restrictions on our economic liberties do.
I made a thread a while back questioning the strangeness of the poor libertarian who votes for Republicans. As opposed to the a rich libertarian or a poor conservative, both of THOSE I can understand voting republican, but not the poor libertarian.
As expected, there were barely any takers in that thread.
You must never look at your paycheck. Even if you're in a "low" tax bracket, it's mind boggling what the government takes. Then tack on top of that all the things you are paying taxes and fees for (sales tax, gas tax, registration fees, etc.) with post-tax money - it's crazy.
Wait, wait, wait... I thought your argument was that people need more skin in the game. Now they have too much in it? Make up your mind dude.
No, my argument was that everybody needs SOME skin in the game, not that we all need MORE skin in the game.
A lot of Democrats aren't much better than Republicans on social liberties though. A lot of them are pro-censorship and the party is really a mixed bag in regards to marriage rights, abortion, drug laws, etc.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
I'd be actually surprised if Romney wins SC. You'd figure that the state being religious, they'd have problems with voting for a Mormon?
whatwhatwhat
Holy shit, are you advocating lower taxes on the lower brackets?! Fuckin A, yo. Welcome to the dark side, comrade.
To celebrate, we'll go down to the local welfare office tomorrow and get you your first mansion in Bel Air.
They grow up (and hate America) so fast. *wipes tear*
A27_StarWolf
Banned
why lol?
We are a low-tax country overall.
Besides, if every road was a toll-road, and if I had to pay for law enforcement out of my own pocket, and put money into a private retirement account, etc, I'd spend a similar amount of money, and I'd also probably die soon after retiring, since I wouldn't have any guaranteed medical care.
Besides, if every road was a toll-road, and if I had to pay for law enforcement out of my own pocket, and put money into a private retirement account, etc, I'd spend a similar amount of money, and I'd also probably die soon after retiring, since I wouldn't have any guaranteed medical care.
His quote was:
"If Huntsman leaves I'm voting for Obama, hope for 4 mediocre years, then Huntsman 2016."
So I wasn't saying anything about the state of the country under someone other than Obama, but he was certainly saying something about the country under another four years of Obama ("mediocre"), since the only possible way Huntsman would be up in 2016 is if Obama won this year.
By "low" I mean people who actually pay federal income taxes. Not the bottom 50% who pay nothing. Pass me what you're smoking.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Because he's a joke at this point?
BolognaSoup
Member
cartoon_soldier
Member
They are misguided into beleiving Republicans actually want to eliminate government
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf
Smoke up, because you are dead wrong about the tax situation in low income brackets.
I asked this a while back, but perhaps you missed it, how is it more efficient for the poorest of the poor to pay taxes just to receive it back and a bit more in aid required for their livelihood?
I never got that argument, I can see making the case for everyone paying their fair share, but having to pay something for a specific tax?
I assume you don't demand that 100% of the population pay capital gains tax, so why federal income?
He got third place, behind Ron Paul, and his campaign is millions of dollars in debt. Nobody except his rich dad is going to want to give him any more money. Look, I wanted him to win too (as he's the least awful Republican in the field), but he failed pretty bad.
I think the idea is that they'll be more responsible citizens if they feel some "ownership" in society.
We could probably test this hypothesis with historical data. Was there a drop in crime rates, an increase in voting, etc in 1918 when the bottom tax bracket went from 2% to 16%? Was there an increase in crime, a decrease in voting, etc in 2002 when that bracket was decreased from 15% to 10%?
I'd be highly surprised if there was any correlation at all. I think if we want to make lower classes feel like they have some "skin in the game", we can stop making them feel like they're expendable, replaceable parts in a machine and try to make them feel like they're actually a part of something.
Part of the plan is to do away with or severely cripple social programs. They wouldn't be getting it back...
You know, because BOOTSTRAPS!
I might argue we could see an increase in crimes like theft when families do whatever they can to survive.
But even if I accept the hypothesis that you need to pay taxes to feel ownership in society (which sound insane to me, but that's for another time) it still doesn't make sense.
Is there something magical about federal income tax?
Sales tax or payroll tax don't grant you some of that game skin?
And what about one of the million other taxes that most people don't pay, do they have no ownership?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
He wants them to pay more and not receive any aid.
You mean you don't have xeroxed copies of your federal tax returns framed on the wall?
Of course he doesn't. But in fairness, he IS a communist...
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Ehhh. I am just for more efficiency in taxing.
I am sure it would be better for everyone if instead of wasting people's time and money, the government would not tax any income at or below a certain level.
I don't know the logistics of it, and if it is even possible, but someone get 26 checks a year, they claim 2 dependents and only make 15/hr. that person isn't going to pay a dime in federal income taxes and most likely not a dime in state taxes. Avoid all the need for increased levels of IRS employees and millions of forms and let those people keep all of their money up front. It would put a boost in the economy throughout the year, instead of from February to April. Like I said, maybe I am way off base here.
I only actually started paying taxes a few years ago (having made significantly less in years prior) but it is crazy seeing 2000 bucks taken every two weeks from your paycheck. That is craziness. Price to pay to be American? I guess, but seeing enhanced budgets for the TSA, SOPA, NDA, bloated military budgets, and so on bother me a bit. Lot of unnecessary spending. How about fixing bridges, potholes, improving schools and so forth.
empty vessel
Member
That bottom 50% pays more in other taxes so what's the point? The singling out of income taxes for special skin-in-the-game treatment is utterly irrational. Money taken by the government is all the same regardless of the rationale under which it's taken.
The taxes you pay have nothing to do with spending. They aren't related.
- Status