GatewayRedbirds.com

BW23 wrote:

PujolJunkie wrote:

Hudler wrote:McCain SUPPORTS gun locks being sold with guns and wants stronger laws on gun shows.
I found that out in the first 2 sites I checked in a search,who's telling things that aren't true?

That's crap. OntheIssues.com has the exact opposite of that opinion up. Just an example of how nobody can peg McCain's issue down. Is he for or against Bush's tax cuts? For or against immigration reform? For or against gun locks? Who knows?

BW23 wrote:I'm against pumping more money into the Dept of Ed.

...against pumping more money into the Dpt of Ed? Wow. That's a wonderful thing to say. Screw properly funding the future of children.

I'm against most forms of welfare (particularly making those who work hard pay for those who don't). Opportunities are there for almost anyone that wants it.

Yeah, you're right. A mother of 2 young children who is on the brink of having her house foreclosed on and can't find a job because it'd mean leaving her kids at home alone doesn't deserve government handouts. Do you know how many cases there are LIKE that? "Screw people who need help. Let them pull themselves up by their own boot straps." And who is the elitist party?

Giving criminals a second chance? We're talking about the death penalty. Do you mean a second chance to kill? Let's kill babies but let the worst of the worst have "a second chance"? Nah. Not my style.

Once again, here comes the abortion issue. Keep reverting to that every time something comes up. "I'm pro-life, except for people who do bad things. [expletive] them, they can die." You're not pro-life. You're pro-baby-life. Typical mind frame "Before you're born, protect your life. After your born, [expletive] your welfare, screw you if you don't make more than 250k and sorry, you want a superior education? Better get some vouchers, there, kid!

With all of the "problems" Obama wants to "fix", where's that money coming from? Just the rich? I doubt it. And if so, that's stupid, too.

Under John McCain's tax plan, people making 226,000 to 603,000, 603,000 to 2.87 million and 2.87 million and up will get a combined tax cut of 322,000 dollars. With those making over 2.87 million getting an average cut of 269,000 dollars.

Obama wants to raise the taxes of anyone making 603,000 to 2.87 by 8% and anyone making over 2.87 million by 11.5%

That's not gonna bring in a TON of revenue?

Obama favors gun manufactures being sued. McCain doesn't. That's part of the gun control problem for me, but this is a very small issue on my list.

Personal responsibility for women who get pregnant, but not the gun manufactures who sell their guns to people who sell them to murderers.

If I sold a gun to a person and they sold it to a man who went out and killed 6 people, I'd feel responsible. I guess the gun manufactures aren't supposed to.

And you called me out about how I was posting here? Truly funny. You don't deserve a response. What a waste of time.

So now that the debate comes back onto issues, you run away. You're okay with arguing with people and getting personal as long as it doesn't have to do with issues. But when it comes to people criticizing your beliefs, you throw a fit and call it a waste of time. I was framing the mindset of people who are opposed to Obama's views and now you're all butt hurt. God forbid should someone criticize your beliefs, but you can call liberalism all the names in the world.

I challenged your stances. I'm so sorry, once again, for trying to actually debate with you. You can dish it out, but the moment anybody challenges you, you start crying about it. I didn't insult you. I attacked you on the issues. Guess that's not okay. This god damn liberal thread is so silly. And a waste of time.

PujolJunkie wrote:

Hudler wrote:McCain SUPPORTS gun locks being sold with guns and wants stronger laws on gun shows.
I found that out in the first 2 sites I checked in a search,who's telling things that aren't true?

That's crap. OntheIssues.com has the exact opposite of that opinion up. Just an example of how nobody can peg McCain's issue down. Is he for or against Bush's tax cuts? For or against immigration reform? For or against gun locks? Who knows?

BW23 wrote:I'm against pumping more money into the Dept of Ed.

...against pumping more money into the Dpt of Ed? Wow. That's a wonderful thing to say. Screw properly funding the future of children.

I'm against most forms of welfare (particularly making those who work hard pay for those who don't). Opportunities are there for almost anyone that wants it.

Yeah, you're right. A mother of 2 young children who is on the brink of having her house foreclosed on and can't find a job because it'd mean leaving her kids at home alone doesn't deserve government handouts. Do you know how many cases there are LIKE that? "Screw people who need help. Let them pull themselves up by their own boot straps." And who is the elitist party?

Giving criminals a second chance? We're talking about the death penalty. Do you mean a second chance to kill? Let's kill babies but let the worst of the worst have "a second chance"? Nah. Not my style.

Once again, here comes the abortion issue. Keep reverting to that every time something comes up. "I'm pro-life, except for people who do bad things. [expletive] them, they can die." You're not pro-life. You're pro-baby-life. Typical mind frame "Before you're born, protect your life. After your born, [expletive] your welfare, screw you if you don't make more than 250k and sorry, you want a superior education? Better get some vouchers, there, kid!

With all of the "problems" Obama wants to "fix", where's that money coming from? Just the rich? I doubt it. And if so, that's stupid, too.

Under John McCain's tax plan, people making 226,000 to 603,000, 603,000 to 2.87 million and 2.87 million and up will get a combined tax cut of 322,000 dollars. With those making over 2.87 million getting an average cut of 269,000 dollars.

Obama wants to raise the taxes of anyone making 603,000 to 2.87 by 8% and anyone making over 2.87 million by 11.5%

That's not gonna bring in a TON of revenue?

Obama favors gun manufactures being sued. McCain doesn't. That's part of the gun control problem for me, but this is a very small issue on my list.

Personal responsibility for women who get pregnant, but not the gun manufactures who sell their guns to people who sell them to murderers.

If I sold a gun to a person and they sold it to a man who went out and killed 6 people, I'd feel responsible. I guess the gun manufactures aren't supposed to.

I don't think I'm OK with a tax plan that has anyone paying between 43 and 46.5% of thier income in taxes. I'd much rather see it more like a flat tax,everyone pays the same %,no exceptions.

[/youtube]

redbirdjazzz wrote:

[/youtube]

tina knocked that outta the park

Hudler wrote:If you get rid of the guns then knife violence will go through the roof,it's an epidemic in England now. People are going to kill people,it's a fact of life. Don't try taking away my means of defending myself,because we all know that Democrats want nothing more than to get all the guns.

I don't think that the result would be increased knife violence. I think the result would be more illegal, concealed guns...You know, the whole "If you make guns illegal only criminals will have guns" thing?

I see this thread is still chugging along.

I guess I've never understood the religious right's support of the Republican party because to me the Republican party has always been the party of big business and the wealthy. Sure they give lip service to a few issues important to evangelicals, such as abortion and gay rights. So I guess if those are the two most important issues to you, then I can sort of see why one would support them. But what have they delivered? The Supreme Court has already ruled on abortion. It could be overturned but do you actually think that making abortions illegal will solve anything? Aren't there more effective ways to deal with the problem of abortion than just turning to government? The likelihood of a federal amendment banning gay marriage is very low, and it will ultimately be decided by the courts. But if keeping down a class of people simply because your church deems what they do as immoral is how you want to channel your political energy, I guess you're entitled.

Just taking from BW's list, are these really the issues that Christians care most about. Sanctioned killing of human life, allowing people unfettered ownership of the means to kill, opposition to government lending helping hands to people in need, you're against government involvement in funding education and healthcare. I mean what exactly does compassionate conservatism mean?

Hudler: Would you feel the same way if our public schools in some Muslim-dominated community in Michigan started teaching things that are in the Quran as "science"? Either way, ultimately it IS local communities that decide what gets taught and doesn't get taught in their schools. I don't believe there is or ever will be any federal laws that Congress or the President gets involved with governing what is taught at some public school in rural Missouri. The courts on the other hand might intervene (as they already have), applying the first amendment separation of church and state. And as jim has stated about 250 pages ago, it's not a problem teaching creationism per se, but it is a problem teaching it in a science class about how the world was started. There is no science behind it. The "no bombs" criteria is fine, but do you want schools to be allowed to teach kids that 2+2=-90 simply because some school district chooses to for whatever reason?

I guess those on the so-called left can say it until they're blue in the face, but it won't make an iota of difference. You can cut taxes all you want, but if there isn't a corresponding cut in spending all you're doing is pushing the country even further into debt. Unfortunately this war in Iraq when all is said and done, will have added an additional trillion dollars to the taxpayers' bill. Trillion! Of course I didn't support the war, but I still have to pay for it. Unless of course I can dupe my Congress and my President into just putting it on the Visa card until after I'm dead and leave it for all of your children to pay for.

McCain's vague "i'll cut pork" is nothing but words. Most of the "pork" spending is actually for legitimate projects. It's easy for a candidate to pull out a heinous abuse of the process (such as the bridge to nowhere, which of course those on the Palin bandwagon should realize that she supported). You can cut out all pork (which if you just look at the data, the most egregious users (or abusers) of earmarking are by and large Republicans), but then it will just push many of these projects to your state budget. Just in Missouri, you have Democrat McCaskill who is one of the most vocal opponents of earmarks and Republican Bond, who has successfully pulled in millions of dollars in earmarks for Missouri and who said passing a moratorium on them would be "stupid".

Is there abuse in the earmarking process? Absolutely. And the biggest problem is that powerful long-tenured Senators can grab a lot, and newer junior Senators cannot. That's a corruption that needs to be fixed. But fixing that will not balance a budget even without a tax cut.

A flat tax resonates with a lot of people, but if we truly went to a flat tax system, and we still wanted to bring in the same amount of revenue as we do today, the tax rate would go up for the VAST majority of Americans. It would only go down for the richest people. That's common sense. And besides that, a flat tax is a regressive tax. I've seen arguments against a flat tax, but I don't see or get the arguments in favor of it. Outside a number of Eastern European countries, virtually every industrialized nation in the world uses a progressive tax system. Now if you want to discuss having a fixed tax rate on people, simplifying our tax system, and eliminating all the loopholes and deductions that people take advantage of, and I'd definitely be on your side.

Jocephus wrote:

redbirdjazzz wrote:

[/youtube]

tina knocked that outta the park

I don't think it's possible to be spot on, mannerisms, voice, looks.

One of the reason I oppose increased off-shore drilling.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... 009/NEWS07

A pair of drilling rigs were adrift in the gulf, according to an announcement late Saturday by the MMS.

The MMS and the U. S. Coast Guard are monitoring the paths of the two rigs, while tugboats were being sent to secure them.

While the size of the storm was enormous, the actual strength of it in the Gulf was not the great (large 2/small 3).

Hudler wrote:If you get rid of the guns then knife violence will go through the roof,it's an epidemic in England now. People are going to kill people,it's a fact of life. Don't try taking away my means of defending myself,because we all know that Democrats want nothing more than to get all the guns.

I'm not for banning guns (except for automatic weapons) given the easy access for anyone with criminal intentions to obtain them, but you're providing an excuse that appears to be trying to validate that the world is just as unsafe had no one (including criminals) had possession of them.

I don't see any stray stabbings where the blade misses its intended target, but I've seen plenty of stray bullets kill.

Hudler wrote:

obucard wrote:

Hudler wrote:The Democrats are so scared of upsetting the teachers unions that nothing is going to change,they will fight any real reform in the way education is run in this country.

Yet some believe Palin can successfully get creationism taught in schools.

She's not even trying to push that on schools,she wants schools to have the choice. I don't think schools should have to teach it but if a school district wants to offer it as an alternative I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Can we include Astrology in there as well, or teach that the Farmers Almanac is a viable source for weather prediction models in Science classes? Some people believe in both, why not open it up to all beliefs? Democracy and all...

It's lipstick on a pig. Science doesn't care about fairness or democracy or politics, it cares about explaining the physical universe based on physical evidence. No more, no less. If something doesn't adhere to those strict rules, then it's not science. It's as simple as that.

It's off the table, it's not open for discussion or compromise. Period. And the fact that many of our science books have an apologetic sentence or two about creationism absolutely makes my blood boil.