I have never voted. I am going to in future elections. I just always knew I couldn't fix things and didn't know who's ideas were better. Of course some people will say that I don't have any right to bitch, but I feel like I do because no matter if I vote or not the government still works for us(including me)
Voting is sometimes symbolic considering 1 votes means nothing, it’s a good thung to vote, but I’m not gonna say you don’t have a right to bitch.
I think you asked me to list my views?
Yea but support them and expound as to why you feel that way.
- Gun control. Con
-----subjective and the depth is undefined. In a general sense I don’t want gun control either, but we have gun control limits as nothing bigger than a .50 cal (other than muzzle loaders), controlled class 3 full autos, etc. I’m sure you don’t want dangerous felons owning guns, so that is gun control.. Kind of a vague statement.
- Abortion. Con
-----So you don’t think a woman has the right to control her body? I see you wrote that abortion is ok in cases of rape, how does that make the fetus less viable as a human? This is about a human being murdered, right? This really exposes the fight of the moral right to nothing more than a pseudo moral contest when they allow for abortion in rape and incest. First they say it’s about murder, then they say it’s ok to murder, as long as the human was ill-conceived. I’m calling it a human for the sake of this argument, BTW. It’s an objective and viable argument to allow for abortion for the health and safety of the mother, as she was here first, but an absolutist wouldn’t even go with that. See, there are degrees here, not black/white arguments as the fundies and GOP will have you believe. When you research and exchange with people you can really understand why you feel the way you do. Often people will change their positions of issues after they further understand them.
- Health care reform. Pro
-----That is extremely vague and subjective. A GOP would call reform making it even more exclusive, a lib would say to enact full universal healthcare is reform. So you really haven’t defined anything here.
- Social security reform. Pro
-----Same as above, GOP would say to invest it in the stock market is reform, libs say to keep it gov controlled and expand coverage is reform.
-More taxes. Con
-----OK, so you think it’s bad to raise taxes? Do you realize that most times in the last 100 years when taxes were raised that things became better, GDP, less deficit, etc? Whne taxes were lowered they went to fuck? I can provide tons of great evidence, I have recently here already. With that, you want to not raise taxes?
- Bigger government. Con
-----Again, that’s party specific. The GOP will throw billions at the military to grow the gov, Dems will throw billions at social programs, so neither party since probably Eisenhower has actually shrunk the gov, as a guess.
- I guess you would
Call it economic reform.pro
-----You’re seeing the Dems idea of economic refoirm, McHoover would have said - altogether now - “MY FRIENDS, TAX CUTS, MY FRIENDS.” McCain, purely an opiate for the idiots.
That's all I could think of right now if you want to know about any in particular let me know.
OK, how about addressing this point I made where you were errant:
No problem, I don’t want to base an answer on a misunderstanding or a typo, I want to address substance. OK, let’s take 40 years from the 94 takeover of congress by the R’s, that’s what I believe you were referring to. So 1954 to 1994, in reality 1955 to 1995, as the R’s took office in Jan 1995. So let’s look at that, you say the D’s had full control of congress from 55 to 95. Not exactly true, during the first 6 Reagan years, the worst run-up of that decade and unprecedented at that time, the Republicans controlled the Senate. So even with your misunderstanding clarified, you’re wrong.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovern ... sion_2.htm
Hit on that, there is no searching, just hit the prompt and you’ll see Republicans owned the Senate for 6 years during Reagan.
Also, the debt fell twice in that period, 1955 to 1995 and the debt had only fallen 4 or 5 times in history, twice in that deadly period, according to you. Please explain how these Dem controlled congressional years were supposedly so bad, the ones from 1955 to 1980 where the debt fell twice amid 2 wars, Korea and VN. I agree the shit got bad during the Reagan years, but that was under Republican Senatorial rule. Of course Dems took control of congress after that during GHWB’s term and things got better as far as the debt, after GHWB passed thru congress and signed the 1990 debt act and the debt increase started to taper off, something Reagan and the Repubs in the Senate weren’t worried about.
...if you really think I'm gonna look all this shit up your nuts, …
So I post data and you refuse to simply hit the website clicky? I don’t post as some do and just post a basic site, I get right to the table or the data and give you that site. Hard for you to disagree with me when you won’t look at my data and try to impeach it.
...what I meant about the contract labor is that you pay your own taxes, you act like the employer should pay all the taxes at that higher rate you were bitching about and match your social security plus pay for insurance, unemployment ins, workman’s comp, and you should be able to walk away with a paycheck and a smile.
Answer these:
Clear your mind of all preconceptions. What I stated was that the wage was the same as a direct employee, but I was to be hired contract to pay my taxes and his. If I were paid double, typical contractor wage and then wanted my taxes paid, you would have a relevant point. It’s becoming dishonest that you refuse to understand that he was willing to pay me $25 hr, standard wage for an acft mechanic, then wanted to pay me contractor style, 1099. Not sure how this is hard to grasp. We’re in agreement, pay me contractor wage, 40-50 hr, then let me pay all taxes, pay me as a direct employee, pay me $25/hr. Funny thing was that he came by later, looked at the project I’m working on and wanted to hire me as direct employee. He fucked up, he gambled and lost.
My career field is not by definition, contract labor. I’ve been hired both ways several times and the idea is to pay me about twice if I’m contract. There is no misunderstanding here, just you skewing definitions as you go. Again, I am not by definition, contract labor. You can hire anyone for any profession as a direct or a contract employee.
By me filing a 1040SE, 1040C. He reaps all benefits of a regular direct employee while not paying any taxes normally associated with a regular direct employee, AND PAYS NORMAL 25/HR WAGES. The standard is to pay 25/hr wage as a direct employee or to pay about twice for a contract employee and pay nothing else, he wanted the best of both worlds and lost out huge when he saw my work. I would rather drive 100 miles to get work or do something else rather than to work for this guy out of principle. When the lowly blue-collar guy bends over for rich RW scum maggot and allows them to reestablish our employment rules, they will never get returned. Funny how American workers criticize this whereas those so-called pussies over in Western Europe control their employers….almost would think they are tougher than us if I wasn’t so brainwashed as most Americans. Is this understandable or are you still going to skew my words?
That would be fair, but when I get paid by the hour rather than by the flat rate job, that comparison is irrelevant. I have no issue with your example, it just doesn’t apply here.
I said I'm not a republican because I disagree with some of what they do and stand for, I disagree with democrats a hell of a lot more.
So which party do you align yourself with? I’m still registered Repub, but haven’t voted that way since Dole. Why do you dislike the Dem policies? Be specific. Their actions (cause) and the result (effect).
I feel like there are always scare tactics from both sides
"Democrats will try and take your guns"
"Republicans will try and take your social security"
That’s a good point, I have never looked at the Dems being the party of the scare, as they are the more passive party, but as for guns, remember, the NRA revoked GHWB’s card for I believe it was the Colt debacle. As well, Clinton’s fucked Assault Rifle Ban that sunsetted in GWB’s term was to be signed by GWB if it passed thru congress, per GWB’s own words, so don’t think the R’s are all for you/us in regard to gun ownership. Also, you’re forgetting that 3 branch, the SCOTUS has just sent us a decision, DC v Heller, where they have for the first time declared that a private person has the right to own a gun, not just militias. OF course this could reverse, but for now the SCOTUS, the ultimate legislators, have decided for us in a way the other 2 legislative branches cannot.
Honestly I think they are both right, but niether has succeeded yet.
Both right about fear-mongering? I think the right are the generators of fear. As for the aft taking social benefit, are you familiar with GWB’s killing of the Ergonomics Bill, the rewriting of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act by way of the Overtime Bill/Law? Here’s just 1 example of what I’m talking about:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... _programs/
WASHINGTON -- President Bush yesterday unveiled a $2.77 trillion spending plan for the next fiscal year that would slash healthcare and education spending, and that would enact deep cuts to scores of other federal programs, while boosting the military budget and making permanent a series of tax cuts that Congress has passed in recent years.
The budget would shave $35.9 billion over five years from Medicare, the politically sensitive healthcare program for the elderly. The Medicare cuts, along with a $4.5 billion reduction in the Medicaid budget, are part of $65.2 billion in savings culled from entitlement programs, the fastest-growing part of the federal budget.
By law, the government is required to spend money on those programs, like Medicare, to cover those who are eligible.
Bush also has proposed saving $14.7 billion by eliminating or significantly scaling back 141 government programs, including antidrug efforts in schools, food stamps, vocational education, and housing benefits for the elderly and the disabled.
Come on, the right has also killed labor unions basic right to strike since fascist pig Ronnie. There is no threat/fear from the right, just actions.
But there is a bill rolling around called the ammunitions accountability act. Its attacking ammunition and the right to reload, just a back door to gun control. I believe its also messing with concealed handgun licenses. Wish I had a website for you, I'm sure you can find it.
I believe you, and I think it sucks, but it is also futile. Until they actually have 1 inch of success, it’s all meaningless. As well, how many would comply with mass registration of firearms? You know, I used to be all crazy about having a gun with me all the time, in my car, yes it is legal if it’s in a holster in AZ. I was really extreme and I still have all my guns from 10-20 years ago, but after hearing people taking concealed carry classes, the resounding thought is this: If there is a shooting and you’re the only person who brought a gun, guess who’s holding the bag? They tend to steer you away from it or to use great discretion. With that, I’m still pro-gun, pro-CCW, etc, I just think it’s a bit overblown and I don’t bring a gun with me anymore, have them all over my house tho. The SCOTUS, from all they’ve led us to believe, would consider basic gun ownership as sacred as ammo ownership. Here’s the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller
Full version:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... 7-2901.pdf
I expect you to read and understand it all!! JK. I haven’t read it all, just briefed it. It’s a good one for us, so don’t worry what the other 2 legislative branches do. By that I mean the goal of all 3 branches, Executive, Judicial, and Legislative is to make laws that stand. Funny thing is that the legislative branch has the least to do with them, all they do is make statue, the other 2 branches make law that stands.
