• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Should Wealth be a Disqualifier?

Again with the trivializing of charitable donations.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Yep. Love him or hate him, Newt's Republicans won the House because of a promise to do stuff, and they did stuff. The 112th Congress has just been a pile of fail.
Click to expand...

I think that when you look at the folks in the leadership on both sides of the aisle in both the House and Senate you get a good idea of why this Congress has such a stellar approval rating. My question is who in the hell is the 13% that thinks they're doing a good job.
 
SCDeac said:
There are a lot more fanatics on both sides of the aisle as compared to the 90's. I think if legislation clears both houses and the GOP would like to see Obama not veto all of it they're going to have to compromise and give him some of what he's asked for too.
Click to expand...

BS they haven't given him ANYTHING he asked for and have not negotiated even on bills that had previously been GOP ideas.

This 100% on the GOP.

RE: Stimulus- Obama reached out to Boehner and visited The Hill before any votes were taken. The morning before Obama was to come to see him, Boehner said,"You wil lget no votes."

Obama gave him 1/3 of the bill being tax cuts.

The mandate in HC was a GOP idea. It was created by people STILL in the Senate. Again no help.

The debt ceiling was anothert example.

Either Obama gives the GOP 100% of what they want or they won't talk to him. Saying anything else is to deny the past three years of history.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Again with the trivializing of charitable donations.
Click to expand...

i mean, when John Q is sitting in his pew and he writes a check for the offering he's not thinking "this is for feeding the poor"; he's thinking 'this is to pay for the lights, the candles, the preacher/secretary salary, the landscaping, etc.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i mean, when John Q is sitting in his pew and he writes a check for the offering he's not thinking "this is for feeding the poor"; he's thinking 'this is to pay for the lights, the candles, the preacher/secretary salary, the landscaping, etc.
Click to expand...

Guess it depends on what type of church you're going to. I've been to plenty of churches where I felt that way, but now I'm at a church that does some pretty concrete things in our community and operates on a shoestring budget to maximize our charitable mission.
 
SCDeac said:
Guess it depends on what type of church you're going to. I've been to plenty of churches where I felt that way, but now I'm at a church that does some pretty concrete things in our community and operates on a shoestring budget to maximize our charitable mission.
Click to expand...

yeah, lolz

http://www.holynamecathedralnc.org/

main_img.jpg
 
Agent Orange?

2012_state_of_the_union_137670730.jpg



Biden looks normal...Boehner obviously fresh from the tanning bed...what's with Obama? That's some rough makeup.
 
bobknightfan said:
Well, it's not going to work unless you get an attitude adjustment from the Republicans in Congress. The GOP Congress when Clinton was president didn't universally oppose everything single thing he brought before them, like this Congress has done with Obama. Maybe, though, after Obama wins another term by another landslide margin....and takes down some of the GOP margin in the House....the grownups in the Republican Party will reassert themselves and send this crazy crew of freshman congressmen who were elected in 2010 back to the back bench. After all, it is this bunch of ideological fanatics who will have been the main reason for the Republicans' blowing this golden opportunity to regain the White House.
Click to expand...

The 104th, 105th, and 106th congress had Republican majorities on both sides and a Democrat president who shifted towards the center. The economy did pretty well when that was the case, although this span of time was also the "dot com bubble."

If Obama becomes a centrist and the Republicans get better leadership, then it is fair to say the government will provide enough balance for the free market to operate.
 
Last edited:
"If Obama becomes a centrist and the Republicans get better leadership, then it is fair to say the government will provide enough balance for the free market to operate."

I have a better chance of meeting a bikini model and have her give me a BJ a halftime when I go out ot watch the Wake/F$U game than to have the GOP leadership stop acting as historically badly as they have over the past three years.
 
I think the issue is less about wealth than things that are done with it and how it's handled. No one cares that Romney is wealthy in-and-of itself. I think most Americans are aware that nearly every modern president has been overtly wealthy. But it bothers quite a few people when Romney makes the "self-made businessman" claims that he does while being trust-fund wealthy from birth, pays taxes at an average of 14% despite being at the tippity top of the top 1%, pushes 100M (!!!) to his sons, tax free (so they can be self-made men too, I guess), or trivializes 375K in speaking fees as pocket change.

Are people attacking Romney for being a rich guy, or for being a douchebag rich guy?
 
RJKarl said:
"If Obama becomes a centrist and the Republicans get better leadership, then it is fair to say the government will provide enough balance for the free market to operate."

I have a better chance of meeting a bikini model and have her give me a BJ a halftime when I go out ot watch the Wake/F$U game than to have the GOP leadership stop acting as historically badly as they have over the past three years.
Click to expand...

We need people to start getting the "Johnson treatment." Doubt that bespectacled dork from KY could do it though.

I didn't say it was possible fwiw. Just like Obama being a Centrist, that might not be possible either.
 
DeacAlum2001 said:
I have no problem with Romney being wealthy. I also realize I am not representative of the average voter.

I do have a problem with Romney having tons of money and trying to refer to himself as part of the middle class. He hasn't done this outright but he has tried to allude to it by talking about the middle class then throwing some "we" statements in there.
Click to expand...

This. I don't get the demonization of the wealthy by left (to the extent that really exists and isn't just a right wing talking point) or the demonization of Romney over the amount of taxes he paid (setting aside his claim to be a man of the people) -- he pays what he legally owes, why would he pay more than that?


I also don't get the middle class republicans who go apeshit over the idea of a millionaire's tax or eliminating the Bush tax cuts so they can move up a little from their current historically low rates. I know it's been said before, but I can't get over how the mammoth level dupe-age of these poor idiots.
 
bobknightfan said:
The key here is the definition of "centrist". As I (and others) have tried to explain many times, rightwing talk radio, in particular, has led a move by conservatives since the 90s to move the "dividing line" for centrist much further to the right. To use a football analogy, a centrist may have been found at midfield in the 90s.....whereas the Republicans would call a guy on their 20-yard line a centrist today. As someone once said, these conservatives today would think Barry Goldwater was at least a moderate, maybe even a moderate/liberal. Kind of hard to find common ground when one side moves the goal posts that far.
Click to expand...

I've listened to "A time for choosing" and I think Barry was pretty conservative.
 
Barry goldwater would be considered a mderate or liberal today by Republicans.
 
bobknightfan said:
The key here is the definition of "centrist". As I (and others) have tried to explain many times, rightwing talk radio, in particular, has led a move by conservatives since the 90s to move the "dividing line" for centrist much further to the right. To use a football analogy, a centrist may have been found at midfield in the 90s.....whereas the Republicans would call a guy on their 20-yard line a centrist today. As someone once said, these conservatives today would think Barry Goldwater was at least a moderate, maybe even a moderate/liberal. Kind of hard to find common ground when one side moves the goal posts that far.
Click to expand...

Haven't read this whole thing, but this got my attention:

"It would be hard for any President to reverse this decades-long political trend, which began when segregationist Democrats in the South—Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond—left the Party and became Republicans. Congress is polarized largely because Americans live in communities of like-minded people who elect more ideological representatives. Obama’s rhetoric about a nation of common purpose and values no longer fits this country: there really is a red America and a blue America.
Polarization also has affected the two parties differently. The Republican Party has drifted much farther to the right than the Democratic Party has drifted to the left. Jacob Hacker, a professor at Yale, whose 2006 book, “Off Center,” documented this trend, told me, citing Poole and Rosenthal’s data on congressional voting records, that, since 1975, “Senate Republicans moved roughly twice as far to the right as Senate Democrats moved to the left” and “House Republicans moved roughly six times as far to the right as House Democrats moved to the left.” In other words, the story of the past few decades is asymmetric polarization.
Two well-known Washington political analysts, Thomas Mann, of the bipartisan Brookings Institution, and Norman Ornstein, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agree. In a forthcoming book about Washington dysfunction, “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” they write, “One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza#ixzz1kVoLNKz2
 
RJKarl said:
Barry goldwater would be considered a mderate or liberal today by modern Republicans.
Click to expand...

yeah a little light reading suggests that the social issues that the religious sect of the party hammers into the ground were not as important in the 60's. he reminds me of a libertarian that is pro-choice honestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top