Current or modern politics in the United States

[scoundrel]

It isn't selfish to argue that there ought to be controls over legal immigration and preventive measures to stop illegal immigration. During the 2012 presidential election campaign, what became apparent was that "Latino" voters had particular concerns about the existing system and controls and thought them unjust; but no one was arguing that there should not be a system and that should not be enforcement. I expect these things will be debated quite a bit between now and 2016 and the Democrats have a vested interest in listening to this community, whose votes were instrumental in keeping Mitt Romney out in 2012, and might potentially keep Hillary Clinton out in 2016.

[9876543210]

scoundrel,

I wasn't really talking about the immigration debate when I said that Republicans are selfish. Most Republicans are selfish in all of their outlooks and I don't think thats a big secret. Seems to me its a core value and most won't argue about it. Some of them I know are actually quite proud of it.

[awboy33]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

scoundrel,

I wasn't really talking about the immigration debate when I said that Republicans are selfish. Most Republicans are selfish in all of their outlooks and I don't think thats a big secret. Seems to me its a core value and most won't argue about it. Some of them I know are actually quite proud of it.

Selfishness is subjective. Is it more to give from your own resources or from tax payers? VP Joe Biden is great about wanting to tax and spend but seems a little less inclined to give from his own salary. Even when he and his family have almost no personal expenses since they are basically cared for by the tax payers. Biden, for 2012, showed adjusted gross income over $385k and he donated only $7190. You would think one of the leaders of the Democrats would at least lead by example.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/...12-tax-returns

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by awboy33

Selfishness is subjective. Is it more to give from your own resources or from tax payers? VP Joe Biden is great about wanting to tax and spend but seems a little less inclined to give from his own salary. Even when he and his family have almost no personal expenses since they are basically cared for by the tax payers. Biden, for 2012, showed adjusted gross income over $385k and he donated only $7190. You would think one of the leaders of the Democrats would at least lead by example.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/...12-tax-returns

No shortage of hypocrisy on either side of the political spectrum to be sure. I think part of the problem is the apparent difference in stated goals or ideological theory vs. what is actually done between the two parties. Conservative governments preach fiscal responsibility...yet seem to go utterly insane with taxpayer dollars when they have access to them. They preach smaller and less intrusive government...except they want giant standing armies, and police officers in every school (since they tend to also want to keep playing with guns) or those areas of private life where they definitely want the government to intrude like what is taught in schools or women's rights for making their own decisions about what to do with their own bodies. Since they also tend to favor big business and unrestrained capitalism they tend to also be the first to let the private sector move jobs overseas rather than try and fund new growth or blissfully turn a blind eye to some of the private sectors extravagances until they begin self destructing or imploding such as the banking sector or energy policy. Perhaps most damning of all. They look upon any program designed to better the lives of the population as a whole as socialism or communism...they completely refuse to see a that population that feels nurtured and protected by the government tend to be more loyal, productive, and engaged citizens overall. Last but not least is also the tend to foster an us vs. them mentality in terms of who is a real citizen vs. someone who should hop on a buss out of the country. Its not political correctness...its the evil opposite of political correctness. Ten or so years ago most people probably identified themselves as moderately conservative. Most people who still feel that way to an extent tend to refer to themselves as libertarians or just plain moderates (without the conservative modifier) now simply because most of the more reactionary base of conservatism have managed to make it look so bad. They have a lot of damage control to do in large segments of the country and among pretty much any group that isn't white male.

[Cheekymonkey]

[blueballsdc]

Originally Posted by qwerty007

Back to the dark ages


http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shin...173554704.html


Lesbian Catholic school teacher fired after being outed in her mother’s obituary


Cara Hale, who's been a teacher at Bishop Watterson High School in Columbus, Ohio, for 19 years, was in absolute shock when she found out she was being fired because a newspaper obituary for her mother incidentally outed her as gay by mentioning her partner, Julie.

It is a Catholic school, what did you expect? They gave us the Dark Ages in the first place and will never be happy until we go back there and they are the supreme power again.

[Puhbear69]

It could happen in Germany too.
In Germany the church institutions are having a special employment law, based of "the moral" of the churches. Being employed in Catholic institutions one has to face to being fired, even when you are getting divorced. Thats unconstitutional but the politics doesn't act. Conservative parties are blocking it since years.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by qwerty007

Back to the dark ages


http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shin...173554704.html


Lesbian Catholic school teacher fired after being outed in her mother’s obituary


Cara Hale, who's been a teacher at Bishop Watterson High School in Columbus, Ohio, for 19 years, was in absolute shock when she found out she was being fired because a newspaper obituary for her mother incidentally outed her as gay by mentioning her partner, Julie.

This is like something which would have happened 40 years ago. Is it legal that they can fire you for your sexual orientation in 2013 in America? Someone needs to dump fifty million tons of liquid shit on the school authorities who did this, go after them as individuals rather than a school board, to make them bloody well suffer, because they have persecuted this woman as an individual. Hopefully there will be a civil rights backlash against the school concerned, to make an example of them.

[theequestrian]

First, can we stop using the phrase 'tax & spend'. It's hackneyed, it's a cliche (no accents on this keyboard) and it is redundant. Taxes aren't collected so they can be put in escrow. The point is to spend them. On what it's spent is where the debate lies.

Which brings me to:
How about we take the question of the budget out of congress' hands.
This could be managed easily & efficiently without costing the american taxpayer one cent more. How?
On your tax forms a new section will be included. This section will be specifically for YOU to decide which area (bureau, division, department etc.) and ONLY which area to which your particular taxes will be applied. No extra funds, no riders, codocils, add ons or any of the other pork-barrel horseshit congress likes to tack on.
The immediate advantages would be these:
Lobbyists would no longer have any ability whatsoever to influence the budget - that million bucks in slush funds they have to grease the wheels won't go nearly as far spread among 375,000,000 as it did spread among 535.

It is very difficult to bitch about the budget if you have a hand in setting it

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by theequestrian

First, can we stop using the phrase 'tax & spend'. It's hackneyed, it's a cliche (no accents on this keyboard) and it is redundant. Taxes aren't collected so they can be put in escrow. The point is to spend them. On what it's spent is where the debate lies.

Which brings me to:
How about we take the question of the budget out of congress' hands.
This could be managed easily & efficiently without costing the american taxpayer one cent more. How?
On your tax forms a new section will be included. This section will be specifically for YOU to decide which area (bureau, division, department etc.) and ONLY which area to which your particular taxes will be applied. No extra funds, no riders, codocils, add ons or any of the other pork-barrel horseshit congress likes to tack on.
The immediate advantages would be these:
Lobbyists would no longer have any ability whatsoever to influence the budget - that million bucks in slush funds they have to grease the wheels won't go nearly as far spread among 375,000,000 as it did spread among 535.

It is very difficult to bitch about the budget if you have a hand in setting it

Never, never, Never in a million years ever happen. To even see such a thing even proposed would endanger the life of the messenger as a terrorist and socialist agitator. The Government knows who its true enemies are and its not the opposing party. Its anything threatening to wreck the gravy train.