THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[Banned]

I am rubber, you are glue.....

Your intellect is overwhelming!

Why hasn't this wannabe musician, politician fucking troll been banned yet?

Another liberal who wants to eliminate any thought and speech that he does not agree with. You guys are such whiners.

[Hawk]

Joe, look at what you said:

I am rubber, you are glue.....

And you call this "thought" ?

I guess to you, it is supreme thought, deep and full of substance.

[Hawk]

Joe, I think I know where you're coming from relative to your Libertarian views and Ayn Rand concepts of Society. It seems very "dog eat dog" and very selfish to me. And nothing you have said has indicated otherwise.

So I thought you might (maybe not) like to know where I'm coming from.

I don't like to add God to politics. I don't believe God cares about politics. I don't think of myself as more holy than anyone else, nor would I suggest that I know more than anyone else. However, my Christian Religion does have a great effect on the way I think.

This is something I wrote on a Facebook's Friend's thread today:

I hope you don't mind my giving my opinion here Dave. But one of the Bible readings at church today brought to my mind this thread.

Paul in a letter to the Philippians said, "Do nothing out of selfishness...rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves, each looking out not for his own interests, but everyone for those of others."

Now I don't think God is political or leans to the left or the right. Jesus certainly chose to not be political. Whether religion is free or suppressed by the government, God expects that one remain faithful.

I am particularly annoyed by the politicians who use, yes USE God and USE the name of Jesus in order to garner votes.

The statement I quoted from Paul seems like a very liberal way of thinking. If the politicians had that attitude perhaps they would work for the people and in the best interests of the people. BUT is it the Federal government's job to have things like Medicare and Medicaid ? It seems according to the letter from Paul that it is Christian society's duty to care for the less fortunate. Isn't society, banded together, the government ?

But I would say that it fell to the government because we as Christians failed to live up to what Paul had ask for. If the Christians joined together and had created the likes of Medicare and Medicaid (with donations) then both the liberals and the conservatives would be happy, as we could do our duty to man and have a smaller government with lower taxes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll add to this, that as long as religion fails in it's duties to "look out for other's interests" putting them before our own interests, I will continue to view the government as 'society band together' and expect our society to look after all of society. It sure beats the (seemingly selfish) "It's MY money" attitude. But then that's why I'm a liberal.

[Banned]

Bill, where in that Bible reading did it say to let the state do all the giving. I would rather get the state out of the equation and do my own charity. I think the government does a most terrible job of it. For every dollar that might reach a needy person, the government bureaucracy eats up 90%. A waste of money that I would rather give directly to a charitable need.

BTW, you will probably not believe this, but I have never read any of Ayn Rand's books (I've tried to read 2 of her novels but found them so boring) or have seen any of the movies.

I do know about her belief in Objectivism, and you are a much bigger proponent of that than I am.

Ron Paul would like to help the needy, but without government. One can donate directly to a charitable organization without the govt getting involved.

The rubber-glue comment was exactly what Spongesmith's post was. It followed his post and was a description of his "thought".

[songsmith]

Where, in the Bible, does it say government SHOULDN'T give? I do recall a passage regarding "rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," but nothing anywhere that keeps any organization including government from giving. In fact, you don't really have a choice, you are to be charitable to all those who need, and in return , you will receive blessings a hundredfold in return. The Tea Party needs to flip a few pages beyond the Old Testament, and read The Sermon On The Mount. A little less godlike, and a little more Christ-like.

[Hawk]

Bill, where in that Bible reading did it say to let the state do all the giving. I would rather get the state out of the equation and do my own charity. I think the government does a most terrible job of it. For every dollar that might reach a needy person, the government bureaucracy eats up 90%. A waste of money that I would rather give directly to a charitable need.

BTW, you will probably not believe this, but I have never read any of Ayn Rand's books (I've tried to read 2 of her novels but found them so boring) or have seen any of the movies.

I do know about her belief in Objectivism, and you are a much bigger proponent of that than I am.

Ron Paul would like to help the needy, but without government. One can donate directly to a charitable organization without the govt getting involved.

The rubber-glue comment was exactly what Spongesmith's post was. It followed his post and was a description of his "thought".

I answered you before you ask in my last paragraph. Americans are a society that has band together with The US Federal Government as our elected representatives. Society's duty, in my opinion is to take care of our society's needs as they arise.

One does not need to be Christian, Jew or even religious to appreciate these words perhaps just taken as a philosophy:

"Do nothing out of selfishness...rather, humbly regard others as more important than yourselves, each looking out not for his own interests, but everyone, for those of others."

[Banned]

Great, just do those things yourself. We do not need a fascist government to pretend they are charitable. They take most of that money to grow government, and a few pennies trickle down to the needy. Why does the number of poor keep increasing even when we have spent TRILLIONS fighting the "war on poverty"????

answer: government cannot do it.

[Banned]

A true Christian would be charitable on his or her own. Why would they need a government to take their money at gunpoint, distribute about 90% to its various bureaucracies and only let pennies trickle to the needy?

Why not let a Christian, or anyone, keep most of their money and they could donate it directly to the charity they feel is most needy. It would cut out the corrupt middle man, the government. More would reach the needy.

Trillions spent on the "war on poverty" by government, yet poverty is up and the country is still $14.6 Trillion in debt. Anyone with a brain would see that government is the worst possible way to help the needy.

[Hawk]

Great, just do those things yourself. We do not need a fascist government to pretend they are charitable. They take most of that money to grow government, and a few pennies trickle down to the needy. Why does the number of poor keep increasing even when we have spent TRILLIONS fighting the "war on poverty"????

answer: government cannot do it.

Joe, the rich are getting richer. If they paid a decent wage, perhaps we'd have less poor and therefore need less governmant. Common sense Joe, try it...

[Hawk]

A true Christian would be charitable on his or her own. Why would they need a government to take their money at gunpoint, distribute about 90% to its various bureaucracies and only let pennies trickle to the needy?

Why not let a Christian, or anyone, keep most of their money and they could donate it directly to the charity they feel is most needy. It would cut out the corrupt middle man, the government. More would reach the needy.

Trillions spent on the "war on poverty" by government, yet poverty is up and the country is still $14.6 Trillion in debt. Anyone with a brain would see that government is the worst possible way to help the needy.

I agree, how would you recommend we make the change ? Who would be in charge ? Without someone to organize it we would only have chaos. It would IMO need to be dealt with under one roof.

Until that happens, the government will suffice. But Hey, let's start a grass roots effort.

As I have already explained, the rich are getting richer and they can afford to pay better wages. If they pay better wages, cut their taxes because the bottom 50% might finally make enough to pay federal taxes.

[Banned]

A true Christian would be charitable on his or her own. Why would they need a government to take their money at gunpoint, distribute about 90% to its various bureaucracies and only let pennies trickle to the needy?

Why not let a Christian, or anyone, keep most of their money and they could donate it directly to the charity they feel is most needy. It would cut out the corrupt middle man, the government. More would reach the needy.

Trillions spent on the "war on poverty" by government, yet poverty is up and the country is still $14.6 Trillion in debt. Anyone with a brain would see that government is the worst possible way to help the needy.

I agree, how would you recommend we make the change ? Who would be in charge ? Without someone to organize it we would only have chaos. It would IMO need to be dealt with under one roof.

Until that happens, the government will suffice. But Hey, let's start a grass roots effort.

As I have already explained, the rich are getting richer and they can afford to pay better wages. If they pay better wages, cut their taxes because the bottom 50% might finally make enough to pay federal taxes.

You give to charity out of your heart. Why do you have to have someone in charge? Would you call him the Heart Minister?

No change other than reducing the size of government and allowing people to keep more of their money, pay better wages, and donate directly to whoever they feel is needy.

BTW, can you name me a time when the rich did not get richer?

[bassist_25]

You give to charity out of your heart.

...and for the tax deduction. While altruism does play a role in giving, so does the financial incentive. I guess I'm not as optimistic about altruism as a motivator as you. Like it or not, the tax code does serve a latent function in incentivizing charity.

I'm not totally onboard with the idea of private charity being superior to public charity. A look back into social welfare history reveals that many of the almshouses of past were pretty shitty places that often failed to meet the needs of their constituents. Actually, for the most part, private charity was, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Hull House), pretty shitty all around.

Okay, just wanted to get my thoughts out there about that. Rockpage, you may now go back to your regularly scheduled feces throwing and insulting of one another.

[lonewolf]

I agree, how would you recommend we make the change ? Who would be in charge ? Without someone to organize it we would only have chaos. It would IMO need to be dealt with under one roof.

I nominate the paper-hanger-in-chief Barack Obama. Isn't community organizing about the only experience on his resume? He certainly doesn't (still) have any experience in management.

[RobTheDrummer]

I agree, how would you recommend we make the change ? Who would be in charge ? Without someone to organize it we would only have chaos. It would IMO need to be dealt with under one roof.

I nominate the paper-hanger-in-chief Barack Obama. Isn't community organizing about the only experience on his resume? He certainly doesn't (still) have any experience in management.

It's like the lefties that attack Sara Palin, and say she's got no experience...what experience did Obama have? At least she governed a state.

[Banned]

When Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he voted for a 300% tax on guns and ammo. Basically it would have made it impossible for a middle class person to buy a gun or afford the ammo if it was passed.

Then Obama used US tax dollars to buy illegal guns which were sold to the Mexican drug cartels.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... ents-show/

"Not only did U.S. officials approve, allow and assist in the sale of more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa cartel -- the federal government used taxpayer money to buy semi-automatic weapons, sold them to criminals and then watched as the guns disappeared."

[Hawk]

When Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he voted for a 300% tax on guns and ammo. Basically it would have made it impossible for a middle class person to buy a gun or afford the ammo if it was passed.

Then Obama used US tax dollars to buy illegal guns which were sold to the Mexican drug cartels.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... ents-show/

"Not only did U.S. officials approve, allow and assist in the sale of more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa cartel -- the federal government used taxpayer money to buy semi-automatic weapons, sold them to criminals and then watched as the guns disappeared."

You know Joe. Limbaugh only deals in half truths or he just plain lies. Two agents in Phoenix set up a sting operation selling guns with the hope of following them and it got out of hand. Yes they were idiots. Obama had nothing to do with it. I posted this before with my sources. Given that Limbaugh and Fox are your normal sources (other than right wing nut job sites) you make it easy to dispute.

Actually I believe you guys LIKE the lies and LIKE spreading them like the J. Emails... (I'm not allowed to see them anymore because I debunk them.)

Again, showing either Joe or his sources to be fucking liers.

FULL ANSWER

We’ve received a number of queries since the beginning of the year from readers wanting to know if President Obama is planning to raise the federal tax on firearms ammunition by 500 percent. Since it is now 11 percent of the sales price, such an increase would amount to adding 55 percent to that rate, putting it at 66 percent of the sales price. Claims of such tax increases have been repeated frequently on Web sites promoting gun rights and circulated by numerous chain e-mails. But there is no indication that the president is pursuing this.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the National Rifle Association claimed that Obama would "increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent" as a part of what it called "Obama’s 10-Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment." That was a mailer distributed to the organization’s members as part of an advertising campaign, which we said at the time "distorts Obama’s position on gun control beyond recognition." Regarding the ammo tax claim, we said then that Obama hadn’t pressed for any such tax as a U.S. senator and was not proposing one as a presidential candidate.

Now we can report that Obama has proposed no such tax since becoming president. And we find no evidence that he or his administration has any plans to do so. Though it is often repeated and widely believed by gun owners, this tax claim is a myth.

Blast From the Past

As we noted in our article "NRA Targets Obama," the NRA’s claim that Obama plans a 500 percent tax increase on ammunition was based solely on a nearly decade-old article from the Chicago Defender newspaper.

That Dec. 13, 1999, article from former Defender staff writer Chinta Strausberg, headlined "Obama unveils federal gun bill," reported that then-Illinois state Sen. Obama, who was running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed "to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] – weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths." According to Strausberg’s report, Obama made the proposal at an "anti-gun rally," where he proposed a host of other gun control policies.

We found no record of Obama introducing legislation to this effect while in the Illinois state Senate, or in the U.S. Senate. Now, after further research, we can find no record of the president, or any other administration official, saying that an increase in the ammunition tax is part of his current agenda either. So, thus far, an awkwardly worded sentence from an article written almost 10 years ago is the only support for the claim that Obama wants to raise the federal ammo tax.

No Bill in Congress

A search of the Library of Congress’ THOMAS Web site, returned 11 results (as of June 22) for pending legislation that mentions "ammunition." And none of the bills that have been introduced during this legislative session have proposed an increase on the federal ammunition tax.

Further, the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, which collects the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (currently 11 percent of the sale price on ammunition and firearms other than pistols and revolvers), also says they are unaware of any plans by the administration to raise the ammunition tax. Tax and Trade Bureau spokesman Art Resnick told us in a telephone interview that the agency does "not have knowledge of any proposal like that."

[Banned]

When Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he voted for a 300% tax on guns and ammo. Basically it would have made it impossible for a middle class person to buy a gun or afford the ammo if it was passed.

Then Obama used US tax dollars to buy illegal guns which were sold to the Mexican drug cartels.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... ents-show/

"Not only did U.S. officials approve, allow and assist in the sale of more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa cartel -- the federal government used taxpayer money to buy semi-automatic weapons, sold them to criminals and then watched as the guns disappeared."

You know Joe. Limbaugh only deals in half truths or he just plain lies. Two agents in Phoenix set up a sting operation selling guns with the hope of following them and it got out of hand. Yes they were idiots. Obama had nothing to do with it. I posted this before with my sources. Given that Limbaugh and Fox are your normal sources (other than right wing nut job sites) you make it easy to dispute.

Actually I believe you guys LIKE the lies and LIKE spreading them like the J. Emails... (I'm not allowed to see them anymore because I debunk them.)

If this is just as you say Bill, why is an investigation still going on, and why is the White House still making it so hard to get information about who knew and when did they know. Remember those words, I'll give you a hint...Watergate.

[Banned]

A new poll shows a record high 81% of Americans hold HISTORIC NEGATIVITY towards the federal government.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149678/Ameri ... nment.aspx

Are 81% of the public wrong Bill?

[Hawk]

When Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he voted for a 300% tax on guns and ammo. Basically it would have made it impossible for a middle class person to buy a gun or afford the ammo if it was passed.

Then Obama used US tax dollars to buy illegal guns which were sold to the Mexican drug cartels.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... ents-show/

"Not only did U.S. officials approve, allow and assist in the sale of more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa cartel -- the federal government used taxpayer money to buy semi-automatic weapons, sold them to criminals and then watched as the guns disappeared."

Posted in the wrong place.

Again showing Joe and his cohorts to be fucking liars:

FULL ANSWER

We’ve received a number of queries since the beginning of the year from readers wanting to know if President Obama is planning to raise the federal tax on firearms ammunition by 500 percent. Since it is now 11 percent of the sales price, such an increase would amount to adding 55 percent to that rate, putting it at 66 percent of the sales price. Claims of such tax increases have been repeated frequently on Web sites promoting gun rights and circulated by numerous chain e-mails. But there is no indication that the president is pursuing this.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the National Rifle Association claimed that Obama would "increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent" as a part of what it called "Obama’s 10-Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment." That was a mailer distributed to the organization’s members as part of an advertising campaign, which we said at the time "distorts Obama’s position on gun control beyond recognition." Regarding the ammo tax claim, we said then that Obama hadn’t pressed for any such tax as a U.S. senator and was not proposing one as a presidential candidate.

Now we can report that Obama has proposed no such tax since becoming president. And we find no evidence that he or his administration has any plans to do so. Though it is often repeated and widely believed by gun owners, this tax claim is a myth.

Blast From the Past

As we noted in our article "NRA Targets Obama," the NRA’s claim that Obama plans a 500 percent tax increase on ammunition was based solely on a nearly decade-old article from the Chicago Defender newspaper.

That Dec. 13, 1999, article from former Defender staff writer Chinta Strausberg, headlined "Obama unveils federal gun bill," reported that then-Illinois state Sen. Obama, who was running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed "to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] – weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths." According to Strausberg’s report, Obama made the proposal at an "anti-gun rally," where he proposed a host of other gun control policies.

We found no record of Obama introducing legislation to this effect while in the Illinois state Senate, or in the U.S. Senate. Now, after further research, we can find no record of the president, or any other administration official, saying that an increase in the ammunition tax is part of his current agenda either. So, thus far, an awkwardly worded sentence from an article written almost 10 years ago is the only support for the claim that Obama wants to raise the federal ammo tax.

No Bill in Congress

A search of the Library of Congress’ THOMAS Web site, returned 11 results (as of June 22) for pending legislation that mentions "ammunition." And none of the bills that have been introduced during this legislative session have proposed an increase on the federal ammunition tax.

Further, the Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, which collects the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (currently 11 percent of the sale price on ammunition and firearms other than pistols and revolvers), also says they are unaware of any plans by the administration to raise the ammunition tax. Tax and Trade Bureau spokesman Art Resnick told us in a telephone interview that the agency does "not have knowledge of any proposal like that."

[Hawk]

When Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he voted for a 300% tax on guns and ammo. Basically it would have made it impossible for a middle class person to buy a gun or afford the ammo if it was passed.

Then Obama used US tax dollars to buy illegal guns which were sold to the Mexican drug cartels.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... ents-show/

"Not only did U.S. officials approve, allow and assist in the sale of more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa cartel -- the federal government used taxpayer money to buy semi-automatic weapons, sold them to criminals and then watched as the guns disappeared."

You know Joe. Limbaugh only deals in half truths or he just plain lies. Two agents in Phoenix set up a sting operation selling guns with the hope of following them and it got out of hand. Yes they were idiots. Obama had nothing to do with it. I posted this before with my sources. Given that Limbaugh and Fox are your normal sources (other than right wing nut job sites) you make it easy to dispute.

Actually I believe you guys LIKE the lies and LIKE spreading them like the J. Emails... (I'm not allowed to see them anymore because I debunk them.)

If this is just as you say Bill, why is an investigation still going on, and why is the White House still making it so hard to get information about who knew and when did they know. Remember those words, I'll give you a hint...Watergate.

Ha Ha Ha. I suppose Fox and Limbaugh told you the white house is making it difficult. How many times do I have to proves they are wrong before you get it ?

[Banned]

Please prove one of your crazy ideas once. It will be a first.

[Hawk]

Please prove one of your crazy ideas once. It will be a first.

I'm happy making you look stupid and routinely proving YOU to be wrong. So Joe, did J and friends send out Emails with the lie about 300% tax ? Do you feel stupid for believing crap like that ?

[Hawk]

A new poll shows a record high 81% of Americans hold HISTORIC NEGATIVITY towards the federal government.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149678/Ameri ... nment.aspx

Are 81% of the public wrong Bill?

It's an OPINION Joe. Do you know what opinions are? Likely it's because of the gridlock and a lack of compromising.

Joe, this is a question you NEVER answered although I've asked for your opinion MANY times. Should the US be run by polls ?

Majorities of Democrats (65%) and Republicans (92%) are dissatisfied with the nation's governance. This perhaps reflects the shared political power arrangement in the nation's capital, with Democrats controlling the White House and U.S. Senate, and Republicans controlling the House of Representatives. Partisans on both sides can thus find fault with government without necessarily blaming their own party.

The findings are from Gallup's annual Governance survey, updated Sept. 8-11, 2011. The same poll shows record or near-record criticism of Congress, elected officials, government handling of domestic problems, the scope of government power, and government waste of tax dollars.

[Banned]

It was a 500% tax on guns, I was wrong. Thanks for reminding me of how much your god wanted to tax our guns, making it impossible for only average income people to buy one.

The Negative opinion of government is because of Democrats and Republicans. Lets elect some Libertarians to correct this mess.

[songsmith]

Do you suppose the ATF is staffed with bleeding-heart liberals? Does the leadership and rank-and-file change with the President? I bet not. More likely, it's NRA-card carrying gun owners, practically all of whom are ex-military.
Now you can guess that Big Bad O Hisself ordered that they simply drive a trainload of Uzi's to the border and dump them over the fence, but that doesn't sound like something a liberal pantywaist would do. Especially if he's getting 66 points on guns.
Nice work, Bill.

Now, is anyone noticing the Republican candidate pool falling apart? Perry's Palinesque approach is failing miserably... I'm not sure he remembers that she lost is 2008. Hermann Cain actually won a Florida straw poll, simply because he campaigned there. That's a big slap in the face to all the rest of them, and says that nobody's really made a splash. The Dems are all hinting that they want Chris Christie involved, and I can't figure out why. They must have something on him, is all I can think of. The new Palin book pretty much hammered the final nail in her coffin, the NBA star has confirmed their tryst, and the electorate frowns on that stuff. Bachmann's mouth sealed her fate with the HPV vaccine remark, the media hasn't covered her since. Newt Gingrich is actually getting nice applause lines in the debates, but he's Newt Gingrich, and his half-million-dollar jewelry bill makes him look out-of-touch with people who are hurting financially. For why Santorum's not doing well, Google "santorum." He's his own worst enemy, and represents what people don't like about politics. Huntsman is actually pretty good... rational and factual, but again, the electorate doesn't want rationalism and facts, they want what they're told to want. Romney, if he wins the nomination, will have a really hard time getting by Romneycare, the basic blueprint for Obamacare. Romney was recently quoted as saying that a Perry nomination would,"obliterate the Republican Party," and I tend to agree. Don't look for the Tea Party to field a viable candidate... whatever it is, they're against it.
It really is still wide open, at least on the GOP side.