Posted on 10/21/2004 8:12:29 AM PDT by independent5
Hi, I'm new here. I'm an independent so not all of my views are conservative in nature. Am I welcome to post here? Is this is this the appropriate (general/chat) forum to post this in?
Sure but be warned that an independent is like a lamb on a battlefield. Best get to the side of Truth, Justice and the American Way as quickly as possible for your own good.
And that ain't the side of Jean Fraud Kerry.
Liberal talking points.
Protagoras,
I don't know. I wish I had a list of them and their effects. I mean, a truly comprehensive list that I had some good visualization tools to analyze the data with. Why doesn't our government have that :)? I think that should be a priority and be talked about in the debates. Get some better software in the white house.
I'll answer that one. No and why should they? We already have some unsteady, shady characters out there who shouldn't have access to nuclear weapons.
I still don't have a problem with citizens of the US having access to anything from assault weapons to small revolvers.
What brought up nuclear weapons?
However, I think that if someone has to hedge so much on things, I am not too sure they have a highly developed level of critical analysis.
I know conservatives are criticized for being too simple, and unwilling to look at complicated issues.
Of course, I see that as a strength-the ability to muddle through complexity, and and redefine simply.
For example, if life does not begin at conception, when else can it possibly begin?
If you cannot tell that George W Bush is sincerely doing his best to defend this country from terrorists, then you are deceived. Now, there may be fair questions about the implementation of the war in Iraq, and questions about it's effectiveness, and you may even have questions about it being the proper thing to do concerning the War on Terror.
But, I have never seen any evidence that Bush's primary focus is anything other than the safety of this country and it's citizens. In my mind his honor and integrity matches that of the first George W.
Nope, then I want more, so I can give it to my children and grandchildren, then spend the rest to defeat liberals.
If you can reach that point, then some of your income becomes less important to you.
None of your business. You want to give yours away, go ahead.
When do I stop owning my money? What level? How much of what I own belongs to you? Or the "country"?
I didn't get that from a talking point, though I know I've heard it before. But its just a natural deduction from the line of reasoning that Sloth and I were following. Do you have a response -- do you think we should be allowed to have nukes?
What brought up nuclear weapons?
Well, if we need to defeat a tyrannical government, and we are arguing that we should have the same weapons that they do, then we should get nukes. If they've got nukes and are willing to use them on us, how can we defend ourselves against that threat? The way I see it, that would be the only real way a tyrannical gov't could beat 150 million Americans.
Keep reading, he gives it up more with every post. His opinions are true, but he formed them before he came here with this phony BS line about trying to learn. He has every single liberal Democrat talking point down pat.
I think the mods should. You are ground zero.
What if I want to endow educational scholarships or support the Church of my choice or help in humanitarian ways. Why do you think some of my income would become less important?
Who gets to decide which part of my income is less important to me? Kerry? He who is married to a very rich woman? Maybe he should be forced to donate a couple of his wife's homes for humanitarian reasons. Don't you think he has some income that's less important to him?
You're teetering on socialism there when you want to take away from someone richer in order to give to the poorer. Let the rich person decide what to do with their money. Robin Hood is fictional.
How much of what I own belongs to you? Or the "country"?
Can't think of a single program that should be cut? Not one? LOL
The National endowment for the Arts? LOL
Not really, unless you believe that people just stuff cash in a mattress. When a person moves beyond the point of comfort, he usually moves into being a business owner or investor. The money that he saves by tax cuts doesn't generally sit around in liquid form, but is creates the salaries and paychecks of other people in the form of investment.
Thus, the $1,000 the millionare gets back from a tax cut, goes to support the salary for a job that an unemployed person can get. That person in turn makes more than his salary for his business and the investor takes a share of that profit. The more money that goes to taxes rather than investment is the more money that is missing in making new jobs.
So, it may seem that the millionare is just barely bruised when he is taxed a $1,000, but it severely wounds a poor person who loses a job because of the loss of investment capital.
However, I think that if someone has to hedge so much on things, I am not too sure they have a highly developed level of critical analysis.
Its not that I have to hedge -- its that I require myself to be skeptical. Because skepticism, when used properly, breeds honesty. When used improperly, it only breeds indecision.
For example, if life does not begin at conception, when else can it possibly begin?
I understand that reasoning, however, others, including myself, see that more like you don't know the answer, so why not pick the most convenient or the one that seems the most correct now rather than doing more research? That is not in anyway meant to be an attack on you, it is only my opinion on that line of reasoning.
If you cannot tell that George W Bush is sincerely doing his best to defend this country from terrorists, then you are deceived.
I most certainly think Bush is doing his best to defend the country against terrorists. I'm just not sure his policies are the best way to go about doing that. That does not mean I think Kerry's are better. It does mean that I think there are probably better policies out there that neither candidate is going with.
Now, there may be fair questions about the implementation of the war in Iraq, and questions about it's effectiveness, and you may even have questions about it being the proper thing to do concerning the War on Terror.
Yes! Exactly what I'm getting at. Its not about thinking that Bush is trying to harm the country or he's trying to decept people -- that is anti-Bush garbage. I don't think any U.S. President has ever tried to harm this country or not do their best. Its just that their choices are sometimes not the best -- and we often don't know until we its already happened.
But, I have never seen any evidence that Bush's primary focus is anything other than the safety of this country and it's citizens. In my mind his honor and integrity matches that of the first George W.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.
'No single citizen needs to be able to kill 600 people in a minute.'
That all dpends on whether you are the citizen facing 600 or more of the nation's enemies. 2nd amendment isn't about one's perception of the "need" of another.
Your premise is silly. Do you really think it would come down to a point to where a well-armed militia would need nukes in order to revolt against a bad federal government. Do you really think the federal government would use nuclear weapons against its citizenry and risk completely destroying our country in the process.
You're kind of starting to lean towards the troll column here. I really wanted to be wrong about you.
:^}
Uh, maybe for the first X-thousand dollars of income, but not for whatever's above that.
I do support progressive tax brackets -- and here's why I think so: $100 means a lot more to someone who only makes $1000 a year than does $1,000,000 for someone who makes $10,000,000 a year.
So what? How is it fair to set tax rates according to some subjective notion of what particular amounts of money ought to "mean" to people? Who am I to say that the person doesn't deserve to keep all the remaining $9 million of what they earned? If the objective is to hurt rich people in order to burden them so much that everybody feels equally poor, then where's the incentive to make any more money?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.