Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Grundz wrote:hey man, my shock has never ceased that with millions and millions being thrown out of their homes, life savings gone, jobs being lost, ect. No one has really taken a shot at the people responsible.
Not the president or a corrupt congressmen, the actual people responsible.

First of all, the rich suffered a lot of losses due to the economic downturn. I'd wager the average losses among the top 5% were significantly higher (in raw dollars, maybe even as a percentage of income) than the average losses among the bottom 50% (those who were thrown out of homes, etc.)

Second, the people largely responsible for the crash were the government bureaucrats that enabled this type of activity. People will always behave in their own interests, and if the law allows someone to screw others while acting as a guarantor against that screwing, people will take advantage of the system. That's exactly what happened in '08.

Third, no one took literal shots at the President or corrupt congresspeople, unless you count Giffords and that was borne out of a grammatical disagreement (I know...WTF?) than political ill-will (despite what you may have heard in the MSM). But there have been threats of violence against those were perceived to be "the people responsible."

And finally, as always, taxing the rich (or even shooting them) will not make you a dime wealthier. It's nice rhetoric to get people excited, but has very little practical effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crom wrote:So, again show me a situation where you gain assets/money and don't owe taxes?

Hypothetically, if a person paid $5,000 in taxes throughout the year but received a "tax refund" of $6,000, would you say that person paid taxes?

Grundz wrote:

hey man, my shock has never ceased that with millions and millions being thrown out of their homes, life savings gone, jobs being lost, ect. No one has really taken a shot at the people responsible.
Not the president or a corrupt congressmen, the actual people responsible.

Wait a year.

biccat wrote:
And finally, as always, taxing the rich (or even shooting them) will not make you a dime wealthier. It's nice rhetoric to get people excited, but has very little practical effect.

Untrue
If the rich realize that with extreme greed comes consequences, they may actually, you know, create those jobs they were promising to when they received those tax breaks. Whats being called for isnt a return to the 1930's, its a return to before the previous president arguabley got us into this mess. where the gap between wealthy and poor was still expanding, just not at the absurd rate it is now.

Japan has a law that states you cannot make more than 10X (or so) the average wage of your employees, you may call FREEDOOOM. but there's a reason why they are recovering from the world recession, and one of the worst disasters of our time, at the same time, in stride. Its because they are an industrious, hard working people whom 50+% of their population aren't under crippling debt.

may want to check out : http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100
incase you can't read
-keeping the poor from becoming super poor reduces hospital stays, mental problems, domestic violence, and other issues to the tune of less than it costs to let them become poor and the associated upkeeps.

Grundz wrote:

biccat wrote:
And finally, as always, taxing the rich (or even shooting them) will not make you a dime wealthier. It's nice rhetoric to get people excited, but has very little practical effect.

Untrue
If the rich realize that with extreme greed comes consequences, they may actually, you know, create those jobs they were promising to when they received those tax breaks. Whats being called for isnt a return to the 1930's, its a return to before the previous president arguabley got us into this mess. where the gap between wealthy and poor was still expanding, just not at the absurd rate it is now.

Japan has a law that states you cannot make more than 10X (or so) the average wage of your employees, you may call FREEDOOOM. but there's a reason why they are recovering from the world recession, and one of the worst disasters of our time, at the same time, in stride. Its because they are an industrious, hard working people whom 50+% of their population aren't under crippling debt.

Er...Japan's been in a recession for like, ten years. Further, US household debt levels have been falling. Finally, you'll have to show me this law. While I am somewhat positive as policy, I don't think there is such a law.

Crom wrote:I don't need to google it, you pay taxes on all forms of income, period.

Yes and no. The government might withhold some of the money that you earned, but you don't actually pay your taxes until you fill out the forms in Q1 of the next year. And there are plenty of people who make a small enough amount of money (unfortunately, I don't remember the cut-off point off the top of my head) that the government "Refunds" everything that was withheld.

Of course, that refund assumes that the government hasn't already spent it. I've got a sneaking suspicion that in the not too distant future the Glorious People's Republic of California isn't going to have enough cash on hand to send my State Income Tax Refund check to me...

Tigerone wrote:Let’s not forget about children. Middle and upper class tend to have fewer children which lead to more disposable income and a better standard of living. Lower income people tend to have more children that lead to even a worse standard of living

That contradicts the "Welfare Queen" idea.

Which is correct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:The thing about "median income" is that for every person making twice the median, there are two making half the median. .

That's not what median means. Media means the middle of the range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Grundz wrote:

biccat wrote:
And finally, as always, taxing the rich (or even shooting them) will not make you a dime wealthier. It's nice rhetoric to get people excited, but has very little practical effect.

Untrue
If the rich realize that with extreme greed comes consequences, they may actually, you know, create those jobs they were promising to when they received those tax breaks. Whats being called for isnt a return to the 1930's, its a return to before the previous president arguabley got us into this mess. where the gap between wealthy and poor was still expanding, just not at the absurd rate it is now.

Japan has a law that states you cannot make more than 10X (or so) the average wage of your employees, you may call FREEDOOOM. but there's a reason why they are recovering from the world recession, and one of the worst disasters of our time, at the same time, in stride. Its because they are an industrious, hard working people whom 50+% of their population aren't under crippling debt.

Er...Japan's been in a recession for like, ten years. Further, US household debt levels have been falling. Finally, you'll have to show me this law. While I am somewhat positive as policy, I don't think there is such a law.

I've never heard of it.

Japan's economy has been stagnating for nearly 20 years.

Hypothetically, if a person paid $5,000 in taxes throughout the year but received a "tax refund" of $6,000, would you say that person paid taxes?

This does not account for local state, state/city tax (where I live there is a damn city tax), social security, medicare, earnings on non income like interest, stocks, bonds, property taxes, and so forth. These people aren't not paying any taxes at all, they are benefiting from the stimulus program, but only if they qualify for it. So that person in your hypothetical makes $1,000 profit off of federal taxes, but in comparison to the $4 billion dollar tax holiday corporations are lobbying for is again, drops of ocean in the water of tax reform. Individuals not paying taxes in the manner you described is not costing the government 100s of billions or even trillions of dollars in lost tax revenue each year, it is tax cuts from the richest people and tax cuts to the largest corporations. The numbers and facts are in black and white and as plain as day. People that illegally cheat taxes should be held responsible for their actions, people taking advantage of legit ways to loop hole taxes don't need to face criminal charges but rather the government needs to reform those changes.

Yes and no. The government might withhold some of the money that you earned, but you don't actually pay your taxes until you fill out the forms in Q1 of the next year. And there are plenty of people who make a small enough amount of money (unfortunately, I don't remember the cut-off point off the top of my head) that the government "Refunds" everything that was withheld.

Of course, that refund assumes that the government hasn't already spent it. I've got a sneaking suspicion that in the not too distant future the Glorious People's Republic of California isn't going to have enough cash on hand to send my State Income Tax Refund check to me...

It is called a refund, because it is a refund. You pay into taxes every pay check, and that money is the governments. Then once a year they assess how much you paid in versus how much you actually owed minus your deductions. Then you get a refund if you paid too much.

The last I read into it, and granted this was back in the 1990s, was that if you made below the per capita poverty line in wages you generally got all of it back, if not a high percentage. In every state I know of, that is under $20k a year, maybe less in states that have a lower per captia income. $20k a year? You cannot live off of that, and sadly that is the only work available to people. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say I want you to pay taxes, health care, housing, and every other cost of living and I want you to be an upstanding citizen and not break the laws. When people get desperate for money they do desperate things. With the ever so rising cost of everything: Food, services, health care, rent/housing, and so forth and the not to scale living wage you have to give the poor people a break, so they can live.

What I don't get from a logical stand point from the GOP is that if you are poor and sucking off the government's teet, then you are a horrible burden on society and costing the tax payers so much money. Yet, if you are a well off rich person, who writes off 4 billion dollars in tax loop holes and credits through a corporation to not pay taxes that is the American way? So, on one hand you got someone making 20K a year and they are a free loading lazy jerk face, but the guy making millions as a CEO is a hard working honest person, even though they don't pay anything in taxes and their tax credits equate to an exponential amount of that poor persons yearly salary....

I am not saying we need to tax the rich to death either. I am saying tax reform needs to happen on a scale that levels the playing field so the middle class have more money. My reasoning behind this is that the middle class drive the economy, only 1% of Americans are millionaires or richer. That 1% is not going to drive the economy, ever. Our economy is based off a simple supply and demand system. That is how it has always been, and supply and demand has some flaws, those flaws we are experiencing now. If you increase the middle class's disposable income they will spend more money on goods and services. The demand will go up for these goods and services and jobs will have to be created to meet the demand.

This whole taxing the rich hurts the economy is just an utter lie the GOP media machines puts out there to keep their autocracy-following friends rich and the uneducated in the dark about by blaming the poor ethnic people.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I've never heard of it.
Japan's economy has been stagnating for nearly 20 years.

I did some research, and apparently it is not an actual "on the books" law, it's an honor thing

the major reason for japans economy stagnating is they stopped having babies: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:JPN&dl=en&hl=en&q=japanese+population#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:JPN&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en

A growing economy usually means that there are more people doing more work, or doing work better. It isnt growing at "our" roller-coaster rate but it is slowly increasing, and not tanking like the majority of the world.

biccat wrote:

halonachos wrote:But we also have the fact that people tend to get married and if there is poverty both parents tend to work to gain income and when those kids are old enough they also tend to try to get a job.

I know that this is the generally accepted wisdom and that it makes sense, but I wonder if the statistics bear it out. Especially given that marriage rates tend to decrease as household income decreases.

Not to mention divorce rates, which tend to be abnormally high in those in lower brackets because of financial strain on the relationship.

As for median:


Let's take these numbers. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 19 67 100

Median number here is 3. The average is ~8. Which one do you think is REALLY representative of the majority of this sample, the average... or he median?

Common statistical wisdom is that the median does a much better job of throwing away outliers than the average does. OF course, the median household income is kinda misleading itself (the cost of living is different for different areas, and the median for various races, household sizes, and locations is also wildly different), but less so than the average income.

I'm not poor now, but I grew up dirt poor.

I got to where I am by the 'Luck and Pluck" method. Surviving by going from life preserver to life preserver in order to keep my head above water.

Joining the military quite literally saved my life. I'm not suggesting in any way that we should shuffle all the poor people off to foreign wars (we do that anyway), but it did get me off the streets and with enough of a support mechanism that allowed me to weigh my options. A surrogate family in other words. Much of that support mechanism is missing where the poor are concerned.

I was lucky in the extreme to be blessed with enough intelligence to get an education and even luckier to find myself in a job completely unrelated to my degrees. A common problem amongst college grads.

Luck plays a huge part in where someone ends up in life. There are those that can drive toward a goal and succeed without any intervention. Many of those folks though have simply won the life lottery statistically, compared to the vast amounts of people who've tried and failed.

Why poor states vote republican is so easy to see. Most poor people only have a few things really, family, religion and patriotism. Many poor folks I grew up with were this way. Often voting against their own self interests because a candidate was a war hero, waved the flag more vigorously than the others or supported 'christian values'. The latter validated simply because a candidate mentioned GOD once or twice and said he belonged to a church.

The Republicans have capitalised by making Democrats appear to oppose those values. The Democrats have played into this strategy because many of my fellow Dems can be pompous and condescending elitests... trying to help the downtrodden they often appear to despise.

Those impoverished folks who are there because of laziness are such a small minority as to be inconsequential. When nearly half of the US population qualifies to pay little or no tax and we still have a 15 trillion dollar economy speaks volumes about income inequality.

Trying to pin down a reason why someone is poor is much harder than just labelling them and leaving their future in their laps. People have to take an active part in helping others in order to make a better society. Active being the operative word. You can't just label them and leave them, nor can you drop money in their laps and point them in the general direction. There needs to be active participation.

Most people are poor because they've been generationally poor and don't know anything else.

Grundz wrote:may want to check out : http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100
incase you can't read

Dispite popular misconceptions, I can actually read.

Did you notice anything missing from that article? Anything at all?

How about: how much did the program cost the city, province, and country?

If we took $100,000 from each of the top say...5000 people and gave it to 5000 poor people in a single city, you would see a net improvement in the health and welfare of that city. But if you only look at the benefit you're not getting the whole picture. What if the hospital stays, mental problems, general welfare and other issues cost the city only $400 million/year (ignoring for the moment the general intangibles)? Well, then the program of giving money directly to the impoverished would be a net loss.

This is a common tactic used to support progressive ideas. Poll a bunch of people and ask if they want to receive benefit X. Most of them will say yes. Poll them and ask if they want to pay cost Y. Most of them will say no. But what happens when you ask them if they're willing to pay Y to get X?

Crom wrote:

biccat wrote:Hypothetically, if a person paid $5,000 in taxes throughout the year but received a "tax refund" of $6,000, would you say that person paid taxes?

This does not account for local state, state/city tax (where I live there is a damn city tax), social security, medicare, earnings on non income like interest, stocks, bonds, property taxes, and so forth.

It's my example, so yes it does. If someone pays $5,000 in taxes (state, local, payroll, sales, property, etc.) and receives $6,000 in tax returns (state, local, federal), would you say that they paid taxes?

This whole taxing the rich hurts the economy is just an utter lie the GOP media machines puts out there to keep their autocracy-following friends rich and the uneducated in the dark about by blaming the poor ethnic people.

I'm confused, am I an "autocracy-following friend" or "uneducated [and] in the dark"? Inquiring minds want to know.

Uhlan wrote:I'm not poor now, but I grew up dirt poor.

I got to where I am by the 'Luck and Pluck" method. Surviving by going from life preserver to life preserver in order to keep my head above water.

Joining the military quite literally saved my life. I'm not suggesting in any way that we should shuffle all the poor people off to foreign wars (we do that anyway), but it did get me off the streets and with enough of a support mechanism that allowed me to weigh my options. A surrogate family in other words. Much of that support mechanism is missing where the poor are concerned.

I was lucky in the extreme to be blessed with enough intelligence to get an education and even luckier to find myself in a job completely unrelated to my degrees. A common problem amongst college grads.

Luck plays a huge part in where someone ends up in life. There are those that can drive toward a goal and succeed without any intervention. Many of those folks though have simply won the life lottery statistically, compared to the vast amounts of people who've tried and failed.

Why poor states vote republican is so easy to see. Most poor people only have a few things really, family, religion and patriotism. Many poor folks I grew up with were this way. Often voting against their own self interests because a candidate was a war hero, waved the flag more vigorously than the others or supported 'christian values'. The latter validated simply because a candidate mentioned GOD once or twice and said he belonged to a church.

The Republicans have capitalised by making Democrats appear to oppose those values. The Democrats have played into this strategy because many of my fellow Dems can be pompous and condescending elitests... trying to help the downtrodden they often appear to despise.

Those impoverished folks who are there because of laziness are such a small minority as to be inconsequential. When nearly half of the US population qualifies to pay little or no tax and we still have a 15 trillion dollar economy speaks volumes about income inequality.

Trying to pin down a reason why someone is poor is much harder than just labelling them and leaving their future in their laps. People have to take an active part in helping others in order to make a better society. Active being the operative word. You can't just label them and leave them, nor can you drop money in their laps and point them in the general direction. There needs to be active participation.

Most people are poor because they've been generationally poor and don't know anything else.

It's my example, so yes it does. If someone pays $5,000 in taxes (state, local, payroll, sales, property, etc.) and receives $6,000 in tax returns (state, local, federal), would you say that they paid taxes?

tax credits always go towards federal taxes, you still pay property taxes, and everything else. The stimulus plan I am referring to was federal tax credits (the whole state/federal divide) mainly so people could try to keep their house and not foreclose on it. You example has no real basis to go on, since tax credits apply and come from different sources. You would have to get tax credits on even your property, which I have never ever heard of.

I'm confused, am I an "autocracy-following friend" or "uneducated [and] in the dark"? Inquiring minds want to know.

Look at the census data, the highest concentration of conservatives is in the South East part of the USA, which also happens to be the most uneducated, and some of the poorest regions in the country. This region also houses a huge concentration of the most religious people in the country. These are the people that the GOP is catering to. The autocracy-following friends are the people that are rich, and the people who are sending money to DC to lobby for their cause. Things like illegal company mergers, tax breaks/holidays/credits to the richest people, health care reform (did you know that the health care industry was dumping over $1 million USD per a day to lobby against Obama Care? they cannot pay off honest people's health claims but they can drop $1 million per a day lobbying against reform?), and so on. It is a good-ol-boys club. When they leave politics they will have a nice executive corporate job waiting for them since they help the corporation cut corners, not pay taxes, and basically break the law and probably do a lot of things that would generally be considered as unethical.

Now take into the fact that only 1% of the people in this country are millionaires or richer, and around 65% of all elected officials in DC are also millionaires or richer. Don't you think their heavy bias is going to affect them from doing what is really right versus what is really wrong?

The uneducated people are the ones that believe the GOP's ideas will actually work. Deregulation got us into this mess, and taxes have nothing to do with job creation. The facts prove that if you look at the data for the past 100 years in the USA. Job creation in the USA was at it's peak when everyone paid the most taxes, and now it is at it's lowest when taxes are at a 60 year all time low.

First I would like to thank everybody here for understanding the purpose of my last post was to show GOP talking points on how they are going to help the poor will actually screw the poor. Now to answer an excellent point Melissa raised in her OP.

Question: Why do poor white Americans vote for Republicans when the Democrat's policies help the poor and the policies of Republicans screw them?

Answer: Because poor white Christians value their faith more than they desire more money.


Those 3 states will never go blue because of the 3Gs (God, Gays, and Guns) The 3Gs won't win a national election, but you can't win the 10 poorest states of the union being on the wrong side of the 3Gs. Conservatives often come across as anti poor, which is a fact that some Christians see as anti Christian. Liberals often come across as anti Christian, which is a fact that almost all Christians see as anti Christian.

Anyhow here are my top 4 reasons why the poorest states in the union will remain red states.

#1: John 3:16 According to almost every Christian denomination if a person doesn't believe in Jesus and accept him as their savior that person is going to hell. There are a lot of liberal iconoclasts that believe religion is the opium of the masses, that religion serves no useful function in society, that religion is destructive, and the world would be a better place if more people converted to atheism. Those same liberals are not picky about who they convert, and are happy to convert children to atheism. So if A=No 3:16=go directly to hell on death, do not pass go, do not collect $200, B=Liberals want to convert children to atheism, then A+B=Liberal iconoclasts want your children to go to hell. If your first instinct upon hearing what I just said is to attack Christianity as a delusional belief then you are the reason why these poor Christian Americans vote in conservative politicians that financially screw them, and if you think you can be more sensitive to the beliefs in the name of winning elections let me point out the creationism museum and the fact that liberals will not be able to win the votes of hard line Christians as they ridicule the creationist theory that the T Rex's teeth were used to crack open coconuts before God banished Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden. If you are a liberal Christian you can have a great theological debate with conservative Christians by bringing up the liberal Christian theory that Jesus would support the modern day Democratic party because they are more charitable to the poor, and that debate would be ruined quickly when an atheist can no longer bite his tongue and comes in screaming "T Rex teeth were not designed to crack coconuts you fracking neanderthal." Looks like those 10 poorest states in the union will remain red states.

#2: Abortion: This one is very simple because there is no middle ground when dealing with a people that perceive an aborted fetus as being no different than a 2 year old baby. The first instinct of liberals is often to point out that the perception of the fetus is a false perception, but that only makes the situation worse because it comes across as liberals telling people how to think as they strip all human rights away from a human being. If you can get into a pro lifer's head for a minute you'll realize they are scared gakless of a government that they perceive is redefining people as non humans and killing them in numbers never seen before in world history. There is no convincing them that a fetus, embryo, or zygote is not a fully developed human being.

#3: The gays: Many Christians in red states follow religious beliefs that teach homosexual behavior is a sin that should not be tolerated. Most of those red state churches teach hate the sin love the sinner and/or with pray the gay away policies. The liberal belief that we should accept their lifestyle contradicts their religion, liberals get mad because they think conservatives are acting like anti gay bigots, and conservatives get mad because they think liberals are acting like anti Christian bigots. The grand irony is both sides honestly believe they are the side being persecuted.

#4: The guns. Liberals want to take out guns, Obama is president, the sky is falling. If you're a pro 2nd amendment Democrat that is a proud gun owner that wants to dispute the assumption that Obama wants to take away people's guns let me reassure you that your efforts will be thoroughly sabotaged by members of your own party that believe that AK47s with detachable 40 round clips should not be sold to the mentally ill.

#5: Conservatives believe liberals want to control the way they think, and telling people how to think is one of the quickest possible ways to piss them off. The thing is conservatives are not paranoid because many liberals really are trying to change the way they think. There is a fine line between telling someone who is wrong that they are wrong, and telling someone that is wrong how they should think. Liberals don't tend to pay much attention to that line or the feelings of conservatives. Combined with the fact that liberals are often come across as smug and self righteous by conservatives that fine line I just talked about has been thoroughly trampled.

schadenfreude wrote:First I would like to thank everybody here for understanding the purpose of my last post was to show GOP talking points on how they are going to help the poor will actually screw the poor. Now to answer an excellent point Melissa raised in her OP.

Question: Why do poor white Americans vote for Republicans when the Democrat's policies help the poor and the policies of Republicans screw them?

Answer: Because poor white Christians value their faith more than they desire more money.


Those 3 states will never go blue because of the 3Gs (God, Gays, and Guns) The 3Gs won't win a national election, but you can't win the 10 poorest states of the union being on the wrong side of the 3Gs. Conservatives often come across as anti poor, which is a fact that some Christians see as anti Christian. Liberals often come across as anti Christian, which is a fact that almost all Christians see as anti Christian.

Anyhow here are my top 4 reasons why the poorest states in the union will remain red states.

#1: John 3:16 According to almost every Christian denomination if a person doesn't believe in Jesus and accept him as their savior that person is going to hell. There are a lot of liberal iconoclasts that believe religion is the opium of the masses, that religion serves no useful function in society, that religion is destructive, and the world would be a better place if more people converted to atheism. Those same liberals are not picky about who they convert, and are happy to convert children to atheism. So if A=No 3:16=go directly to hell on death, do not pass go, do not collect $200, B=Liberals want to convert children to atheism, then A+B=Liberal iconoclasts want your children to go to hell. If your first instinct upon hearing what I just said is to attack Christianity as a delusional belief then you are the reason why these poor Christian Americans vote in conservative politicians that financially screw them, and if you think you can be more sensitive to the beliefs in the name of winning elections let me point out the creationism museum and the fact that liberals will not be able to win the votes of hard line Christians as they ridicule the creationist theory that the T Rex's teeth were used to crack open coconuts before God banished Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden. If you are a liberal Christian you can have a great theological debate with conservative Christians by bringing up the liberal Christian theory that Jesus would support the modern day Democratic party because they are more charitable to the poor, and that debate would be ruined quickly when an atheist can no longer bite his tongue and comes in screaming "T Rex teeth were not designed to crack coconuts you fracking neanderthal." Looks like those 10 poorest states in the union will remain red states.

#2: Abortion: This one is very simple because there is no middle ground when dealing with a people that perceive an aborted fetus as being no different than a 2 year old baby. The first instinct of liberals is often to point out that the perception of the fetus is a false perception, but that only makes the situation worse because it comes across as liberals telling people how to think as they strip all human rights away from a human being. If you can get into a pro lifer's head for a minute you'll realize they are scared gakless of a government that they perceive is redefining people as non humans and killing them in numbers never seen before in world history. There is no convincing them that a fetus, embryo, or zygote is not a fully developed human being.

#3: The gays: Many Christians in red states follow religious beliefs that teach homosexual behavior is a sin that should not be tolerated. Most of those red state churches teach hate the sin love the sinner and/or with pray the gay away policies. The liberal belief that we should accept their lifestyle contradicts their religion, liberals get mad because they think conservatives are acting like anti gay bigots, and conservatives get mad because they think liberals are acting like anti Christian bigots. The grand irony is both sides honestly believe they are the side being persecuted.

#4: The guns. Liberals want to take out guns, Obama is president, the sky is falling. If you're a pro 2nd amendment Democrat that is a proud gun owner that wants to dispute the assumption that Obama wants to take away people's guns let me reassure you that your efforts will be thoroughly sabotaged by members of your own party that believe that AK47s with detachable 40 round clips should not be sold to the mentally ill.

#5: Conservatives believe liberals want to control the way they think, and telling people how to think is one of the quickest possible ways to piss them off. The thing is conservatives are not paranoid because many liberals really are trying to change the way they think. There is a fine line between telling someone who is wrong that they are wrong, and telling someone that is wrong how they should think. Liberals don't tend to pay much attention to that line or the feelings of conservatives. Combined with the fact that liberals are often come across as smug and self righteous by conservatives that fine line I just talked about has been thoroughly trampled.

When the GOP attacks each other based on religion, you get what you get.







How is his religious views even important to do his job as a politician? Let alone any job? Then you have idiots like this, and this particular idiot is from Florida...

http://youtu.be/umTITWQuXwY

schadenfreude wrote:#3: The gays: Many Christians in red states follow religious beliefs that teach homosexual behavior is a sin that should not be tolerated.

Yeah, they're pretty bad Christians that way.

schadenfreude wrote:#5: Conservatives believe liberals want to control the way they think

Amusing, considering that conservatives here struggle to try to get every single ounce of religious and conservative brainwashing they can stuffed into public schools... don't believe me? Just look at the Texas Board of Education. There are some more blatantly corrupt, ideologically extremist organizations that hate their own constituents (they're fond of teacher-bashing and love to look down on the average student and try to lower standards), but not many.

Maybe they're afraid of this because they know they try to do it, themselves?

Melissia wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:#3: The gays: Many Christians in red states follow religious beliefs that teach homosexual behavior is a sin that should not be tolerated.

Yeah, they're pretty bad Christians that way.

schadenfreude wrote:#5: Conservatives believe liberals want to control the way they think

Amusing, considering that conservatives here struggle to try to get every single ounce of religious and conservative brainwashing they can stuffed into public schools... don't believe me? Just look at the Texas Board of Education. There are some more blatantly corrupt, ideologically extremist organizations that hate their own constituents (they're fond of teacher-bashing and love to look down on the average student and try to lower standards), but not many.

Maybe they're afraid of this because they know they try to do it, themselves?

The state of Texas removed Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson from their history books because of their non Christian views. Franklin was somewhat of a weak atheist and Jefferson was a deist. Also, the Kansas state school board has debunked evolution twice now, and tried to teach creationism in schools. The only time it gets repealed is when non conservatives get elected to the state school board.

Melissia wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:#3: The gays: Many Christians in red states follow religious beliefs that teach homosexual behavior is a sin that should not be tolerated.

Yeah, they're pretty bad Christians that way.

schadenfreude wrote:#5: Conservatives believe liberals want to control the way they think

Amusing, considering that conservatives here struggle to try to get every single ounce of religious and conservative brainwashing they can stuffed into public schools... don't believe me? Just look at the Texas Board of Education. There are some more blatantly corrupt, ideologically extremist organizations that hate their own constituents (they're fond of teacher-bashing and love to look down on the average student and try to lower standards), but not many.

Maybe they're afraid of this because they know they try to do it, themselves?

Actually it goes back to John 3:16. According to the modern interpretation of John 3:16 if Christians fail to convert non Christians every person they fail to convert will go to hell. They are morally obligated by their own religion to convert everybody to Christianity, thus they will feel morally justified to do what they are going by any means necessary. They will never see what they are doing as hypocritical because it's a black and white issue to them, and they believe they are doing God's will. I don't need to tell people here how dangerous monotheism is, that would be preaching to the choir. On the bright side we've come a long way. 500 years ago we had nothing better to do than burn each other at the stake over what we now see as a minor theological dispute in regards to the transubstantiation of wine and bread being literal or figurative.

schadenfreude wrote:Actually it goes back to John 3:16.

Have you read John 3:16? There's nothing about that could be remotely interpreted as being evangelist.

Also nice to know that 1/3 of the worlds population all thinks that they have to convert the other 2/3's to Christianity, cause you know, Christianity has no variety and all Christians think the same.

LordofHats wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Actually it goes back to John 3:16.

Have you read John 3:16? There's nothing about that could be remotely interpreted as being evangelist.

Also nice to know that 1/3 of the worlds population all thinks that they have to convert the other 2/3's to Christianity, cause you know, Christianity has no variety and all Christians think the same.

Maybe that is the Anglican interpretation..... I prefer the original text to King James' version.

It's kinda sad really.

(next part in spoilers in case you want to skip over it :

Okay, that's out of my system. I'm done with the religious aspect for now

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
I don't see it as the "clearly a nerd" argument, more of a "You tried to call me out but you have no evidence so shut your face" argument.

Yeah, that's why people cite post counts. Because they think their opponent has no evidence.

Nah, its just that Sebster decided to criticize Tigerone on an aspect(wasting time on dakka) and failed to look at the most base method of seeing if it is true or not, the post count. That's like looking at two blood tests and saying that the one with a lower WBC count is more likely to have the flue compared to the blood test filled with the suckers.

But is it agreed that poverty is hereditary or not? Besides I think Luck is a type of chinese food because all of the chinese take out places around here say that they have luck, maybe its MSG, not sure.

Crom wrote:

It's my example, so yes it does. If someone pays $5,000 in taxes (state, local, payroll, sales, property, etc.) and receives $6,000 in tax returns (state, local, federal), would you say that they paid taxes?

tax credits always go towards federal taxes, you still pay property taxes, and everything else. The stimulus plan I am referring to was federal tax credits (the whole state/federal divide) mainly so people could try to keep their house and not foreclose on it. You example has no real basis to go on, since tax credits apply and come from different sources. You would have to get tax credits on even your property, which I have never ever heard of.

It's apparent you are more interested in dodging the question than answering it. I'm going to conclude that you're refusing to answer the question because it disproves your position.

Crom wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm confused, am I an "autocracy-following friend" or "uneducated [and] in the dark"? Inquiring minds want to know.

The uneducated people are the ones that believe the GOP's ideas will actually work. Deregulation got us into this mess, and taxes have nothing to do with job creation. The facts prove that if you look at the data for the past 100 years in the USA. Job creation in the USA was at it's peak when everyone paid the most taxes, and now it is at it's lowest when taxes are at a 60 year all time low.

So what you're saying is that unless I'm rich (and evil), I'm a rube (and stupid). I'm pretty sure this is a violation of Rule #1.

Melissia wrote:It's kinda sad really.

(next part in spoilers in case you want to skip over it :

Spoiler:

Why should God be forced to use blatantly supernatural ways to ensure humanity is created? Is the Christian God really that weak? ... I don't know how religious I am (I concern myself with worldly affairs and just trying to be a better person than I was the day before), but trying to get in the mindframe of a very devout Christian, my views are still wildly divergent from the nrom: To me, evolution and the scientific study of the world, brings one closer to God than any bible thumping ever could. Through examining God's work we examine who He is, and the many intricacies and complexities that make up the reality He created-- why should the study of God's works be limited only to a single, dusty old book when there's so much else out there that He created? God's ways are high above ours, and his thoughts are as well-- but should we not try to better ourselves by at least TRYING to understand, instead of blindly accepting it like sheep? He gave us logic, intelligence, curiosity, and other such wondrous mental faculties... to neglect them is as much a sin as neglecting the soul or the body. The body is a temple-- and the mind is a forge that shapes the soul.

Okay, that's out of my system. I'm done with the religious aspect for now

What's sad is that I actually agree with you on that one, but bible-thumpers are kind of funny. I liked my old priest, the guy believed in evolution and wasn't too into that "all homosexuals go to hell" crowd either, heck my church had a support group for battered homosexuals.

Historically speaking, someone born in affluence is likely to live in affluence regardless of their efforts; conversely, someone whom is born in poverty is likely to stay in poverty regardless of their efforts.

I'm not sure what definition of "hereditary" you're using.

helgrenze wrote:Maybe that is the Anglican interpretation.....

No. I think he's confusing the common usage of John 3:16 by evangelists for a call to evangelism. Nothing in 3:16 calls Christians to convert others. It makes a wonderful mission statement though.

Most Christians probably can't even recite John 3:16, and its one of the easiest Bible verses to remember. Boiling things like the Creationism in schools debate down to an attempt to convert doesn't fly far. Evangelism hasn't been a big thing for Christians in the US for awhile. They're more interested in 'protecting the children from evil' evolution because... something about evolution disproving the undisproveable, idk. Something silly that they then overreact to.

I prefer the original text to King James' version.

King James flows nicely when you read it and that's about all its good for

EDIT: This may sound strange, but have you considered a career in religious motivational speaking Melissa

LordofHats wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Actually it goes back to John 3:16.

Have you read John 3:16? There's nothing about that could be remotely interpreted as being evangelist.

Also nice to know that 1/3 of the worlds population all thinks that they have to convert the other 2/3's to Christianity, cause you know, Christianity has no variety and all Christians think the same.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Most common modern interpretation is "Whoever believes in Jesus as their savior goes to heaven" There are a lot of denominations of Christianity, and every mainstream denomination that I know of has the same modern interpretation of John 3:16 that I just described.

Current evangelical interpretation is "Whoever believes in Jesus as their savior goes to heaven, everybody else goes straight to hell because of original sin" The fact is most denominations hold this belief.

Please enlighten me. What Christian denominations believe people go to heaven without any belief in Jesus, or accepting Jesus as their savior?

Most baptists I've seen believe such, and furthermore that you have to not only believe in Jesus but also be baptized.

Melissia wrote:Historically speaking, someone born in affluence is likely to live in affluence regardless of their efforts; conversely, someone whom is born in poverty is likely to stay in poverty regardless of their efforts.

I'm not sure what definition of "hereditary" you're using.

Oh, I mean that there's a 'poor', 'middle class', and 'rich' gene. Typically on the fifth chromosome, in 'poor' people the chromosome resembles a "cent" sign, in the 'middle class' it looks like a dollar sign, and 'rich' people have double the amount of chromosomes the 'middle class' people have.

@ Melissia,

Most religions believe in Baptism for the forgiveness of original sin.

biccat wrote:

Grundz wrote:may want to check out : http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100
incase you can't read

Dispite popular misconceptions, I can actually read.

Did you notice anything missing from that article? Anything at all?

How about: how much did the program cost the city, province, and country?

again i question your literacy