Democratic convention

  • Thread starter Thread starter scipio337
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ringil said:
You have receive benefits through participation in the successful operation of society and have received wealth through the capitalist system.
Click to expand...
Successful operation? Apparently you don’t read the news.
 
scipio337 said:
If you didn’t notice, the Church and government in ancient Israel were one and the same.

God certainly gave the Israelites much, but he only asked 10% in return.

Perhaps God should have re-thought his rates?
Click to expand...
There are many points to make regarding your post and it’s illogical nature but I guess the first would be. . . Do the national economic system of a secular representative democracy operate along Judeo-Christian principles?- not that I agree with you interpretation of scripture here.
 
ringil said:
“blood, sweat, and tears”, “seizing”.

Nice to know that some of us aren’t to fiercely defensive of our money. You know my wife and I don’t mind our money going to help people.
Click to expand...
We don’t mind giving our money to help other people. In fact, conservatives in general give more then liberals.
Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
Click to expand...
(source: Arthur Brooks, professor at Syracuse)

If you look at our candidates this year, Romney contributed to charity at a rate of 1.3 times as much as Obama (as percentage of income) just about equal to the national difference (30%) found by Professor Brooks.

If conservatives give more, is it fair to say that our aversion to certain tax funded programs is because we don’t want to give? Or is it more likely that there is a mistrust in the government’s ability to administer charitable programs efficiently and effectively vs. private charities?
 
ringil said:
THere are many points to make regarding your post and it’s illogical nature but I guess the first would be. . . Do the national economic system of a secular representative democracy operate along Judeo-Christian principles?- not that I agree with you interpretation of scripture here.
Click to expand...
What is so “illogical” about it? I’m not aligning this argument down “secular representative republic vs. theocratic monarchies”, but rather as one of benefits.

God provides benefits, and asks for 10%. Government provides benefits, and asks for 37.9%, which still begs the question, how much do you feel is appropriate for those who “benefit from the Capitalist system” to “pay back into that system”?
 
ringil said:
Many people “build that”. No man is an island.
Click to expand...
And no (or at least very few on the fringe) advocate doing away completely with state-run infrastructure, education, regulations or safety nets.

The GOP wants leaner, more competitive agencies to work in conjunction with private sector.
 
Corki said:
We don’t mind giving our money to help other people. In fact, conservatives in general give more then liberals.

(source: Arthur Brooks, professor at Syracuse)

If you look at our candidates this year, Romney contributed to charity at a rate of 1.3 times as much as Obama (as percentage of income) just about equal to the national difference (30%) found by Professor Brooks.

If conservatives give more, is it fair to say that our aversion to certain tax funded programs is because we don’t want to give? Or is it more likely that there is a mistrust in the government’s ability to administer charitable programs efficiently and effectively vs. private charities?
Click to expand...
It’s because we’re heartless social darwinists, and racist to boot.
 
Dawnia said:
NNNNOOOOOOOO! :yawn:
Click to expand...
Vice president will not get a prime time speech but Sandra Fluke did

Maybe Eva Longoria will be prime time. Would be interesting to hear her views on Iran and Middle East stability
 
scipio337 said:
Do you blame them?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I do. I know it’s a gamble, but it’s not a lose-lose situation. IMO betting against your own man is a guaranteed “lose”, versus the chance (albeit, granted, a significant one) of another gaffe.

Edit: Even then, if you’re going to nominate him, then I think the *right thing *to do is stand by your man.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Vice president will not get a prime time speech but Sandra Fluke did

Maybe Eva Longoria will be prime time. Would be interesting to hear her views on Iran and Middle East stability
Click to expand...
Why don’t they let the VEEP have the President’s time? I can encapsulate the Presiden’t speech without hearing it. Here goes: I did, I am, I will, I have, I know, I want, I am sure, I need, my children, your children, my wife, my mother, my father, my cousin, my aunt, my house, my book, my car, I accept, . There you have it.

The VEEP would be a little more fun: Who am I anyway? Where am I? Why am I? I built that.
 
oldcelt said:
Quoting Fox News? Yes, I watched it on Fox

I don’t know what convention your friends were attending, but the atmosphere looked anything but dismal.

I think President Clinton made a pretty strong argument that there is a great deal more to work with. That many here disagree is hardly surprising.

John
Click to expand...
I agree that the atmosphere at the DNC was far from dismal; on the contrary, it may better be described as manic. Anyone who watched it on television and thought it depressed must be a truly hard-core republican partisan whose cognitive perception was profoundly affected by their political attitudes. At the same time, I found the RNC extremely enthusiastic as well. In my experience, that’s the way conventions generally are. This perception SHOULD have nothing to do with one’s politics, but apparently for some it does. I find that interesting from the psychological perspective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top