Republican Primaries

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scott_Lafrance
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Big_Ro said:
Don’t forget Texas. I would still have to dig ditches for a living and eat at the back door with the dogs.
Click to expand...
And you still think having all of these “reverse discrimination” laws in place is helping things? Ron Paul’s point is that they may have been needed AT THE TIME, but they cause more problems than they solve NOW. It is people’s attitudes that have solved the racial issues in the country, not the continuation of a law. That is the principle of subsidiarity, focused, forceful, and TEMPORARY. They solve an immediate problem and then the end so that society can fix the moral implications of the issue. The problem isn’t CRA64, its all the crud that has been built up around the framework put in place in the last 50 years. YOu honestly think that race relations have improved over 50 year because of a law? That is my (and their point), you cannot use laws to force people to be nice to each other, unless you want to live in some totalitarian fascist dreamland Utopia.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
And you still think having all of these “reverse discrimination” laws in place is helping things? Ron Paul’s point is that they may have been needed AT THE TIME, but they cause more problems than they solve NOW. It is people’s attitudes that have solved the racial issues in the country, not the continuation of a law. That is the principle of subsidiarity, focused, forceful, and TEMPORARY. They solve an immediate problem and then the end so that society can fix the moral implications of the issue. The problem isn’t CRA64, its all the crud that has been built up around the framework put in place in the last 50 years. YOu honestly think that race relations have improved over 50 year because of a law? That is my (and their point), you cannot use laws to force people to be nice to each other, unless you want to live in some totalitarian fascist dreamland Utopia.
Click to expand...
I don’t think laws have been completely responsible for the change of attitude that has taken place regarding race relations in America during the last 50 years, but I do think laws have had a share in helping to bring about those changes in attitude. Laws which require nondiscriminatory behavior in the workplace, for example, have made it possible for people of different racial backgrounds to mingle with one another, work together and learn more about each other. This aids in bringing about attitude change by breaking down stereotypes and allowing us to recognize the common elements that people of different races share in our society. Did the law do this? No, but the law did make it possible for a space to open where these attitudes could change.
Having said all this, I don’t believe that laws regarding race or reverse discrimination should never be changed, but neither do I believe they necessarily have to be changed now. I believe these laws, like all laws, should be reviewed and judged according to whether they meet the needs of society at present. So yes, in a sense, all laws are temporary. They are in effect as long as they meet the needs of society. Laws cannot force people to be nice to one another, but that is not the intent of the laws against discrimination anyway. The intent is to insure opportunity for all regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, and so on. As long as equal opportunity is offered to all, the law is not necessary, except as incentive not to discriminate.
 
Tsuwano:
Are you serious?
Let me tell you where I am coming from. For nearly 10 years now, I have had to deal with constant death threats, mostly by burning alive. I asked my employer to alleviate this. They replied that they were under no such obligation, to secure my safety at the work place. If I have a problem with that; I should seek other employment, for my WOG behind. I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT. There are means, but I doubt that would help the general taxpayers.
Am I getting through? Just how meaningless the law is, for what we want it to accomplish? What we don’t want it t accomplish; it works wonders for: fraudulent voter registration. Well, who is against that?
The whole civil rights movement can be seen, in retrospect, as a legislative agenda to facilitate fraudulent registrations. And the “vote by mail” movement as it’s complement. I am not kidding, that largest voting block in this country is the fraudulent vote.

What brought the races together in this country was: music. Music. Just that. Without the music, we’d still be killing each other, as a recreational sport.
 
Red_Wolf said:
Tsuwano:
Are you serious?
Let me tell you where I am coming from. For nearly 10 years now, I have had to deal with constant death threats, mostly by burning alive. I asked my employer to alleviate this. They replied that they were under no such obligation, to secure my safety at the work place. If I have a problem with that; I should seek other employment, for my WOG behind. I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT. There are means, but I doubt that would help the general taxpayers.
Am I getting through? Just how meaningless the law is, for what we want it to accomplish? What we don’t want it t accomplish; it works wonders for: fraudulent voter registration. Well, who is against that?
The whole civil rights movement can be seen, in retrospect, as a legislative agenda to facilitate fraudulent registrations. And the “vote by mail” movement as it’s complement. I am not kidding, that largest voting block in this country is the fraudulent vote.

What brought the races together in this country was: music. Music. Just that. Without the music, we’d still be killing each other, as a recreational sport.
Click to expand...
Yes, as a matter of fact, I am serious, and no, you’re not getting through. In spite of whatever problems you have in your workplace, I don’t believe the law is meaningless. I also don’t believe the agenda of the civil rights movement was to facilitate fraudulent registrations or that the largest voting block in America is the fraudulent vote. I do agree that music serves to bring people from different backgrounds together, but I disagree that without music killing would be a recreational sport.
 
Red_Wolf said:
Tsuwano:
Are you serious?
Let me tell you where I am coming from. For nearly 10 years now, I have had to deal with constant death threats, mostly by burning alive. I asked my employer to alleviate this. They replied that they were under no such obligation, to secure my safety at the work place. If I have a problem with that; I should seek other employment, for my WOG behind. I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT. There are means, but I doubt that would help the general taxpayers.
Am I getting through? Just how meaningless the law is, for what we want it to accomplish? What we don’t want it t accomplish; it works wonders for: fraudulent voter registration. Well, who is against that?
The whole civil rights movement can be seen, in retrospect, as a legislative agenda to facilitate fraudulent registrations. And the “vote by mail” movement as it’s complement. I am not kidding, that largest voting block in this country is the fraudulent vote.

What brought the races together in this country was: music. Music. Just that. Without the music, we’d still be killing each other, as a recreational sport.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Laws solve all of life’s problems. :rolleyes:
 
Stjudeprayforus said:
Texas has a balanced budget amendment… dont they? So that means… they have to cut spending if revenue falls.
Which… find me a state where revenue has not fallen.
Click to expand...
You can spin it any way you like. Your response just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me beyond you wanting to pick a fight. You made a statement that Texas has a surplus. The facts clearly make that false. I merely pointed it out. Facts are indeed stubborn things.
 
ishii said:
That’s not quite how I remember it. Ford was actually gaining on Carter up toward the end and lost momentum after the debate in which he claimed that eastern Europe wasn’t under the control of the Soviet Union (which it was) and the resulting coverage of the gaffe probably sealed his defeat. But Carter saw a 33 point lead over Ford in the summer reduced to single digits by the fall. And the election was quite close. Ford surged toward the end but it was too little too late. But it wasn’t a forgone conclusion by any means that Carter would win once he got the nomination.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Well, have any way you like. I was about 13 years old at the time. I was highly aware of the election and do indeed remember, albeit vaguely, the Soviet gaffe you mentioned. Since then, I have acquired a deep and, IMO, thorough historical understanding of of that election. I and most historians agree that that the pardoning of Nixon had a far greater impact on Ford’s perceived integrity in the mind of voters than the soviet gaffe. It was widely perceived that Ford had struck a deal with Nixon in order to gain the Presidency. I’m not saying that the conclusion has been in any way proven, but the perception then and now is that there was some sort of quid pro quo. My recollection of the times and certainly my historical knowledge is that then and now, it was seen as highly unlikely that a Republican could have won that election. With all due respect, your telling seems too enmeshed with your obvious loyalty to the Republican Party. You can deny it and I’ll take you at your word out of a sense of charity, but I have a right to my opinions, as do you. That leads generated in summer evaporate by winter in Presidential elections is hardly unique to that election or to any other. I don’t think it adds anything to analysis of the '76 election.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
And you still think having all of these “reverse discrimination” laws in place is helping things? Ron Paul’s point is that they may have been needed AT THE TIME, but they cause more problems than they solve NOW. It is people’s attitudes that have solved the racial issues in the country, not the continuation of a law. That is the principle of subsidiarity, focused, forceful, and TEMPORARY. They solve an immediate problem and then the end so that society can fix the moral implications of the issue. The problem isn’t CRA64, its all the crud that has been built up around the framework put in place in the last 50 years. YOu honestly think that race relations have improved over 50 year because of a law? That is my (and their point), you cannot use laws to force people to be nice to each other, unless you want to live in some totalitarian fascist dreamland Utopia.
Click to expand...
I think it’s a canard to suggest that because the '64 CRA failed to make people be nice to each other it should be done away with. I’ve been on the receiving end of plenty of racial ugliness some of it overt and some covert, I’m sure. People can be as ugly as they want, but I’m thankful that there are laws that prevent the far more harmful effects of prejudice that deny me and mine a more level playing field when it comes to jobs and so forth. And, your tortured logic in respect to the effects of the '64 CRA is refuted utterly by the very real facts of what life is like for we, so called, minorities now compared to 50 years ago. Hispanics did not have the Right to vote in Texas the year I was born. My own father, God rest his soul, was denied service in a diner in El Paso, literally, while in the uniform of the US Armed forces because he was brown skinned. He was forced to sleep outside in hurricane force winds because the sheriff of some small Louisiana town refused to have a bunch of “Mexicans” sleep inside their white school gym. (And, btw, he didn’t tell me either of these stories until a year or two before his death. I asked him why and he said he didn’t want us to grow up hating our country. God I miss him.) Never mind that my fathers family has been here since before this part of the country was inside the USA. Despite this, he taught us that we are Americans without prefix, suffix or apology. I had always had a pretty sympathetic view of libertarianism, but, thanks to you, I wouldn’t now touch it with a ten foot pole if this is what they believe. Ron Paul would tolerate racial discrimination and I find that intolerable.
 
Big_Ro said:
I think it’s a canard to suggest that because the '64 CRA failed to make people be nice to each other it should be done away with. I’ve been on the receiving end of plenty of racial ugliness some of it overt and some covert, I’m sure. People can be as ugly as they want, but I’m thankful that there are laws that prevent the far more harmful effects of prejudice that deny me and mine a more level playing field when it comes to jobs and so forth. And, your tortured logic in respect to the effects of the '64 CRA is refuted utterly by the very real facts of what life is like for we, so called, minorities now compared to 50 years ago. Hispanics did not have the Right to vote in Texas the year I was born. My own father, God rest his soul, was denied service in a diner in El Paso, literally, while in the uniform of the US Armed forces because he was brown skinned. He was forced to sleep outside in hurricane force winds because the sheriff of some small Louisiana town refused to have a bunch of “Mexicans” sleep inside their white school gym. (And, btw, he didn’t tell me either of these stories until a year or two before his death. I asked him why and he said he didn’t want us to grow up hating our country. God I miss him.) Never mind that my fathers family has been here since before this part of the country was inside the USA. Despite this, he taught us that we are Americans without prefix, suffix or apology. I had always had a pretty sympathetic view of libertarianism, but, thanks to you, I wouldn’t now touch it with a ten foot pole if this is what they believe. Ron Paul would tolerate racial discrimination and I find that intolerable.
Click to expand...
So, you want the government to force people to be nice to each other? How totalitarian of you. Are there any other liberties you’d like to deprive me of while we’re at it? How effective has the law been at preventing murders? Robberies? Vandalism? Arson?
 
Big_Ro said:
You can spin it any way you like. Your response just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me beyond you wanting to pick a fight. You made a statement that Texas has a surplus. The facts clearly make that false. I merely pointed it out. Facts are indeed stubborn things.
Click to expand...
I think we have a semantics problem here. . Texas has a $9.4 billion rainy day fund. . One could very well described that as a “surplus” . I believe they actually took some of this to help balance their current year’s budget.

The Texas Legislature adjourned last night after passing a balanced budget with no tax increases. . Now one may disagree with the cuts they made but the fact is, the budget is balanced and the bulk of of the rainy day fund is intact.

The good news from the adjournment is the ill-conceived sanctuary city ban did not pass.
 
Big_Ro said:
You can spin it any way you like. Your response just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me beyond you wanting to pick a fight. You made a statement that Texas has a surplus. The facts clearly make that false. I merely pointed it out. Facts are indeed stubborn things.
Click to expand...
Not a spin. Texas MUST balance its budget by law.

star-telegram.com/2011/04/01/2965848/texas-house-oks-rainy-day-fund.html

Looks to me like they are balancing the books…
And will end up with 6 BILLION + in surplus or ‘rainy day fund’ which your Gov likes to call it.

My Gov calls our surplus… a ‘savings account’.

Every single state has seen a drop in tax revenue because of the recession… the difference being, in Texas, Indiana and a few others… they must balance the books.
In Illinois, California and other well known mis managed states, they raise taxes, borrow and run off businesses to TEXAS…
 
Stjudeprayforus said:
Not a spin. Texas MUST balance its budget by law.

star-telegram.com/2011/04/01/2965848/texas-house-oks-rainy-day-fund.html

Looks to me like they are balancing the books…
And will end up with 6 BILLION + in surplus or ‘rainy day fund’ which your Gov likes to call it.

My Gov calls our surplus… a ‘savings account’.

Every single state has seen a drop in tax revenue because of the recession… the difference being, in Texas, Indiana and a few others… they must balance the books.
In Illinois, California and other well known mis managed states, they raise taxes, borrow and run off businesses to TEXAS…
Click to expand...
Makes sense to me. How come so many of our forumites don’t get it?
 
estesbob said:
I think we have a semantics problem here. . Texas has a $9.4 billion rainy day fund. . One could very well described that as a “surplus” . I believe they actually took some of this to help balance their current year’s budget.

The Texas Legislature adjourned last night after passing a balanced budget with no tax increases. . Now one may disagree with the cuts they made but the fact is, the budget is balanced and the bulk of of the rainy day fund is intact.

The good news from the adjournment is the ill-conceived sanctuary city ban did not pass.
Click to expand...
I think that’s fair. I guess I ahdn’t really considered it a surplus since the budget gap was far larger than the fund. How much does it have to rain to make it’s use legitimate? Just asking.
 
Big_Ro said:
I think that’s fair. I guess I ahdn’t really considered it a surplus since the budget gap was far larger than the fund. How much does it have to rain to make it’s use legitimate? Just asking.
Click to expand...
. I don’t think there is a set formula as to when one can use a rainy day fund. Originally Gov. Perry didn’t want them to touch it at all, but I think that was just a negotiating ploy. . The concern is that they let it go too low it hurts the state’s bond rating which cost them in higher interest rates.

. I personally think they should dip into the rainy day fund to get the Houston Astros pitching help…
 
Bachmann is waaayyyy ahead in the poll on this thread … except for Ron Paul, who is not really in the running.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Bachmann is waaayyyy ahead in the poll on this thread … except for Ron Paul, who is not really in the running.
Click to expand...
Well of course not. The guy who is not “really” in the running is up on Bachmann by 40%. I find it ironic that Paul is up so much on everyone else in a Catholic forum, where apparently his ideas are totally nutty and destructive to the very fabric of the universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top