Jeremy Claeys

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

It was pretty balanced when I first started looking at it out of boredom maybe a month ago. Which way did it lean before?

more right than a nazi convention. I WANT BALANCE HERE, PEOPLE! WORLD FORUM!

Lefties don't stick around very long. You can only use the race card so many times.

"Hey guys, the largest tax increase in history is taking effect in January 2011"
Lefty response: "RACIST!, I'm outta here, loser retards."

Very funny, but those in the 10% tax bracket (not rich) are getting a 50% increase, and the marriage penalty is coming back, and a 50% decrease in the EIC per child. Do you see who will be most affected by the tax increase? Not the rich.

[skycat]

Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

It was pretty balanced when I first started looking at it out of boredom maybe a month ago. Which way did it lean before?

more right than a nazi convention. I WANT BALANCE HERE, PEOPLE! WORLD FORUM!

Lefties don't stick around very long. You can only use the race card so many times.

"Hey guys, the largest tax increase in history is taking effect in January 2011"
Lefty response: "RACIST!, I'm outta here, loser retards."

Very funny, but those in the 10% tax bracket (not rich) are getting a 50% increase, and the marriage penalty is coming back, and a 50% decrease in the EIC per child. Do you see who will be most affected by the tax increase? Not the rich.

The Bush tax cuts added $2 trillion to the national debt, so it's a good thing they were scheduled to expire. However, we don't know whether they will all be allowed to. It's said that Obama wants to extend the cuts for most people, but let the cuts for those making over $200,000/yr expire. I agree with that.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

It was pretty balanced when I first started looking at it out of boredom maybe a month ago. Which way did it lean before?

more right than a nazi convention. I WANT BALANCE HERE, PEOPLE! WORLD FORUM!

Lefties don't stick around very long. You can only use the race card so many times.

"Hey guys, the largest tax increase in history is taking effect in January 2011"
Lefty response: "RACIST!, I'm outta here, loser retards."

Very funny, but those in the 10% tax bracket (not rich) are getting a 50% increase, and the marriage penalty is coming back, and a 50% decrease in the EIC per child. Do you see who will be most affected by the tax increase? Not the rich.

The Bush tax cuts added $2 trillion to the national debt, so it's a good thing they were scheduled to expire. However, we don't know whether they will all be allowed to. It's said that Obama wants to extend the cuts for most people, but let the cuts for those making over $200,000/yr expire. I agree with that.

Any tax increase will be a job killer. The sooner BO puts the speculation to rest, the better.

[Jeffy]

Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

It was pretty balanced when I first started looking at it out of boredom maybe a month ago. Which way did it lean before?

more right than a nazi convention. I WANT BALANCE HERE, PEOPLE! WORLD FORUM!

Lefties don't stick around very long. You can only use the race card so many times.

"Hey guys, the largest tax increase in history is taking effect in January 2011"
Lefty response: "RACIST!, I'm outta here, loser retards."

Very funny, but those in the 10% tax bracket (not rich) are getting a 50% increase, and the marriage penalty is coming back, and a 50% decrease in the EIC per child. Do you see who will be most affected by the tax increase? Not the rich.

The Bush tax cuts added $2 trillion to the national debt, so it's a good thing they were scheduled to expire. However, we don't know whether they will all be allowed to. It's said that Obama wants to extend the cuts for most people, but let the cuts for those making over $200,000/yr expire. I agree with that.

Cool.... It's my turn to blame Bush.  And Congress.

Cut spending. 

And it's all speculation that Obama "wants to extend" the cuts for the poor.  It's more likely nothing will be done and they will expire completely.

[skycat]

Any tax increase will be a job killer.

Not if the money is used to create jobs.

As the CBO notes, most Bush tax cut dollars go to higher-income households, and these top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners. In fact, of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck. (The CBO did not examine the high-income tax cuts separately, but the logic it used suggests that extending those cuts alone would have even less value.) The government could more effectively stimulate the economy by letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits and tax credits favoring job creation. Dollar for dollar, each of these measures would have about three times the impact on GDP as continuing the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0802_tax_myths_gale.aspx

[Jeffy]

FairTax

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Any tax increase will be a job killer.

Not if the money is used to create jobs.

.... tax credits favoring job creation. ....

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0802_tax_myths_gale.aspx

All of the stimulus money should have gone to this.

[tdaver]

FairTax

[yoga-like_abana]

Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

It was pretty balanced when I first started looking at it out of boredom maybe a month ago. Which way did it lean before?

more right than a nazi convention. I WANT BALANCE HERE, PEOPLE! WORLD FORUM!

Lefties don't stick around very long. You can only use the race card so many times.

"Hey guys, the largest tax increase in history is taking effect in January 2011"
Lefty response: "RACIST!, I'm outta here, loser retards."

Very funny, but those in the 10% tax bracket (not rich) are getting a 50% increase, and the marriage penalty is coming back, and a 50% decrease in the EIC per child. Do you see who will be most affected by the tax increase? Not the rich.

The Bush tax cuts added $2 trillion to the national debt

Who honestly cares about the national debt? 

[MakeItRain]

After reading this thread all the way through, a couple of observations:

1.  Some hilarious posts, I  'd a couple of times.

2.  I find it odd, that some of the liberals on this board think ALL homeless, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), insane and old poor people vote democrat.  Doesn't seem like a credible list of people to share political views with. 

I know, some funny stuff, right?   

And it's so weird that people assume the most vulnerable people in society would vote for the party that created and supports a social safety net, as opposed to the party that wants to get rid of it in order to cut business taxes.  I can't get my head around that one either.   

Wasn't going to post in this thread again until I read this bullshit.  No one mentioned political parties until sugardick did, so take this strawman and shove it straight up your gash.  I don't give a eff if people vote for cunts like Sarah Palin, I just don't want people to lose the right to vote.  Don't you rough ridin' dare make this out to be a Democrat save-a-ho issue.  No one would even discuss this issue if hard core righties didn't make it an issue.  When the eff did you last hear a liberal bring this crap up?

Finally to JTx2.  You two worms are the issue with this society.  I don't know whether to be sad for you or want to beat your asses.  The lazy/dumb talking point should have been ditched in 10th grade.  Some crap I'd expect to see in a rural high school newspaper's editorial page.  There are real people with real mumped up problems in this country that can't be explained away by stupidity or laziness, I see the crap every day.  If I weren't being sincere I'd say that "I hope you don't have something bad happen to you or your offspring so you don't have to experience how mumped life can be."  If I am one thing it's sincere so actually I hope your lives and those you care for become rough ridin' runaway trainwrecks.  See the only way immature closed minded fucks like you get it is if some foul crap happens to you.  You're too comfortable in your current state to phathom there is an alternative.  So when you have a kid who turns out to be a gay co-dependent manic depressive strung out on heroine remember my words.  I rough ridin' told you so.  I don't mind if you don't see the political argument the way I do, that's fine.  However, your ivory tower view on the lives of others is going to really eff your world up one day.  Have fun with it.

[jtksu]

Gay,manic-depressive heroin addict?  You really those people can make an informed decision come voting day?   Or do people just round them up and cast votes for them?

[MakeItRain]

Gay,manic-depressive heroin addict?  You really those people can make an informed decision come voting day?   Or do people just round them up and cast votes for them?

That had nothing to do with voting just me wishing I'll on your dumbass.  But really are you saying a gay person can't make an informed decision?  Are you saying someone with an illness can't make an informed decision?  Are you saying someone with an addiction can't make an informed decision?

Holy crap you aren't putting on, you are a dumb rough ridin' sheltered bumpkin.  I'd bet my house that you have voted for someone who is gay, who has a mental disorder, and who has an addiction.  It's pretty likely that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have all three.  Seriously, very rough ridin' seriously, get the eff off of this board and meet real life people, and meet people who aren't closed off like you, meet sincere people it will open your eyes.

The internet have given hicks even more reason to stay safe in their bubble, pretty rough ridin' degenerate behavior if you ask me.

[Poster formerly known as jthutch]

Gay,manic-depressive heroin addict?  You really those people can make an informed decision come voting day?   Or do people just round them up and cast votes for them?

That had nothing to do with voting just me wishing I'll on your dumbass.  But really are you saying a gay person can't make an informed decision?  Are you saying someone with an illness can't make an informed decision?  Are you saying someone with an addiction can't make an informed decision?

Holy crap you aren't putting on, you are a dumb fracking sheltered bumpkin.  I'd bet my house that you have voted for someone who is gay, who has a mental disorder, and who has an addiction.  It's pretty likely that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have all three.  Seriously, very fracking seriously, get the shazbot! off of this board and meet real life people, and meet people who aren't closed off like you, meet sincere people it will open your eyes.

The internet have given hicks even more reason to stay safe in their bubble, pretty fracking degenerate behavior if you ask me.

YOur ignorance is showing, to be honest I have a sister-in- law who is a heroin addict, I have 2 homosexuals in the family 1 who has a long term relationship of 20 years and has adopted a son.  But yes I don't think the heroin addict can make informed decisions.  I don't have a problem with homosexuals voting, I don't know that I agree with them all the time but I like them as people and enjoy there company at family reunions.   There are times I don't vote because I don't feel I have all the facts I need to make a proper decision.  I wish more people would take this approach and vote for who or what you do know.  Not because you saw a pretty sign in someones yard and voted on name recognition.
m

[OK_Cat]

my god, MIR is wiping his ass with you tards.   

[Poster formerly known as jthutch]

my god, MIR is wiping his ass with you tards.   

I really don't think he has made a valid point yet, other than there are people with difficulites in the USA.  What that has to do with me having a relative that has hard times or myself having hard times, I don't know. 
I guess his point is that people who have mental illness should be able to decide who leads us(don't disagree totally) and heroin addicts should be at the for front of the voting public  .  Really don't see where MIR is coming from to be honest. 

[Ghost of Stan Parrish]

That being said, as an extra precaution, I could accept requiring a voter to show their registration card that had been mailed to them OR a photo ID.  That work for you MIR?

MIR?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

my god, MIR is wiping his ass with you tards.   

I really don't think he has made a valid point yet, other than there are people with difficulties in the USA.  What that has to do with me having a relative that has hard times or myself having hard times, I don't know. 
I guess his point is that people who have mental illness should be able to decide who leads us(don't disagree totally) and heroin addicts should be at the for front of the voting public  .  Really don't see where MIR is coming from to be honest. 

I would have to agree. I still haven't heard a good reason why a person can't get a valid state issued ID. I do admire you for trying to help these poor souls, but I still believe keeping our elections honest is much more important than to allow a vote for those few that are so mentally ill they can't get an ID.

[ben ji]

Would probably be better for everyone if they just didnt vote

[Jeffy]

I'd love to switch to the purple-ink finger system that works flawlessly in Iraq.

[MakeItRain]

That being said, as an extra precaution, I could accept requiring a voter to show their registration card that had been mailed to them OR a photo ID.  That work for you MIR?

MIR?

I'd be open to listening to how showing the voter registration card would work.  I wouldn't even mind showing a state issued photo id if the way you got a state issued id was streamlined and cheaper.  Bureaucracy in this country has made these processes much harder than they need to be.  Voting has yet to be tainted by this and people want to screw with that, makes me dumbfounded.  BTW the reason that voting has not been touched by the bureaucracy in 234 years is that voting in a basic right.  One of the greatest travesties in his country is that the improsioned isn't allowed to vote.  We pay for cable television & dental care for prisoners, but we don't allow them to vote.  Pretty mumped up.

[MakeItRain]

Gay,manic-depressive heroin addict?  You really those people can make an informed decision come voting day?   Or do people just round them up and cast votes for them?

That had nothing to do with voting just me wishing I'll on your dumbass.  But really are you saying a gay person can't make an informed decision?  Are you saying someone with an illness can't make an informed decision?  Are you saying someone with an addiction can't make an informed decision?

Holy crap you aren't putting on, you are a dumb fracking sheltered bumpkin.  I'd bet my house that you have voted for someone who is gay, who has a mental disorder, and who has an addiction.  It's pretty likely that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have all three.  Seriously, very fracking seriously, get the shazbot! off of this board and meet real life people, and meet people who aren't closed off like you, meet sincere people it will open your eyes.

The internet have given hicks even more reason to stay safe in their bubble, pretty fracking degenerate behavior if you ask me.

YOur ignorance is showing, to be honest I have a sister-in- law who is a heroin addict, I have 2 homosexuals in the family 1 who has a long term relationship of 20 years and has adopted a son.  But yes I don't think the heroin addict can make informed decisions.  I don't have a problem with homosexuals voting, I don't know that I agree with them all the time but I like them as people and enjoy there company at family reunions.   There are times I don't vote because I don't feel I have all the facts I need to make a proper decision.  I wish more people would take this approach and vote for who or what you do know.  Not because you saw a pretty sign in someones yard and voted on name recognition.
m

I have a sister-in- law who is a heroin addict

You aren't saying that your sister should have a basic right removed just because she has an illness, are you?

But yes I don't think the heroin addict can make informed decisions.

Are you differentiating heroin addiction from other addictions, or are you saying anyone with a substance abuse problem can't make an informed decision?  Either way that's stupid.  There are people who have these addictions who hold office.  They are sharp enough to hold office, but the people who elect them can't be smart enough to vote?  Very dumb.  We just had a 2 term president who was an admitted alcoholic and had a coke problem.  Should everyone who voted for him have their voting rights stripped?  Should everyone who voted for him twice be castrated?

There are times I don't vote because I don't feel I have all the facts I need to make a proper decision.  I wish more people would take this approach and vote for who or what you do know.

This is such a subjective standard that it doesn't mean anything.  What exactly is an informed decision and who gets to make this judgement?  On a presidential ballot there are usually between 6-12 P & VP pairs.  If you only know the policies of 2-3 does that mean you aren't informed enough to vote?  If you are voting for a state senate race and you only know one candidate but what you do know of her you completely identify with, are you entitled to get to know another candidate or should you be satisfied with the choice you are going to make?  Or should you just have an understanding of basic civics?  If this is the case I can make the decision that you never should vote becasue you don't understand that this country was founded on voting being a right.  You can't profess to love the country and what the founding fathers did yet have disdain for their intent when laying the building blocks for the country.

[Poster formerly known as jthutch]

  If you only know the policies of 2-3 does that mean you aren't informed enough to vote?  If you are voting for a state senate race and you only know one candidate but what you do know of her you completely identify with, are you entitled to get to know another candidate or should you be satisfied with the choice you are going to make?  Or should you just have an understanding of basic civics?  If this is the case I can make the decision that you never should vote becasue you don't understand that this country was founded on voting being a right.  You can't profess to love the country and what the founding fathers did yet have disdain for their intent when laying the building blocks for the country.

I agree with you 100% on this.  But there are people out there that have no clue what the person they voted for really stands for they just saw the sign in the yard and say oh yeah I recognize that name I'll vote for him.  I know this because I talk to an guy last week that did that very thing.  But if you know there policies and what they are running on and like them vote for them.  I think that is an informed decision. 

As for the right to vote only land owners were origininaly allowed to vote so no it was not a right for every citizen.

[MakeItRain]

my god, MIR is wiping his ass with you tards.   

I really don't think he has made a valid point yet, other than there are people with difficulites in the USA.  What that has to do with me having a relative that has hard times or myself having hard times, I don't know. 
I guess his point is that people who have mental illness should be able to decide who leads us(don't disagree totally) and heroin addicts should be at the for front of the voting public  .  Really don't see where MIR is coming from to be honest. 

My point is simple.  Voting in this country is a right.  There shouldn't be some subjective standard to remove this right from ANY American Citizen.  Photo IDs, health tests, IQ, tests, mental capability tests are all unnecessary.  Crack open an 8th grade civics book, for the most part we are still doing it the way it was intended and it has worked for 234 years.  There is a sector of the population who wants to change what our founding fathers had in mind because their party lost a presidential election.  All of a sudden this strawman of rampant voter fraud has appeared because people can't wrap their hands around the fact that the American public elected a half black dude named Barack Obama President.  So there had to be hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and dead blacks voting.

The entire talking point is insulting.  It is hilarous that some pols are using this as a cornerstone of their platform.  "Hey vote for me this way and after I benefit from the system as it stands, I'll change it."

Whether you are conservative, moderate or liberal I am not sure how the basic point can't be argued.  Don't screw with basic rights because of some made up issue.

[MakeItRain]

  If you only know the policies of 2-3 does that mean you aren't informed enough to vote?  If you are voting for a state senate race and you only know one candidate but what you do know of her you completely identify with, are you entitled to get to know another candidate or should you be satisfied with the choice you are going to make?  Or should you just have an understanding of basic civics?  If this is the case I can make the decision that you never should vote becasue you don't understand that this country was founded on voting being a right.  You can't profess to love the country and what the founding fathers did yet have disdain for their intent when laying the building blocks for the country.

I agree with you 100% on this.  But there are people out there that have no clue what the person they voted for really stands for they just saw the sign in the yard and say oh yeah I recognize that name I'll vote for him.  I know this because I talk to an guy last week that did that very thing.  But if you know there policies and what they are running on and like them vote for them.  I think that is an informed decision. 

As for the right to vote only land owners were origininaly allowed to vote so no it was not a right for every citizen.

I knew someone would bring this up, glad you mentioned it.  Slaves weren't seen as humans, now we know better.  It is worse for us to acknowledge someone as a human but still will refuse to grant that person their basic rights.  Ignorance in its most basic form is much more excusable than elitism.

[Jeffy]

That being said, as an extra precaution, I could accept requiring a voter to show their registration card that had been mailed to them OR a photo ID.  That work for you MIR?

MIR?

I'd be open to listening to how showing the voter registration card would work.  I wouldn't even mind showing a state issued photo id if the way you got a state issued id was streamlined and cheaper.  Bureaucracy in this country has made these processes much harder than they need to be.  Voting has yet to be tainted by this and people want to screw with that, makes me dumbfounded.  BTW the reason that voting has not been touched by the bureaucracy in 234 years is that voting in a basic right.  One of the greatest travesties in his country is that the improsioned isn't allowed to vote.  We pay for cable television & dental care for prisoners, but we don't allow them to vote.  Pretty mumped up.

I'd love to get rid of several layers of bureaucracy.  Many libs don't seem to like that though.  Removing bureaucracy = reduced service.  BS

Many prisoners are working within the prison system as well.  Since they are only paid a pittance, these other things could easily be considered a job benefit, something the Prison Unions would approve of.  In essence, they are working for regular wages and having deductions taken out exceeding 80% to pay for these things.  I'm ok with newspapers or magazines as well, things that allow them to keep up with the outside world.  I'm not OK with internet, something that allows them to repeatedly contact the outside world, essentially minimizing the prison barriers.  I do not believe that prisoners should vote either.  If you are imprisoned, you have done something that has caused you to lose the rights of a free man.  Once they are out, give them voters probation.  Stay clean on the outside for 5 years beyond your sentence, then you can have your voting rights returned.