Republican Candidates

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I don't fear or hate any man or woman. That said, I'm not about to let anyone redefine a sacred ceremony to conform to their lifestyles.
As for the rest of your post; You asked what Atheists were taking away and I listed examples. I too can practice Christmas on my own and practice my religion in private. The point is, Constitutionally I shouldn't have too.
As for the freedom of speech and religion; you're wrong. The Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Marriage, in my opinion, should be a social/religious institution. If you look at it from a religious side the government has no right to make any defination about what it is, it should be up to the religions who they choose to marry..
As a social issue there is no reason marriage should be limited in the way religious special interest groups are trying to limit it.
And I still do not see how not having Christmas as a federal holiday goes against the constitution

 

[kjr_trig]

Originally Posted by itom37
Churches can deny gays marriage all they want, but a law against it is craziness. I also think the state should not recognize any "marriage", rather only civil unions (which these days is already implied by marriage) which any two people of sound mind and legal age can enter into regardless of --- or preference. Those civil unions should be given identical rights.
That is an opinion...My opinion is that it is perfectly acceptable for the government to define marriage as a union between a man and woman...It is not a religious issue IMO...If they are going to gain financial benefit from marriage, this is a political issue.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Marriage, in my opinion, should be a social/religious institution. If you look at it from a religious side the government has no right to make any defination about what it is, it should be up to the religions who they choose to marry..
As a social issue there is no reason marriage should be limited in the way religious special interest groups are trying to limit it.
And I still do not see how not having Christmas as a federal holiday goes against the constitution
Religious special interests groups are not trying to limit marriage. Other special interest groups are trying to redefine marriage. There's a subtle but big difference there.
Atheists are not trying to take Christmas away as a Federal Holiday. They are trying to remove the meaning of the Federal Holiday and make it illegal to express that meaning.

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
No, the "trend" has been to loosen the definition of marriage to include forms that have previously not been recognized.
Our country, is of course, not supposed to have a seperation of church and state in the manner that you are trying to state. No matter how many times that drum is beat those words will never magically appear in our nation's founding documents. If that had been the case the founding fathers would not have opened their meetings in prayer, quoted scripture, mentioned the Creator and the nature of God, etc.
Interesting then that the founding fathers, who you seem to think intended ours to be a theocracy, or at least overridden by preference for christianity, did not mention church, god, or christ in the constitution. Religion is curiously absent. The first time we see mention of church is in the first amendment when separation of church and state is established.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Prayer and OPTIONAL Bible Classes are now prohibited in schools, for one.

You need to read today's Express-News Clown Boy. The Texas Legislature just passed a law stating any school that has 15 or more kids interested in a 'Bible as Literature' class, can have one created.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/edu...N.293418f.html

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by kjr_trig
That is an opinion...My opinion is that it is perfectly acceptable for the government to define marriage as a union between a man and woman...It is not a religious issue IMO...If they are going to gain financial benefit from marriage, this is a political issue.
On what non-religious grounds do you find that acceptable? If it's not a religious issue then then what basis is there to deny homosexuals the right to marry?

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by kjr_trig
I think the Republicans have a pretty good field of candidates this year. I like McCain the best, then Romney. I like Giuliani policy-wise, but I think he has too many character issues, and would not be the best choice to beat the democrats. At first I liked Huckabee a lot, but as he gains momentum, I seem to like him a little less (now that he is more under the microscope). I like McCain as I think he is a great leader, and frankly he is the only one on either side I fully trust that what he says is what he means, and he is not just saying what we want to hear. Also McCain will work with Dems to get things done, he is the most bipartisan candidate on either side.
I truely hope this country has the sence not to elect Hillary or Obama....I just cringe at the thought of any hard working American having to give 50% of their paycheck to the government which is what they are proposing for the upper class to pay for their "programs"

.
Why is it that Warren Buffet only pay 17% of his income and the middle class pays double that? The rich are taxed less. So are you saying that someone who makes less than $100,000 doesn't work hard? I think that there are many misconceptions about what my candidate of choice campaign is about

 

[clown boy]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I always thought prayer was something that was supposed to be done in private...
Uh... no...

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Religious special interests groups are not trying to limit marriage. Other special interest groups are trying to redefine marriage. There's a subtle but big difference there.
Atheists are not trying to take Christmas away as a Federal Holiday. They are trying to remove the meaning of the Federal Holiday and make it illegal to express that meaning.
Perhaps I am missing something. The only amendment to the constitution I have seen being pushed is one that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman... That seems to be someone trying to limit marriage.
Again, in my opinion marriage is a religious institution and personally I do not think there should be any government control or benefits to marriage..
However, in the end my point is that this just doesn't matter to me.
I could care less who gets married.. whether Christmas is a federal holiday or if I can have a bible class at a public school. Either way I am fine with it..
I cannot understand how these 'issues' are so important to anyone...

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Wrong, wrong and more wrong...
Obama won't get any Republican support. Seriously Ryan, you don't know what Conservatives believe in at all. Obama is a Socialist. His thinking is 180 degrees away from what Republicans believe in.
Obama's plan is socialized medicine with a bow on top. It still fails to address the fact that socialism at any level doesn't work (look at Medicare) And, of course, a "child" is anyone up to 25 years old....

Not like that is pandoring to any block of voters out there. It will NOT be more affordable, it will just be paid for by hard working Americans through outragious taxation.
For many college student yes you could possibably consider 25 years. I think there should be a stipulation that says college student though. But if we can spend a trillion dollars in Iraq, than we can afford better healthcare. And if you follow the polls and media reports... Obama is getting republican and independent support... at least from Iowa and N.H. The coverage for young adults also will be through their parents plan. This is like many employer plans that we currently have--- there is nothing unusual here.
If everyone were insured... healthcare would be less because hospitals would no longer have to cover the costs of those who have no insurance.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Uh... no...
Well off the top of my head, check out Matthew 6:6... Maybe that is where I got my crazy idea.

 

[stdreb27]

i give up.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
i give up.

Don't do that. I apologize since I think it is my fault that certain issues came up...
I am going to try to leave them as they are and just say in my opinion the best republican candidate will not focus on 'religious' or other special interest agendas..
I think that a lot of the 'issues' being addressed by the republican party don't really deserve the time and attention they are given...
Fixing problems with the system that are being exploited should be the number one concern of any presidental candidate in my opinion.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Religious special interests groups are not trying to limit marriage. Other special interest groups are trying to redefine marriage. There's a subtle but big difference there.
Atheists are not trying to take Christmas away as a Federal Holiday. They are trying to remove the meaning of the Federal Holiday and make it illegal to express that meaning.
Christmas is no longer a christian holiday in America for the most part anyway.
"Christ"mas is now happy holidays, X-mas. More people are worried about gifts, shopping, and santa claus and forget about the real meaning.

 

[rylan1]

Back to healthcare... here is Obama's plan.
Barack Obama's Plan
Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All
Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.
Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.

 

[kjr_trig]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Why is it that Warren Buffet only pay 17% of his income and the middle class pays double that? The rich are taxed less. So are you saying that someone who makes less than $100,000 doesn't work hard? I think that there are many misconceptions about what my candidate of choice campaign is about
Of course they work hard, I never said contrary....They pay less % than someone whom makes $200,000 a year...Not sure where you got the Warren Buffet info, and I can't remember exactly where all the cut-offs are, but families over $200,000 pay 40% in taxes...I am not sure how the tax cuts work for the "super-rich" like Buffet.....My understanding (correct me if I am wrong), is Obama wants to take 50% of any family over $100,000 a year....Again, I don't think anyone should have to give 50% of their hard earned money to the government.

 

[natemd]

Originally Posted by kjr_trig
Of course they work hard, I never said contrary....They pay less % than someone whom makes $200,000 a year...Not sure where you got the Warren Buffet info, and I can't remember exactly where all the cut-offs are, but families over $200,000 pay 40% in taxes...I am not sure how the tax cuts work for the "super-rich" like Buffet.....My understanding (correct me if I am wrong), is Obama wants to take 50% of any family over $100,000 a year....Again, I don't think anyone should have to give 50% of their hard earned money to the government.
Most of the super rich get around paying a large portion of their taxes through charitable donations. These allow them to deduct from their income to achieve lower tax rates. Also certain investments like municipal bonds are not taxable. Then again I personally have no problem with a man like Warren Buffet only paying that much tax(if he is indeed only paying that) because he is giving almost his entire fortune to the Bill and melinda Gates Foundation. Sadly I have more faith in these three individuals to make the most of that money for people and causes that need it then the army of politicians that make up our gov't.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by kjr_trig
Of course they work hard, I never said contrary....They pay less % than someone whom makes $200,000 a year...Not sure where you got the Warren Buffet info, and I can't remember exactly where all the cut-offs are, but families over $200,000 pay 40% in taxes...I am not sure how the tax cuts work for the "super-rich" like Buffet.....My understanding (correct me if I am wrong), is Obama wants to take 50% of any family over $100,000 a year....Again, I don't think anyone should have to give 50% of their hard earned money to the government.
Buffet said himself that 17% of his income is taxable.

 

[rylan1]

The Problem
Increasing Debt: Under President Bush, the federal debt has increased from $5.7 trillion to $8.8 trillion, an increase of more than 50 percent.
Irresponsible Tax Cuts: President Bush's policies of giving tax breaks for the wealthy will cost the nation over $2.3 trillion by the time they expire in 2009.
Barack Obama's Plan
Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington
Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.
Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.
Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government's high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.
End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.
Make the Tax System More Fair and Efficient
End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.
Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by natemd
Most of the super rich get around paying a large portion of their taxes through charitable donations. These allow them to deduct from their income to achieve lower tax rates. Also certain investments like municipal bonds are not taxable. Then again I personally have no problem with a man like Warren Buffet only paying that much tax(if he is indeed only paying that) because he is giving almost his entire fortune to the Bill and melinda Gates Foundation. Sadly I have more faith in these three individuals to make the most of that money for people and causes that need it then the army of politicians that make up our gov't.
Warren Buffet is not a normal rich guy. It still doesn't change the fact the tax code is off. The you could argue (I'm not) that most of the money the Gates Foundation donates is oversees.

Here are some quotes:
When President Bush passed the first tax cut when he first came into office, Warren Buffett received $375 million in a tax break. He said at the time, why are you giving me $375 million. His tax break for that one year was more than this entire roomful of people makes in their lifetime combined.
Here is the other:
Warren Buffet complained that he paid a 17.7% tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006, while his employees paid an average 32.9% tax rate (his receptionist's tax rate was 30%).