U.S. Politics - Let them who is without stones cast the first cake agaisnt the glass house

[Shryke]

House Republicans have passed a repeal of the estate tax. It now moves to the Senate. Passage is unlikely, particularly since the President has threatened a veto.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-house-passes-estate-tax-repeal-despite-veto-165802083--business.html

But then Obamam is just punishing all those self-made estate-made men!

[Jaxom 1974]

I am inclined to actually given Paul the credit for drafting those bills. Whether it's kabuki or not, he did it, which is more than what most other tea-party-riding politicians managed to do. So I think it's fair to be charitable and credit him where it's due.

Based on what I remember about a plagiarism scandal involving Rand, are you really sure he drafted those bills?

[Ramsay Gimp]

They mean nothing, because it is pure political theater.

THE BILLS, THEY MEAN NOTHING.

What's wrong with political theatre? It can be a great way of raising an issue in the public eye

Realistically, especially with this congress and this president, did ANY of those ever have a realistic shot at becoming enacted? Or were they more symbolism of the sort that led even relatively sane republicans to vote thirty-some times to repeal the ACA - KNOWING that wasn't going to happen?

Actually, yes, several of them had widespread bipartisan support. Paul actually reached out to Obama/Holder, IIRC

I am inclined to actually given Paul the credit for drafting those bills. Whether it's kabuki or not, he did it, which is more than what most other tea-party-riding politicians managed to do. So I think it's fair to be charitable and credit him where it's due.

I am also inclined to simply concede that Paul is probably the most libertarian politician in the current Senate. I honestly don't know of any other who has a better credential than he does. But I also agree that his rhetorics are inconsistent with his voting actions and even his rhetorics are sometimes inconsistent with his other rhetorics. While that's not a problem unique to Paul, and indeed, many politicians suffer similar problems, I think it's still fair to point out that Paul may just be uttering the right words without really the intention to implement or put into effect these things that he talks about. It is hard to judge because the caucusing issue here is that Paul can't get anything done, ever, if he doesn't play ball with the GOP on some issues. So much of politics is horse-trading votes on your pet issues against the votes for other people's pet issues. So a view of the voting record outside of the proper context is not the best assessment, imo.

I think a better assessment of a politician's true belief is to examine where s/he spends her true political capital. It's okay if Paul voted against his stated ideals on issues A, B, and C, as long as, in doing so, he manages to push through D and E, which ARE consistent with a Libertarian philosophy. I am not aware that he has managed that much, but I could simply be uneducated on the legislative triumphs of Paul. Maybe, once I learn more about it, I will see that it is more impressive than his credential as an ophthamologist and his undergraduate degrees in English and Biology!

:agree: Well said, Terra.

[The Fallen]

I just wanna know what the America Stannatic grew up in looked like.

[all swedes are racist]

I just wanna know what the America Stannatic grew up in looked like.

Something like this?

[Stannatic]

Something like this?

Oh yeah. I'm totally an agent of the woman hating, you better be barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen, better seen-than-heard world-wide patriarchy. *Eyeroll*

I never *Ever* claimed to be a social conservative, by the by.

[Takyon]

House Republicans have passed a repeal of the estate tax. It now moves to the Senate. Passage is unlikely, particularly since the President has threatened a veto.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-house-passes-estate-tax-repeal-despite-veto-165802083--business.html

Wouldn't it be wiser to pass a corporate tax break? Large companies are taxed higher in the US than compared to most first-world countries and the president himself has actually hinted that he wanted the US rates to decrease.

But I guess that there are some tax cuts that can't buy votes as easily as others.

[Stannatic]

I think it would do me some good to clarify all of my political and social leanings so you can at least better understand me.

1)I'll start with the most recent sleight. I am totally for equal rights for men and women. The reason you might see me criticize the modern feminist movement is because I believe in alot of ways it has become a parody of its former self. It is my belief that if you are a woman and you are born in the US, the UK, or any western nation for that matter, you are already one of the luckiest women alive. If your genitals weren't mutilated at birth, if you weren't forced into an arranged marriage, if you can leave the house without basically wearing a halloween costume and without a male escort, then you don't really have a right to rage against "Patriarchy" and you insult the billions of women who do live with these things. I believe men and women should be given equal opportunity in every field, including the military. And both genders should be held to the same standard.

2)With regards to foreign policy I suppose you can call me an isolationist. I think that America has reached a technological point where it can roll up the draw bridge and be just fine. Too many people have died in the last seven or so decades because we think we have the right to play world police. Too many lives have been ruined and money spent on retarded nation building projects like Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe outside of Europe, we have some of the shittiest choices in allies in history. Saudi Arabia is the biggest contributor to radical Islam today. Pakistan, whom Bin Laden was hiding effectively in plain sight in. I think Israel is to the US what North Korea is to China, complete with its own illegal nuclear weapons.

3)I'm all for decriminalizing pretty much every drug you can think of. I think the War on Drugs is one of the greatest lies the Feds have ever sold us on. For all the billions and billions we spent on it, somehow the Sinonla cartel somehow ended up as the most powerful criminal organization on Earth, and despite the fact that drug use has remained fairly static over the last two or so decades, we keep on spending. I've never smoked so much as a cigarette, but what someone else does with their body is not my business. Want to stop someone from ruining their life with such things? I think being a better friend, family member, spouse etc would help far better than what we've been doing.

4)With regards to Religion, I my self would like to call my self a Christian. I have never gone to church though, and half of my family is atheist. I have never in my personal life tried to force my views on anyone else in the matter, even though I was compared to a mentally challenged person for believing in God. I believe the Catholic church is in need of major reformation, and I think that the idea that Radical Islam is some fringe minority is something of a myth considering there are hundreds of millions of people that support Sharia law.

5)I am pro Gay-marriage. I have only ever seen one such ballot initiative in my state and I voted in the affirmative. I think it's silly that social conservatives claim it's wrong based on marriages cultural roots, considering some form of marriage existed long before any Abrahamic religion did.

6)With regards to abortion it is my personal belief that it is wrong, but I would never support a government law that made it illegal. My personal belief is founded in the opinion that I think too many people use it as a form of birth control. I could be wrong in this regard though.

7)I support the view that every single amendment in the bill of rights is an individual right, not so called 'collective' rights. The first amendment was made to protect free speech(ESPECIALLY 'offensive' speech), the second isn't about hunting it's about protecting your self from tyranny, and so on and so fourth.

8)Economically I am against any form of socialism, especially socialized healthcare. I am of course aware things sucked before the AHCA, but forcing people to buy government mandated coverage is wrong in my opinion. I am right to work, not anti-union. My father has been a union employee is whole life and when I was growing up they threatened to strike more than a few times over stupid things like dime raises and what not, and I think it sucks you can be out of work over a collective cause you may not agree with. I also do not support unions contributing money to politicians I don't agree with.

9)I'm not one of the "Hands up, don't shoot" anti-cop types, but it is also my belief that America's police force is in need of some form of reform. I believe the profession by its very nature attracts people who enjoy lording over people with their power, their badge, and their gun.

[karaddin]

I find the way you assert in your first point that you believe in equality of the sexes, then in the same point state that it's wrong to agitate for said equality unless you are literally in the most oppressive country in the world for women to be somewhat contradictory. Perfectly normal for someone that is blind to all the ways sexism still exists in western society though.

Also "hands up, don't shoot" is protesting extra judicial killings of black people by police, not inherently anti police. There are plenty of people who are anti police, but it is incorrect to label that protest movement as such.

There are plenty of other points of issue I have with your positions, but those two are the glaring ones I feel compelled to address.

[Stannatic]

I find the way you assert in your first point that you believe in equality of the sexes, then in the same point state that it's wrong to agitate for said equality unless you are literally in the most oppressive country in the world for women to be somewhat contradictory. Perfectly normal for someone that is blind to all the ways sexism still exists in western society though.

Also "hands up, don't shoot" is protesting extra judicial killings of black people by police, not inherently anti police. There are plenty of people who are anti police, but it is incorrect to label that protest movement as such.

There are plenty of other points of issue I have with your positions, but those two are the glaring ones I feel compelled to address.

If that's all you found glaringly objectionable then maybe I finally did something right. :p

[Crazydog7]

If that's all you found glaringly objectionable then maybe I finally did something right. :P

Since I don’t really have the energy to address all of your points and I’m not even going to touch #9 let me just say that your problem is much the same problem as I had in my years of religious zeal. In earlier incarnations of this board I was extremely religious and I’m ashamed to say I evoked Godwin’s law more then once. My main problem was I could understand that better people on this board then I were not attacking me personally they were attacking my poorly constructed arguments. I mention this because many of the points you bring up seem to be stated with an almost religious fervor which trust me is something I know a lot about.

I’ll address 6 and 7 briefly

I’ve never understood the assertion by some that abortion is a form of birth control. Wouldn’t birth control be a better form of birth control? There is a lot of terrible information out there about abortions the one person I know who actually had an abortion had to make a really agonizing decision so the idea that such an action is undertaken flippantly or casually by anyone I don’t think has any basis in fact. Contrast that with every single story I have heard from the anti abortion side which are anecdotal at best and obvious lies at worst.

The assertion that the 2^nd amendment protects one from tyranny would have made sense in 18^th century rural America. Unfortunately in 21^st century America things tend to work a little differently because while you may have your rifle Uncle Sam has tanks, drones and nuclear weapons see Waco. So much attention is paid to the sacred sacrosanct 2^nd amendment that none of its adherents remember that we have managed through apathy to piss away the overwhelming majority of the Bill of Rights particularly the 4^th 5^th and 6^th but I take it as some consolation that a British solider can’t be quartered in my house unless he pays me first.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The assertion that the 2^nd amendment protects one from tyranny would have made sense in 18^th century rural America. Unfortunately in 21^st century America things tend to work a little differently because while you may have your rifle Uncle Sam has tanks, drones and nuclear weapons see Waco.

The Federal Government wouldn't need to resort to tanks. Any Second Amendment Rebellion would end roughly an hour or two after the rebels get their internet cut off.

[Inigima]

Ladies and gentlemen, Marco Rubio.

In 2008, while Democrats were declaring that the time was right for national health care reform, Marco Rubio, the speaker of the Florida House, had a ready response: Florida should build a market-based system that would help contain the cost of insurance and make it more available.

Rubio pushed his no-mandate health insurance exchange, dubbed Florida Health Choices, through the state Legislature that year. “It’s about competition, it’s about choice, and it’s about the marketplace,” he told The Palm Beach Post at the time.

Florida Health Choices, which finally opened last year, now covers 80 people.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/marco-rubio-florida-insurance-market-117055.html

[Fez]

A country surrounded by muslims and arabs committing genocide on muslims and arabs would be LESS isolated than if it hadn't? Okay, if you say so...

Not in the middle east, but in the western world? Absolutely. Back in the 1950s quite a bit of Europe was committing atrocities in various places trying to hold on to their colonial empires. Israel would've fit right in with France, Portugal, etc. There would be and continue to be some negative consequences, but since the situation would be 'resolved' it wouldn't be as much so as the current situation they are in.

Which illustrates the initial point, Israel deserves condemnation for a lot of what they've been doing for a while now, but the fact that they're getting more than they would have if they did something far worse just shows how out of proportion the international community takes it.

Wouldn't it be wiser to pass a corporate tax break? Large companies are taxed higher in the US than compared to most first-world countries and the president himself has actually hinted that he wanted the US rates to decrease.

But I guess that there are some tax cuts that can't buy votes as easily as others.

Problem with cutting the corporate tax rate is there's no agreement, even within the parties, of the right way to do it. Everyone agrees that the nominal rates need to go down, because the companies that do pay that rate or something near it really are being put at a disadvantage compared to foreign competitors; however, there's also the issue that a lot of companies pay a tax rate near 0%, or actually are at 0%, or even have a negative rate. And its broadly agreed that that needs to be addressed too, but there's not agreement on how to do it; particularly since it would involve going after specific deductions/provisions that whole armies of lobbyists would try to defend.

Plus there's the issue of Republicans wanting to make corporate tax reform revenue neutral while Democrats want to be able to raise additional revenue through it.

IMO, the right way would be to abolish the corporate tax rate entirely and raise individual taxes on earnings and capital gains and implement taxes on company-paid perks for upper management. Change the paradigm so that we tax the individuals benefiting from companies more but not the companies themselves at all (at least, not on revenue), that way there's more incentive for companies to re-invest profits in growing the company rather than just paying out dividends.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Not in the middle east, but in the western world? Absolutely. Back in the 1950s quite a bit of Europe was committing atrocities in various places trying to hold on to their colonial empires. Israel would've fit right in with France, Portugal, etc. There would be and continue to be some negative consequences, but since the situation would be 'resolved' it wouldn't be as much so as the current situation they are in.

Which illustrates the initial point, Israel deserves condemnation for a lot of what they've been doing for a while now, but the fact that they're getting more than they would have if they did something far worse just shows how out of proportion the international community takes it.

I tend to think this reasoning is more than a little bit backwards.

The fact that other countries engaging in overt ethnic cleansing and genocide resulted in less international condemnation than Israel's current policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians is not so much evidence that Israel's current criticism is "out of proportion" to what it should be as it is evidence that the international community's response to actual genocide, especially against non-whites and non-Europeans, especially in the 1950s, was disgustingly permissive and a persistent black mark on humanity. The issue is not that Israel is being criticized out of proportion with their misconduct NOW, but that these other countries have been dramatically under-criticized and under-sanctioned for even worse conduct.

[Balefont]

I think it would do me some good to clarify all of my political and social leanings so you can at least better understand me.

1)I'll start with the most recent sleight. I am totally for equal rights for men and women. The reason you might see me criticize the modern feminist movement is because I believe in alot of ways it has become a parody of its former self. It is my belief that if you are a woman and you are born in the US, the UK, or any western nation for that matter, you are already one of the luckiest women alive. If your genitals weren't mutilated at birth, if you weren't forced into an arranged marriage, if you can leave the house without basically wearing a halloween costume and without a male escort, then you don't really have a right to rage against "Patriarchy" and you insult the billions of women who do live with these things. I believe men and women should be given equal opportunity in every field, including the military. And both genders should be held to the same standard.

Are you fucking kidding me?! I'm lucky because it could be worse?!

[Shryke]

I tend to think this reasoning is more than a little bit backwards.

The fact that other countries engaging in overt ethnic cleansing and genocide resulted in less international condemnation than Israel's current policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians is not so much evidence that Israel's current criticism is "out of proportion" to what it should be as it is evidence that the international community's response to actual genocide, especially against non-whites and non-Europeans, especially in the 1950s, was disgustingly permissive and a persistent black mark on humanity. The issue is not that Israel is being criticized out of proportion with their misconduct NOW, but that these other countries have been dramatically under-criticized and under-sanctioned for even worse conduct.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Except I'd also throw in that it also just shows how easily we tend to forget the terrible shit that happened in the past.

Like, seriously Fez, what the fuck?

[Fez]

I tend to think this reasoning is more than a little bit backwards.

The fact that other countries engaging in overt ethnic cleansing and genocide resulted in less international condemnation than Israel's current policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians is not so much evidence that Israel's current criticism is "out of proportion" to what it should be as it is evidence that the international community's response to actual genocide, especially against non-whites and non-Europeans, especially in the 1950s, was disgustingly permissive and a persistent black mark on humanity. The issue is not that Israel is being criticized out of proportion with their misconduct NOW, but that these other countries have been dramatically under-criticized and under-sanctioned for even worse conduct.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Except I'd also throw in that it also just shows how easily we tend to forget the terrible shit that happened in the past.

Like, seriously Fez, what the fuck?

Sure. I'm not defending what happened in the 1950s. Someone had posted that if Israel had committed genocide/ethnic cleansing back then they would not face as much international isolation/scorn as they do right now, and I think that's accurate. I'm not trying to make a value judgement about what did happen back then or what Israel does now.

However, I do think its hypocritical for people to be so focused on Israel and not on the terrible shit that other countries did and do. This isn't an argument in favor of reducing criticism of Israel, but rather of increasing criticism of other countries.

[aceluby]

Not in the middle east, but in the western world? Absolutely. Back in the 1950s quite a bit of Europe was committing atrocities in various places trying to hold on to their colonial empires. Israel would've fit right in with France, Portugal, etc. There would be and continue to be some negative consequences, but since the situation would be 'resolved' it wouldn't be as much so as the current situation they are in.

Which illustrates the initial point, Israel deserves condemnation for a lot of what they've been doing for a while now, but the fact that they're getting more than they would have if they did something far worse just shows how out of proportion the international community takes it.

We're talking about the middle east. It's also not a fact that they're getting more flack now than if they committed genocide, it's your opinion, and I disagree with it.

[Shryke]

Sure. I'm not defending what happened in the 1950s. Someone had posted that if Israel had committed genocide/ethnic cleansing back then they would not face as much international isolation/scorn as they do right now, and I think that's accurate. I'm not trying to make a value judgement about what did happen back then or what Israel does now.

However, I do think its hypocritical for people to be so focused on Israel and not on the terrible shit that other countries did and do. This isn't an argument in favor of reducing criticism of Israel, but rather of increasing criticism of other countries.

You are making a value judgement about it. Here, let me quote you doing so:

Which illustrates the initial point, Israel deserves condemnation for a lot of what they've been doing for a while now, but the fact that they're getting more than they would have if they did something far worse just shows how out of proportion the international community takes it.

People focus on Israel cause of it's close ties to the US and how often you get shit about Israel being the shinning light of western democracy in the middle east and all that shit.

You put a spotlight on any of this kind of shit (ie - Kony and the LRA or ISIS or Boko Haram) and you get similar reactions from people.