New Government

That answers my question. :up:

And, for the record, one of the things I would do in my new government is abolish the institution of marriage. With the imposition of the FairTax, there would be no economic reason for marriage, and simple contracts ("civil unions") would handle the legal aspects of marriage (ownership of assets, medical decisions, etc.).

People who wanted to get "married" could do so by whoever would marry them--churches, judges, even best friends. Marriage would be a purely social institution--no government intervention or recognition needed. And, if people don't want to recognize ____ marriage, personally, they don't have to.

I like this. Although I'm still not sold on the FairTax. I prefer the idea of use taxes over income taxes.
 
I personally gotta say the government that was described in the movie Starship Troopers. (I am filling in the gaps from what they described to what I kinda "see)

There are two classes of people:
Citizens - Those that have the right to vote
Non-Citizens - Those that dont have the right to vote.

All people start out in life, as a Non-Citizen. They are subject to the laws, but dont have the right to vote to change the laws. A Non-Citizen must perform public duty, which usually means joining the armed forces, to gain Citizenship.

Then from there they gain the right to vote and also serve as a law-maker.

This should shut up those up that comment but don't act. If they complain about the state of the union, and its problems, they have to serve, and can then have a voice.

Ahhh hmmmmm.....
" In his commentary on the DVD edition of the film, director Paul Verhoeven states unambiguously that the movie's message is "War makes fascists of us all", and that he sees the movie as a satire of American militarism. On the same commentary, screenwriter Ed Neumeier (who had previously worked with Verhoeven on RoboCop) broadly concurs, although he sees the satire as applying to the whole of human history, rather than solely to the U.S.
Since the filmmakers did not make these statements at the time of the film's release, viewers have interpreted it variously: as a satire, as a celebration of fascism, or as a simple tongue-in-cheek action film. "

Yeah Malice are you serious...............you Republicans scare me.
 
That answers my question. :up:

And, for the record, one of the things I would do in my new government is abolish the institution of marriage. With the imposition of the FairTax, there would be no economic reason for marriage, and simple contracts ("civil unions") would handle the legal aspects of marriage (ownership of assets, medical decisions, etc.).

People who wanted to get "married" could do so by whoever would marry them--churches, judges, even best friends. Marriage would be a purely social institution--no government intervention or recognition needed. And, if people don't want to recognize ____ marriage, personally, they don't have to.

And that's a good platform, too. I sort of support the FairTax, just not at this moment in time. Once we've closed our deficit by a substantial margin, I'll be on board, just because of the possible economic backlash which could occur if enacted so soon.

With my hopeful profession (something in business or consulting; I'm think I'm gonna go for a JD/ MPA once I'm officially enrolled in the program), I won't have any personal economic concerns, so the FairTax seems like it would benefit me a lot.
 
Wow. That is a very very big assumption that's never been proven one way or the other. I suppose one could choose to be with one's own gender, but I seriously doubt all gays do. I don't understand why people think that gays choose to be that way but straights can't. I never chose to be straight. I just am. I prefer women. Women do it for me, men don't. It's never been a conscious decision.

But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that gays do choose to be gay. What right do I, or government have, to deny them the choice to be in a loving, healty, relationship. It's your right to have an opinion against it, just like it's everyone's right to have an opinion against something. But I don't see how a public institution could be allowed to enforce it. I'm allowed to choose any religion I want, why can't I choose who I want to be with?

I'm saying that even if your preferences are predetermined, your acting on them is your choice. I'm straight. I didn't choose it. I'm attracted to men. But since my beliefs dictate that sex is for marriage, I choose not to have sex until then. I act and I control my preferences. Unless a person is raped, having sex is a decision and a choice.

Your second point: There are a lot of things people can choose to do, but are illegal because they are destructive to society. You cannot choose to steal. You cannot choose to rape, do drugs, sell drugs, because acting that way is destructive. And with the prevalence of AIDS, homosexuality in itself has the potential to be destructive. Maybe it is unfair that AIDS predominately strikes gay men and certain drug users, but those are the facts. The healthcare system is being drained by diseases that are predominately related to people's poor choices; obesity is the most talked-about of these.

And if being gay is not a choice, but genetic, than gays should be treated as any other protected class and be given equal protection under the law. Just like other protected classes a person has no control over (race, gender, age) and classes they do have choice over (creed).

Gay people are equal under the law. They certainly are not discriminated against like black people or women were in an earlier time. They can vote and they can drink from the same water fountains straights do. They can apply for jobs, and if they think they are discriminated against in that respect, they can get a lawyer and sue like any other American.

And the alcoholism/obesity analogy does not translate into this argument. There's a big difference between avoiding alcohol and unhealthy foods, and avoiding relationships with people you're actually attracted to.

See above.
 
That's not polygamy, moron. The three parents are not involved in a sexual relationship. The children see their birth parent(s) on weekends, not every morning in bed with their legal parents.

My partner and I aren't going to start dating the heterosexual mother of our child because we're two gay men happily in love with each other. The mother of our child is just a sacred vessel. Also, that's the beauty of a homosexual relationship-- we like men. But props to you for transpiring beyond ignorance into the absurd.

How many times have I tried to say: Marriage is not all about sex, cretin, but primarily about raising children. My parents haven't had sex in years, but they're still married. I didn't say or imply that any gay couple is having sex with the birth mother of an adopted child, I said that they are raising their child with the mother. How you completely misunderstood and/or twisted my argument is beyond my humble intellect.
 
How many times have I tried to say: Marriage is not all about sex, cretin, but primarily about raising children. My parents haven't had sex in years, but they're still married. I didn't say or imply that any gay couple is having sex with the birth mother of an adopted child, I said that they are raising their child with the mother. How you completely misunderstood and/or twisted my argument is beyond my humble intellect.

The fundamental argument over my support for gay marriage isn't about sex, sweetheart. It's about being able to love each other, to embrace each other in a sanctimonious bond for the remainder of our lives. It's about being able to raise a family, it's about being able to live a normal life as two men who are in love with each other and want to be together. There are tons of gay men who would make excellent fathers, tons of gay women who would make excellent mothers. And on that same note, there are tons of single women who are forced to raise children by themselves. There are some men who are forced to raise children by themselves. So I don't see how this would be any different, except you're adding an extra father or an extra mother into the equation.

Back to polygamy... yeah, polygamy is about sex. It is about marriage. And without the two involved, I don't see how a relationship can be polygamous. That would imply that a group of friends are in a polygamous relationship if they had to take turns taking care of another friend's dog for the weekend. And actually, the way you describe polygamy, we're all polygamous perverts. People who work together on a project at work are in a polygamous relationship; people who ride/ share the subway together are in a polygamous; and children who are forced to work in reading circles in elementary school are in a polygamous relationship. So, everyones polygamous!

:dry:
 
How many times have I tried to say: Marriage is not all about sex, cretin, but primarily about raising children. My parents haven't had sex in years, but they're still married. I didn't say or imply that any gay couple is having sex with the birth mother of an adopted child, I said that they are raising their child with the mother. How you completely misunderstood and/or twisted my argument is beyond my humble intellect.

So a couple with a child get divorced and each remarry. According to you, they are in a polygamous relationship?
 
...so the FairTax seems like it would benefit me a lot.
And here I was thinking you weren't a Republican. Near as I can tell the FairTax would be a regressive tax and would hurt those of us who don't make 100K+
 
And here I was thinking you weren't a Republican. Near as I can tell the FairTax would be a regressive tax and would hurt those of us who don't make 1M+

Fixed that for you :woot:
 
And here I was thinking you weren't a Republican. Near as I can tell the FairTax would be a regressive tax and would hurt those of us who don't make 100K+

Fixed that for you :woot:

Both you guy are obviously mistaken about the FairTax. There is a thread right below this, where Myself and Handsome Rob have answered every critique and question regarding the Fairtax. The FairTax UNTAXES the Poor. So, how is it going to be better for someone making less than $100,000 or $1 Million a year? It Taxes everyone equally above the Poverty level. Do your self a Favor, Actually Read the Thread.

Your ignorance is Showing.

The Fairtax is not a Right Vs. Left, Democrat Vs Republican Issue. It is an Issue of Freeing Americans from a Punishing, Confusing and Burdensome Tax Code while Increasing your Power over the Government. It would bring Jobs here and Get the Government out of your life. Why does the Government need to know how much you make every year? All they need to know is that you are Paying Taxes. The Fairtax would fix our Tax Code, Fix Social Security, Fix the Economy. Please read the Thread and Learn. At the End, AFTER you read everything, Post any question you like. I would be happy to answer, as I'm sure Handsome Rob would too.

Please keep in mind, that is not a Debate Thread. I tend to think of it as a Classroom. You can ask anything you like, but it is NOT ABOUT PARTISIAN CRAP.
 
Both you guy are obviously mistaken about the FairTax. There is a thread right below this, where Myself and Handsome Rob have answered every critique and question regarding the Fairtax. The FairTax UNTAXES the Poor. So, how is it going to be better for someone making less than $100,000 or $1 Million a year? It Taxes everyone equally above the Poverty level. Do your self a Favor, Actually Read the Thread.

Your ignorance is Showing.

We were actually implying that it would be worse for someone making less than $100,000 or $1 Million a year.
 
From what I've read on the FairTax (which is far from everything) it replaces income tax with a Federal sales tax on goods and services. And everyone pays they same tax rate.

Ok. So, the way I see the theory is that, the more you buy, and the more expensive the things you buy, the more taxes you pay. Essentially, the more you buy, the more you pay.

Now, two things stand out at me. I can avoid paying taxes by curbing my consumption which can hurt the economy because consumption is slowing, and government has less taxes to work with (assuming, of course, more tax money makes a better government. Which is a big assumption).

Also, the Fairtax seems to be a progressive tax (more burden on the rich) on luxury goods, but a regressive tax (more burden on the poor) on necessities. By this I mean that, if the FairTax was 30%, a middle-class person buying a $100,000 house pays $30,000 in tax while a millionaire buying a $1,000,000 mansion pays $300,000 in tax. Sounds good. The rich pay more tax than the poor.

But housing, to some degree, is a luxury. On the other hand, everyone pays the same for necessities like food. So, a poor person buys a bag a groceries for $100 and pays $30 in tax. A rich person buys a bag of groceries for $100 and pays the same $30 in tax. But that $30 is a much larger percentage of the poor person's income than the rich person's income. So it seems that the poor are actually hurt far worse than the rich when it comes to necessities.
 
The North American Union and the Federal I.D. card are basically going to put an end to America and it's current
form of government, if it hasn't been done already.
 
We were actually implying that it would be worse for someone making less than $100,000 or $1 Million a year.
I understand that. But, under the Fairtax, everyone benifits in not having Taxes deducted from your Paycheck, Zero Taxes for Investments, Increase in Jobs due to more Foreign Businesses moving to our Corporate Tax Haven, You get the Prebate that UNTAXES the Poor. Education is Not Taxed. And, everything would cost that same as it does today. You are mistaken about the FairTax.

This program would UNTAX the poor.
 
From what I've read on the FairTax (which is far from everything) it replaces income tax with a Federal sales tax on goods and services. And everyone pays they same tax rate.

Ok. So, the way I see the theory is that, the more you buy, and the more expensive the things you buy, the more taxes you pay. Essentially, the more you buy, the more you pay.

Now, two things stand out at me. I can avoid paying taxes by curbing my consumption which can hurt the economy because consumption is slowing, and government has less taxes to work with (assuming, of course, more tax money makes a better government. Which is a big assumption).

Also, the Fairtax seems to be a progressive tax (more burden on the rich) on luxury goods, but a regressive tax (more burden on the poor) on necessities. By this I mean that, if the FairTax was 30%, a middle-class person buying a $100,000 house pays $30,000 in tax while a millionaire buying a $1,000,000 mansion pays $300,000 in tax. Sounds good. The rich pay more tax than the poor.

But housing, to some degree, is a luxury. On the other hand, everyone pays the same for necessities like food. So, a poor person buys a bag a groceries for $100 and pays $30 in tax. A rich person buys a bag of groceries for $100 and pays the same $30 in tax. But that $30 is a much larger percentage of the poor person's income than the rich person's income. So it seems that the poor are actually hurt far worse than the rich when it comes to necessities.
You are not adding into the Equation the Prebate. You do not pay taxes on food and Necessities with the Prebate.
 
So a couple with a child get divorced and each remarry. According to you, they are in a polygamous relationship?

If you want to split semantic hairs, technically no. What I am saying is the child's love and attachments in these situations is torn between this group of people instead of shared between the child and the parents.
 
The fundamental argument over my support for gay marriage isn't about sex, sweetheart. It's about being able to love each other, to embrace each other in a sanctimonious bond for the remainder of our lives. It's about being able to raise a family, it's about being able to live a normal life as two men who are in love with each other and want to be together. There are tons of gay men who would make excellent fathers, tons of gay women who would make excellent mothers. And on that same note, there are tons of single women who are forced to raise children by themselves. There are some men who are forced to raise children by themselves. So I don't see how this would be any different, except you're adding an extra father or an extra mother into the equation.

Sex can be a wonderful, pleasurable thing, but it wasn't meant for pleasure alone, it was meant for procreation. It's pleasant so that people would want to have it, thereby having children and continuing the human race. I have no doubt that gay people would love and care for children, but when you have a child, the child's needs come first and your romantic life has to be put on the back burner! And what children want and need, barring some tragic happening, is a mom and a dad.

Back to polygamy... yeah, polygamy is about sex. It is about marriage. And without the two involved, I don't see how a relationship can be polygamous. That would imply that a group of friends are in a polygamous relationship if they had to take turns taking care of another friend's dog for the weekend. And actually, the way you describe polygamy, we're all polygamous perverts. People who work together on a project at work are in a polygamous relationship; people who ride/ share the subway together are in a polygamous; and children who are forced to work in reading circles in elementary school are in a polygamous relationship. So, everyones polygamous!

:dry:

You are completely entitled to disagree with my opinions and arguments, but if you can't understand my arguments or if you can't distinguish a work or school project partnership or two strangers on a subway and a committed marriage dedicated to the ideal raising of children, there's just nothing I can do.

(sees recent postings)

Finally! A change in subject.
 
Both you guy are obviously mistaken about the FairTax. There is a thread right below this, where Myself and Handsome Rob have answered every critique and question regarding the Fairtax. The FairTax UNTAXES the Poor. So, how is it going to be better for someone making less than $100,000 or $1 Million a year? It Taxes everyone equally above the Poverty level. Do your self a Favor, Actually Read the Thread.

Your ignorance is Showing.

The Fairtax is not a Right Vs. Left, Democrat Vs Republican Issue. It is an Issue of Freeing Americans from a Punishing, Confusing and Burdensome Tax Code while Increasing your Power over the Government. It would bring Jobs here and Get the Government out of your life.

Really?? Please explain this. Does this mean we're going to be disbanding Congress, remove the powers of the executive branch, AND allow me to drive 100 miles an hour in a school zone. I guess I do need to read up on this then :whatever:

Why does the Government need to know how much you make every year? All they need to know is that you are Paying Taxes. The Fairtax would fix our Tax Code, Fix Social Security, Fix the Economy.

Well, isn't the Government going to need to know how much I make if their going to calculate my prebate check each month?

Its obvious you've read all the talking points, but so have the rest of us and some just don't agree with it. Just because we don't spew the talking points out, doesn't make us ignorant.
 
The North American Union and the Federal I.D. card are basically going to put an end to America and it's current
form of government, if it hasn't been done already.

There's no such thing as the North American Union, and there never will be. That's just propaganda spread around by a bunch of wackos as a fear tactic-- wackos who don't know anything about how or why the both the EU and AU came to be, and think that such organizations came about soley because those countries shared the same continent.
 
Sex can be a wonderful, pleasurable thing, but it wasn't meant for pleasure alone, it was meant for procreation. It's pleasant so that people would want to have it, thereby having children and continuing the human race. I have no doubt that gay people would love and care for children, but when you have a child, the child's needs come first and your romantic life has to be put on the back burner! And what children want and need, barring some tragic happening, is a mom and a dad.



You are completely entitled to disagree with my opinions and arguments, but if you can't understand my arguments or if you can't distinguish a work or school project partnership or two strangers on a subway and a committed marriage dedicated to the ideal raising of children, there's just nothing I can do.

(sees recent postings)

Finally! A change in subject.

Yeah... I'm done too. If you want to think gay marriage opens the door to polygamy, or that open adoption between gay couples and the mother of the child is a polygamous relationship, then that only proves how much you don't know about the conventions of marriage. The definition of polygamy is multiple marriages, not multiple relationships. I can't debate that any further, and I simply won't. If you want to make up your own definitions, ignoring religious and secular definitions, then fine. There's no convincing you otherwise.
 
For those who believe FactCheck.org:

FactCheck.org said:
Unspinning the FairTax
May 31, 2007

Summary
In our recent article on the second GOP debate, we called out Gov. Mike Huckabee as well as Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter for their support of the FairTax. We wrote that the bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform had “calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax.” A number of readers pointed out that H.R. 25, the specific bill mentioned by Gov. Huckabee, calls for a 23 percent retail sales tax and not the 34 percent used by the Advisory Panel on Tax Reform. That 23 percent number, however, is misleading and based on some extremely optimistic assumptions. We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the FairTax, unless you earn more than $200,000 per year, fairness is not one of them.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
 
Really?? Please explain this. Does this mean we're going to be disbanding Congress, remove the powers of the executive branch, AND allow me to drive 100 miles an hour in a school zone. I guess I do need to read up on this then :whatever:



Well, isn't the Government going to need to know how much I make if their going to calculate my prebate check each month?

Its obvious you've read all the talking points, but so have the rest of us and some just don't agree with it. Just because we don't spew the talking points out, doesn't make us ignorant.
These are not "talking points" they are actually apart of the FairTax Plan. The government won't be looking at your Wages and Earning like they do now, if you claim a Depandant, you get a little more in your Prebate, if you claim 2 Depandants, you get more in your Prebate. Not, having to file every year costing the US Economy $250-500 Billion dollars a year. The government shouldn't care whether you make $10,000 or $10 Million, only that you spend the money and they collect the Taxes.

You Ignorance is showing because you want to discuss an issue that you obviously don't know much about. If you actually understood the FairTax plan you would know that the IRS would be disbanded, that you would never be subject to Personal Audits. You claim to have researched the Plan, and Dare say that I'm just repeating talking points?!? You obviously have just read critiques, but not the Bill or the Plan at all. You could actuall read through the Thread about the FairTax and learn.
 
These are not "talking points" they are actually apart of the FairTax Plan. The government won't be looking at your Wages and Earning like they do now, if you claim a Depandant, you get a little more in your Prebate, if you claim 2 Depandants, you get more in your Prebate. Not, having to file every year costing the US Economy $250-500 Billion dollars a year. The government shouldn't care whether you make $10,000 or $10 Million, only that you spend the money and they collect the Taxes.

You Ignorance is showing because you want to discuss an issue that you obviously don't know much about. If you actually understood the FairTax plan you would know that the IRS would be disbanded, that you would never be subject to Personal Audits. You claim to have researched the Plan, and Dare say that I'm just repeating talking points?!? You obviously have just read critiques, but not the Bill or the Plan at all. You could actuall read through the Thread about the FairTax and learn.

Please direct me to where I said this wasn't the case.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,505
Messages
21,742,313
Members
45,570
Latest member
monke77
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"