diverborg

Childish and wrong? Yes. Funny? Yes. This is harmless, and thinking the guy should be charged with anything for dumping glitter on somebody is pretty silly. Do we really want to become that hypersensitive as a society? "Oh that guy looked at me funny, Oh he called me a dirty name, charge him officers!!". If dumping glitter on somebody is assault, then we better start banning rice at weddings in case somebody got it in their eyes.

This article doesn't mention what portion of their income was donated to charity. It may not affect their tax rate much on their adjusted gross income, but it hugely affects the percentage of their gross income that they paid in taxes which this article is deceivingly referring to. And considering most of these guys donate HUGE portions of their salary to charities, I think you need to cut them a little slack.

Here's a question for everybody on here that would fall into anything other than the "believer" category. This isn't meant to stir up more crazy debate, but more just to satisfy my own curiousity to questions within my own faith. Ok, completely theoretical, but If Jesus busted through the sky today and there were no doubts who he was based on perhaps his entrance, and he just said "Hey, heads up everybody, but everything you read about me in the bible is true, and I'm coming back soon. Repent and follow me," then poof he's gone and life as we know it is just as its always been other than your new found knowledge... Would you decide to follow Him? Would you still reject following regardless if you knew he was the "real deal?" So basically if there was 100% undeniable proof that Jesus is the Son of God, would it make a difference to what you "believe", other than a basic acknowledgement of "Yep, there's a God."

Peace to you as well. However, as far as the Bible teaches without the spin that man likes to put on everything (which believe it or not there are churches that try their best not to do that), baptism is command that we are to do after repenting and choosing to follow Jesus. Nowhere does it say its required to be "saved". However it is a public identifying of yourself with Jesus, nothing more. There is no magic that happens, you don't need to pay a priest to do this for you. I sometimes think the church (Jesus's followers in general) would actually thrive better and serve a better purpose if a world without church buildings. In many countries believers have to meet in secret in homes and have to do so on irregular schedules to keep from being discovered. We tie in so much cultural garbage and tradition into American Christianity, that I would say far more than the majority of church goers are completely missing it. When we strip all the superficial crap away, and its just fellow believers gathering for a purpose, that is a thing of beauty. If a person wishes to be baptized, the group can easily baptize anybody in a creek, swimming pool, bathtub, mudpuddle, or wherever, without the need of some priest or pastor that the (insert denomination) leadership has decided can be the only one to do it. You don't need some special "holy water" thats been blessed by so and so. I'm pretty sure it all has the same chemical makeup. It was never meant to be about money, and its a travesty if any churches have turned it into that. Its all about you and your creator. Don't let a bunch of annoying so called Christian hypocrites get in your way of knowing Him. Nobody on earth is controlling me and my actions except maybe my wife. I go to church to worship, fellowship, learn and equip myself, but I answer only to God.

Not gonna take the time to try and answer the complete question here because I simply don't think I'm on authority to, and thats a very tough question any Christian has to ask themselves. However, who or where in the bible does it insinuate that if you're not baptized you will go to hell? I think the new testament is pretty specific that we are saved by grace alone, not by grace and... (insert whatever, works, baptism, etc.)

I'm just relieved to know that the rest of the retail world out there is paying their low-level employees more than $12/hr, that way all of Wal-mart's slaves have a much better place to go if they're ever able to escape.

Was this meant to be sarcasm? If not... 1. Have you ever looked at a tax book on what the tax rates are per income level in this country? Do that first before you make any more comments about what a "fair share" is. 2. Please elaborate on how a "wealthy" family that pays their fair share of taxes (see #1), that provided a service to earn that wealth is freeloading off of anybody. 3. Do you think that a family with 3+ kids in the public school system that make around $30,000 a year pay their fair share in taxes? Enough to cover the cost of their childs public education, children that they brought into the world (rich people didn't make them have babies)? hint... see #1 for clues to this answer 4. Guess what, even though I don't have kids and pay a much higher tax rate on a much higher income, I'm more than pleased to help pay for their education. You know why? So maybe they can grow up to actually contribute themselves. (so call me selfish if you want to) 5. Notice I'm playing nice here, and I won't even touch the issue of welfare and medicaid.

Never touched the stuff, but why we spend so much of our resources fighting this stuff is beyond me. Might even help with some of our border issues we just legalize the crap. I can't understand why I can get a prescription for Ambien (a very dangerous drug) to help solve a sleep disorder, but can't smoke a plant I can grow in my garden.

I probably don't agree with you very often, but you hit the nail on the head here. I once thought the tea party was a good thing and I even attended a few rallies, but quickly learned there was no common belief system, and they soon started endorsing candidates that I was 180 off from. I pretty much distanced myself and realized it was mostly a useless organization outside of sending the "we're pissed off" message. I would like to see defense cut, but it seems 3/4 of the crowd wants it to remain the same. I don't necessarily have a problem with the ideas of medicare or social security, except that I have big problems when they bankrupt social security from paying out either too much, to people that don't need it, or tapping into the funds for other needs. Everything has been mismanaged, and half the crowd wants to do away with it altogether (which would cause a civil war), and the other half only wants to keep what benefits them. Medicare costs are what really need to be controlled rather than cutting the program altogether, and I don't think adding another trillion dollar healthcare bill while ignoring a few of the fundamental problems with healthcare costs was the solution either. In all fairness I think many of the teapartiers that are getting slammed for their inconsistent beliefs probably fall into that same category. It doesn't help eithe when private business advertises for medicare services. "Call the scooter store now, and we'll bill medicare to get you your powerchair for free!!!" My views are constantly evolving as I age, and I've found that I'm lightyears away from falling inline with either political party, and when I see these so called tea-party favorites getting the party nominations, I just have to run home, lock myself in the bedroom, beat up my pillow, and cry like a teenage girl whose best friend just bought the same prom dress as me. Call me a pessimist, but the general population on both sides of the fence just seem to be growing in ignorance and as a result, I don't see much of anything improving next election. So what if we "vote the bums out", when we've selected a whole new list of bums to replace them.

Well said. I think you're right with his platform, but I would think with the latest unrest in the country his platform would gain popularity, yet it seems to be doing the opposite. Sometimes I wonder if people don't like him because he's got a squeaky voice.

My stomach churned at the thought of that woman getting another shot at ruining the GOP. I hope her and Ron Paul go off in search of a new career path prior to 2012. Just curious, why would one put Ron Paul in the same bracket as Palin? As much as I would love Ron Paul in office, too many people hate the guy for him to have a chance, and I just don't get it. Its obvious why liberals don't like him, but why do so many conservatives hate him. I'd seriously like to know. Everyone I talk to just thinks he's a nutter, yet he has more common sense and represents the common man more than anybody I've seen in my short lifetime. Am I missing something? Is it his national defense ideals that scare people off? Those that think our country is doomed if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Here's a synopsis of Ron Paul's various political views: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#Political_positions And....??? I am fully aware of Ron Paul's political positions. Wiki's clever way of wording a bunch of stuff I already know about him doesn't really change my opinion. I was mainly wondering as to what conservatives and or independents didn't like about him. I really wouldn't expect anybody that think Obama's doing a good job would ever like Ron Paul. The two are as polar opposite as they get.

My stomach churned at the thought of that woman getting another shot at ruining the GOP. I hope her and Ron Paul go off in search of a new career path prior to 2012. Just curious, why would one put Ron Paul in the same bracket as Palin? As much as I would love Ron Paul in office, too many people hate the guy for him to have a chance, and I just don't get it. Its obvious why liberals don't like him, but why do so many conservatives hate him. I'd seriously like to know. Everyone I talk to just thinks he's a nutter, yet he has more common sense and represents the common man more than anybody I've seen in my short lifetime. Am I missing something? Is it his national defense ideals that scare people off? Those that think our country is doomed if we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hey, why's everyone picking on Colbert? He may be an ass, but he's the funniest most entertaining ass on tv. As far as Beck, I watch him occasionally out of curiousity as do I Maddow and Olbermann as well. He can have some good talking points and occasionally put out a very good level-headed show, and then the next one he'll fly off the handle and completely lose me with his weeping for my country bit or when he takes part of one persons quote and makes a whole show out of it about how the whole country loves Mao. Might be the bipolar disorder though.

Indeed www.churchexecutive.com/news.asp?N_ID=2113 What we need are more atheists. I grew up in the midwest, but I just moved to Mississippi a little over 2 years ago. I'm not disagreeing that teen pregnancy is higher in the more religious states, but I think their method of correlating the two is somewhat illogical. There are two separate issues going on here. Southern states have a huge Christian tradition and population as well as the highest black population and poverty levels. I live in a town thats only 40% white. Not many places in the country have those demographics. Comparing us to New Hampshire and Vermont is laughable. In poverty stricken areas where the youth have no parental figures or no positive influences on their life, they are going to make bad decisions. Like its been stated on here multiple times, its a generational cycle that needs to be broken. It seems silly to blame it on the fact that the states are more religious. We've got a lot of baggage to deal with in the south from our less than stellar history, but I don't think it has much to do with religion at all. I could probably make a complete bogus case linking teen pregnancy to mercury levels in water if I wanted to. I could easily give statistics showing that our rivers and streams in the south have a higher mercury content than anywhere else in the country, and our teen pregnancy is also higher. The mercury levels in the catfish everybody eats is causing brain problems, impairing the judgement of teens. Perhaps we need to crack down on these coal powerplants so our kids quit getting pregnant.

To clarify this, I didn't just drive by once and observe a bunch of nice cars. I work right next to the building. Its the WIC/Medicaid office. Its not the welfare office. They also include utility assistance. Those eligible can bring in their utility bills to have them paid as well. I understand that many of the cars in the parking lot are employees cars as well. But I've worked right next to this office for 2 years now, I know which vehicles are there everyday and see which ones are there to collect, because they actually distribute goods at this location as well. So usually people go in and come out with groceries etc, to put in there car. Yesterday I watched a lady with 4 kids loading groceries into a newer Lexus SUV. No this is not empirical, but I'm not going to do a case study on this and make my point so I can convince some guy I've never met that I'm debating with on the internet. Also, I've gotten to know one of my neighbors across the street very well. They have a decent house which I'm not making any conclusions about how they obtained. He's been unemployed since I've lived here and he's told me he plans on going back to school, so I've been encouraging him to enlist for classes at the local junior college and even told him that my company needed workers for the plant. He said he'd already looked into it, but wouldn't be worth it because the amount of his govt assistance would be cut more than the amount he would make at this job. He does share the house with his Sister (whom I work with) her boyfriend and their kids and his kid. BTW, he drives a 2008 Nissan Titan Crew cab 4X4. This is an able bodied healthy young man in mid twenties. I think he's a nice guy, but he's abusing the system. 2 years later he has still not enlisted for classes. Hell, if he's not gonna work, he could at least go to class and take advantage of what would pretty much be a free education for someone in his circumstances. If you think I'm blowing smoke, thats fine, I have no intention of doing a tape recorded interview with this individual and posting his private information on here to prove my point. Its not that important to me, because I think its fairly common knowledge with most folks that this is not an uncommon scenario. Even an old roommate and close friend of mine that had two kids remained unemployed for this exact reason because the govt paid more than what a job would. I could go on and on with people I personally know that abuse the system. Can you honestly say that you don't personally know your fair share of healthy, able-bodied individuals that are milking the govt tit for all its worth? I'm having a difficult time believing that one.

Cmon, should I write a thesis paper to prove to you that I have gray carpet in my living room, or is it sufficient to tell you that I have gray carpet in my living room. Or you could take the burden of proof upon yourself and show me all this scientifically tested empirical evidence that welfare isn't abused.

So now we have to resort to saying my young age is the reason for my method of thinking. First of all, I said 5th grade, not 5 years old, so that puts me at 28. I'm married, own a home, and work full time. Still fairly new to the world I understand, but you are drawing a few very wrong conclusions about me. I was paying rent at age 16. I've been out of the house since 18. My dad was a single parent rasing 3 kids on working on $8/hr at the time I left home at age 18. He never collected a penny of govt aid for anything. The only thing we ever accepted in govt aid was reduced lunch costs at school. He always paid for health insurance for us, but we got all of our clothes at goodwill, lived in a two bedroom apt (all 4 of us), and we never went hungry. Our family car was a beatup rusted out 1980 buick skylark that my dad drove till it had over 300,000 miles on it. Do I think we had it rough? Not one bit. Telling people they can't afford something is BS. When you replace your needs with wants then you won't be able to afford something. The beautiful thing about this country is that someone with a childhood like mine can still make well for himself if he wants to. I tried hard in school, took out the student loans I needed to go to college, busted my ass through college and worked my way up the ladder at work to now make a comfortable living. Now you want to tax guys like myself extra to pay for those that aren't even willing to try. Also if you reread my posts, I never said that I wanted to cut all social svcs, I simply said I wanted them to be scaled back, in areas where they are wasted and abused like our welfare system. Disability is an entirely different issue and that's what I was referring to in my last post about those unable to work. I have not flip-flopped on this issue. So comments like do not reflect anything I've stated in any of my posts. Also, I'm not making any assumptions about the people with vehicles, I live in a small town where I know most of them on a personal level. I'm not as extreme as you think as well. I'm ok with paying medicare. There might be some better solutions to medicare out there than a govt run program, but thats not an area I've researched as much. Govt pell grants and student loans are a good idea to encourage low-income kids to go to college. I believe we need a way to protect and take care of those truly disabled in this country. I'm all for finding solutions to these problems. Heck I'd be fine with a govt health plan that only kicked in when a private insurance company denied you based on preexisting conditions if thats what everyone seems to be freaking out about. Paying people to have babies and sending people checks in the mail every month to sit on their ass is not a solution the problem. If you think that somehow that puts me out of touch with reality, than I'm wasting my time. You disagree with that?, and say I'm the one out of touch. What part of the country do you live in? Are all the people you know that collect welfare, just victims of a Republican economy. Keep telling people they're victims, and of course they're never gonna make it. Well, hello there Mr Hyperbole. I never illustrated anything that reflected a "take care of yourself or die" mentality. My island illustration was to only show you that yes wanting items you need that you are not willing to put any effort for still constitutes greed by the definition you gave me. I never said that I wouldn't give you some of the food I collected to keep you from starving. But I still wouldn't be happy if there was a big grizzly bear on the island that said it was ok for you to stay by the fire, but forced me to go out and collect twice as much food. Now if you had a broken leg, then I wouldn't think the grizzly bear would be being that unreasonable. But in either scenario, I would out of the goodness of my heart still collect food for you if I had the means to do so.

Not so sure I fully agree with that statement. After these last primaries, I can see that. No, I'm not quite over it yet. I'm not denying that one bit. My face was only based on this comment you made. IMO, that still deserves a . I did, all better now. And her inlies the problem with Liberals, they think the govt knows where the need is. You want to try and tell me that a beaurocrat in Washington knows my local community better than I do? There are people here that need help, and there are those that would be much better without it. Most of the welfare collectors in my town drive a nicer vehicle than I do. I drive by the WIC/Medicaid office everyday on the way to work. Most of the vehicles in that parking lot have wheels that are worth more than my whole vehicle. Those people do not need a monthly check from the government. So yes, some social services need to be cut. And I will vote for someone willing to do that over someone wanting to expand it and furthering the problem with a lazy society depending on the government. And as we covered earlier this is not because of greed or a lack of compassion. So I find it a very unfair judgement to throw that statement out about Ron Paul. And yes, If it were a republican doing all the spending which it was prior, I was and would be just as angry. I don't need a political party to identify with to tell me how to think or feel. When I see common sense and personal liberties defended, well I'm gonna vote for them, even if that means they have a D after their name. Ok. That debate could make a 300 page thread all itself, so I'm gonna leave that one alone for now. I may have been mad, but I was still listening. Are saying that liberals don't get mad? This comment is full of more stereotypes which I'm sure if time allowed I could find many silly things liberals have done. Would it make you feel better if I said Joe Wilson was a douche? That was pretty witty, I must admit. Like I said earlier though, govt social services have been all but a complete failure in this country, so yes I believe a portion of them need to be cut so we can have the freedom to manage our own resources to some extent. I'm not for entirely cuttying out every social svc program, but I would be happy to at least see some progress in the other direction rather than creating a society completely dependant up on our govt. What happens when the money runs out? Since I can't collect social security, does that mean I can at least get some of the money I paid into it back? Or do you think its ok for the government to make me pay into "social security" my whole life and then decide later on that they needed that money for something else, and I can't collect? Wasn't really referring to you, as much as plenty of fellow skydivers that spend twice as much jumping in a month than what health insurance would cost them. Yet they want the general public to pay for their broken femur from their reckless behavior. What about smokers, obese, and bikers. Shouldn't we tax the hell out of ice cream, cigs, motorcycles, and cake to help pay for this. Or maybe we should ban those items altogether. Again this deserves a 300 page thread all of its own, so I'll leave it there. Notice I bolded part of that definition. Just because you need something doesn't mean you deserve it. I volunteer my time to those that need it. Does that mean they deserve to have me volunteer my time. No, they should be thankful I do, and most of them are. So yes, wanting something you haven't deserved or earned is greed, whether that be something you feel you need or not. If I'm on an island stranded with 6 people and everyone goes out searching for food, but I stay at the camp lounging by the fire all day, would it not be greedy of me to demand food from those that went out searching for it. Of course I need it to survive, so its not greed by your interpretation. You can have all those things if you work for them, just like the people that are working to provide them for you. Its a pretty simple concept really. Its sad its gotten so confusing these days. Please note that I'm not referring to those unable to work. Thats a whole other issue.

Should I have added this for an option.. - I don't think he's the bestest, but I would've voted for him

Well I was only in 5th grade when Ross Perot ran, so.... I haven't seen a candidate like him yet. Yeah, because we sure don't have any problems with corruption in Washington. Well, I think Republicans are just libretarians that just lost their way. They're all biased, anyone to say otherwise would be quite silly. I watch all of them to try and get a complete picture. I don't even know where to begin with this. Your stereotypes make me wanna puke. I could make blanket statements about liberals and say they are all greedy bastards that just want to be subsidized by those that actually earn their money. They are only generous with other people's money. See how that works. BTW, I'm a die-hard libretarian and even after all the taxes I pay, I donate an additional 15% of my income to charities that I see need it. Not as the govt sees need. See if you libs didn't want to tax me to death and redistribute my money to your agendas, then I'd probably be able to donate an additional 30% of my money to people that truly need it because I'm getting by just fine as of now with what I keep. Do not accuse me of not having compassion. In addition to the money I donate, I spend my time helping repair/remodel homes for those living in run down housing that can't afford to. This is in addition to the full time job I work. I also spend time collecting coats and other clothing/food items that I help distribute in New Orleans to the homeless. I love helping the helpless, but when govt decides to take over that role, than they end up only helping the clueless. I'm not mentioning these things to boast, but when I get accused of supporting a party with no compassion, I get enraged. Also my evil corporation that I work for volunteers our private jets several times a week helping transport low-income cancer patients and rehab patients in the local community all across the country to medical centers. In fact when business usually subsides on the weekends, I spend my weekends at work because were flying patients. If you took the time to listen to Ron Paul's arguements, you would see that he's not a classist, in fact one of his main goals is to destroy the influence that corporations are having on the Fed and vice versa In your world, you would rather me subsidize health insurance for even those that spend $1000 a month on skydiving, yet refuse to pay for it themselves, rather than me using that money and helping a struggling single mother living in a mold infested run down house from having her basic needs met of a safe shelter for her family. Don't even try to tell me that your ideals are not motivated by greed. Sorry if this came across harsh, or I mischaracterized you.

I'm mainly doing this survey to help get an idea of the support that this guy has or may have for another try. This guy is as good as they get IMO. I haven't seen a candidate like him yet, that truly wants liberty and to oust the corruption in our govt, and help return a shred of sovereignty to the states. I'm still dumbfounded how this guy never got the nomination. I guess the Republican party has too much they want to keep their greedy hands on as well. What really pisses me off too, is that even Fox news won't give this guy the attention he deserves. It amazes me that I've seen more of this guy on CNN and MSNBC than Fox. Seriously, if you don't know much about this guy, take the time to research him, he's not your typical politician. I keep hearing the media discussing how the Republican party needs a new leader. Well, does it have to slap us in the face or what!! On the other hand, maybe he'd be better off running as a third party than having the Republican nomination if the GOP wants to continue in their ways.

[replyFood and shelter are both far more essential to survival than healthcare. Why aren't we providing them first, before we even consider healthcare? Well, I haven't read the whole thread, but in case it hasn't been said yet, the answer is pretty simple IMO. Providing food and shelter does not give the govt more control over us. Those of us that can provide for ourselves would still have our freedoms. It only helps the needy. Nationalized healthcare will put more of our lives in the hands of the govt that will now have the power to ration healthcare as they see fit and to who they see fit. IMO, if socialists really cared about the needy, food and shelter would be the first priority. Nationalizing healthcare would be a distant third especially when we already have medicaid and nobody can be denied emergency treatment. For those that think hunger and shelter are not a problem in this country, they need to go visit New Orleans. I know the healthcare system has its problems too, but the solution to that is a whole other debate.

Although I'm a registered Republican, I find myself straying further from either party daily. I'm a die-hard free market capitalist, small govt, responsible spending advocate, that feels neither party knows what that means anymore. Also to add, I tend to actually take the liberal's side when it comes to environmental issues as well. As a somewhat naturalist, I think there needs to be some guidelines that the free market is allowed to operate within to ensure we don't rape, pillage, and plunder every natural resource on the planet. I'm a pretty big advocate of the green energy movement. There's very few places that man has managed not to screw up yet, and although my views often lean closer to the Republican side on economic issues, I am lost at why most Republicans would like to destroy these few remaining untouched sanctuaries if it meant ten cents a gallon cheaper at the pumps. I'm also disconnected from most Republicans on big defense spending, and of course what most would view as an unjust war. So I really cannot align with either party so I didn't vote on your poll. I'm the guy that likes to waste his votes on the 3rd party, hoping someday they will get their turn. Unless we see a candidate in the main parties that come close to my ideals, which I don't see happening anytime soon. McCain, for real, what was the GOP thinking? There's a few others I would've voted for, but even though I didn't like the guy, Bob Barr got one vote closer to not being invisible.

Do you enjoy your 61% tax rate over there in the UK? Let me tell you that I make less than the average person in my country and with the 30% less in gross taxes that we pay I can take that spare money and buy myself one helluva healthcare plan with money to spare that would trump any socialized healthcare plan any other country in this world offers. Just some more food for thought to add to the debate. There is no such thing as free. Anytime the govt takes something over, its gonna cost more than it would done privately due to the ridiculous ineffeciency of the public sector. Also its the same here for emergency treatment. They save your life first, then worry about how its gets paid for. And for the uninsured there's medicaid that covers emergency treatment.