Hillary wins Pennsylvania...

[utvolpj]

Why?

Because the current Dem party wishes to take any personal responsibility out of the hands of the citizens and replace it with the fed gov't. I'm not saying I don't agree with them on some issues (gay rights, abortion, net neutrality) but most of those have nothing to do with $$. I work hard (when not on VN) to provide for myself, my soon-to-be wife and my family. Taking money out of my pocket for things like SS and welfare for illegals is not something I believe in. Throwing money at the current gov't schools is not a solution to education. I would like a say in what I do with my SS money since I doubt the current road will have any left when I get to retire. I want the current tax system reformed.

Eventually we will get a candidate who wishes to wean the citizens off the federal gov't crack pipe and they will 100% have my support. They will lose badly but I'll go down swinging.

 

[KB5252]

Because the current Dem party wishes to take any personal responsibility out of the hands of the citizens and replace it with the fed gov't. I'm not saying I don't agree with them on some issues (gay rights, abortion, net neutrality) but most of those have nothing to do with $$. I work hard (when not on VN) to provide for myself, my soon-to-be wife and my family. Taking money out of my pocket for things like SS and welfare for illegals is not something I believe in. Throwing money at the current gov't schools is not a solution to education. I would like a say in what I do with my SS money since I doubt the current road will have any left when I get to retire. I want the current tax system reformed.

Eventually we will get a candidate who wishes to wean the citizens off the federal gov't crack pipe and they will 100% have my support. They will lose badly but I'll go down swinging.

Agree with most of this post. As far as gay rights go I do think there should be civil unions if they so desire that are protected in much the same way as marriage is. The only thing that makes me stop short of allowing them marriage is that would eventually force priests etc to perform a marriage that is against their religious beliefs. Throwing money at education does not work and we need to challenge the strangle hold the teachers union has on the school systems. We need more people to be responsible for themselves and not to depend on the gov. for every aspect of their lives.

 

[myrobbins7]

I agree 100% about throwing $$$ at education. If you don't think im right, come down here and take a look at the Memphis City Schools. It is a waste.

 

[utvolpj]

Agree with most of this post. As far as gay rights go I do think there should be civil unions if they so desire that are protected in much the same way as marriage is. The only thing that makes me stop short of allowing them marriage is that would eventually force priests etc to perform a marriage that is against their religious beliefs.

You say that but would a Catholic priest or a rabbi allow me to get married in their house? Would they deny me because I don't believe in their faith?

I've always believed if the word 'marriage' was dropped and replaced with civil unions with equal rights and protection that very few would have an issue with it. It's become such a political buzzword.

 

[KB5252]

You say that but would a Catholic priest or a rabbi allow me to get married in their house? Would they deny me because I don't believe in their faith?

I've always believed if the word 'marriage' was dropped and replaced with civil unions with equal rights and protection that very few would have an issue with it. It's become such a political buzzword.

When i say religious beliefs I mean their beliefs toward homosexuality. To make any priest do so would infringe on them. And just like most people are good I'm sure that most gay people are good people too, but we both know there are some people out there who would sue in a heartbeat if a priest was to deny them for religious purposes. For that reason you have to protect priest from that possibility.

 

[vader]

Because the current Dem party wishes to take any personal responsibility out of the hands of the citizens and replace it with the fed gov't. I'm not saying I don't agree with them on some issues (gay rights, abortion, net neutrality) but most of those have nothing to do with $$. I work hard (when not on VN) to provide for myself, my soon-to-be wife and my family. Taking money out of my pocket for things like SS and welfare for illegals is not something I believe in. Throwing money at the current gov't schools is not a solution to education. I would like a say in what I do with my SS money since I doubt the current road will have any left when I get to retire. I want the current tax system reformed.

Eventually we will get a candidate who wishes to wean the citizens off the federal gov't crack pipe and they will 100% have my support. They will lose badly but I'll go down swinging.

You know, man. That all makes a lot of sense. :salute:

 

[TennNC]

Because the current Dem party wishes to take any personal responsibility out of the hands of the citizens and replace it with the fed gov't. I'm not saying I don't agree with them on some issues (gay rights, abortion, net neutrality) but most of those have nothing to do with $$. I work hard (when not on VN) to provide for myself, my soon-to-be wife and my family. Taking money out of my pocket for things like SS and welfare for illegals is not something I believe in. Throwing money at the current gov't schools is not a solution to education. I would like a say in what I do with my SS money since I doubt the current road will have any left when I get to retire. I want the current tax system reformed.

Eventually we will get a candidate who wishes to wean the citizens off the federal gov't crack pipe and they will 100% have my support. They will lose badly but I'll go down swinging.

Take a look at current federal spending breakdowns.

Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?

Defense is tops (22%), followed by Social Security, then all health care programs. Interestingly, we're spending 9% paying down the debt, which is only growing. That's the same amount as all "safety net" spending such as earned-income and child tax credits, and welfare. Education accounts for 2% of the federal budget.

So, which are has the most room to wean us off the federal crack pipe?

 

[TennNC]

When i say religious beliefs I mean their beliefs toward homosexuality. To make any priest do so would infringe on them. And just like most people are good I'm sure that most gay people are good people too, but we both know there are some people out there who would sue in a heartbeat if a priest was to deny them for religious purposes. For that reason you have to protect priest from that possibility.

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with rights.

There are a zillion sources on this. Here's one:

Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage

 

[KB5252]

Take a look at current federal spending breakdowns.

Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?

Defense is tops (22%), followed by Social Security, then all health care programs. Interestingly, we're spending 9% paying down the debt, which is only growing. That's the same amount as all "safety net" spending such as earned-income and child tax credits, and welfare. Education accounts for 2% of the federal budget.

So, which are has the most room to wean us off the federal crack pipe?

Defense is at the top where it should be right now. America has been shown to spend more for education that most countries and gets less on the return for it.

 

[TennNC]

Defense is at the top where it should be right now. America has been shown to spend more for education that most countries and gets less on the return for it.

Okay. Just for argument's sake, take away that whopping 2% spending on education. Where does that leave us?

 

[allvol123]

Okay. Just for argument's sake, take away that whopping 2% spending on education. Where does that leave us?

Spending close to half on healthcare and SS. That would be a good place to start.

 

[KB5252]

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with rights.

There are a zillion sources on this. Here's one:

Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage

I saw nothing that would change my stance there. We should offer the same protection under the law for civil unions as marriage. It does have a religious aspect because if you force priests etc. to perform marriages to gay and lesbian couples you are infringing their rights to freedom of religion by forcing them to perform marriages that go against their religious beliefs. It would be like forcing Muslims to eat a BBQ sandwich every fourth of July.

 

[KB5252]

Okay. Just for argument's sake, take away that whopping 2% spending on education. Where does that leave us?

Throwing less money down the drain!

 

[615 Vol]

I agree with Lou Dobbs, send the illegals packing.

 

[TennNC]

Spending close to half on healthcare and SS. That would be a good place to start.

SS - tell me how we do that when Boomers, who are making most of these decisions, have been waiting their whole lives to cash in on this? I'm all ears.

In terms of health care, I know very little on this, but I just returned from Holland where every citizen has health care, and they seem to be doing pretty well. My guess, and yes it's just a guess, is that if healthcare spending is cut in half, we're going to have some seriously negative side effects.

Just curious - why would you not recommend cutting egregious spending on massive defense corporations creating systems that will never see the light of day? Not talking troops here, but rather defense corporate welfare.

 

[BigPapaVol]

This is the reason I think Obama is better suited for the general election. Hillary is winning all the states that Democrats do well in such as California and Obama is winning in red states and swing states. If Obama goes to the general election he should still be strong in states like California and maybe do better in other states where as Clinton will win the typical blue states and nothing else.

The problem with this logic is that he is carrying red states but only the democrats in those states are voting. Inferring that he can carry those states in a general election is an enormous stretch.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Okay. Just for argument's sake, take away that whopping 2% spending on education. Where does that leave us?

probably leaves education in a very similar spot, as would quadrupling the money spent. The teachers' union is a very powerful and disastrous outfit that won't be overcome until disbanded.

 

[TennNC]

I saw nothing that would change my stance there. We should offer the same protection under the law for civil unions as marriage. It does have a religious aspect because if you force priests etc. to perform marriages to gay and lesbian couples you are infringing their rights to freedom of religion by forcing them to perform marriages that go against their religious beliefs. It would be like forcing Muslims to eat a BBQ sandwich every fourth of July.

It wouldn't require priests or pastors or any religious leader to change what they do. It would not infringe on their rights. We're not talking about forcing churches to recognize marriages. We're talking about the legal system recognizing marriages.

To let you in on a little fact: you don't have to get married in a church, or by a priest. That's what a justice of the peace is for.

 

[TennNC]

probably leaves education in a very similar spot, as would quadrupling the money spent. The teachers' union is a very powerful and disastrous outfit that won't be overcome until disbanded.

I'm not in a position to argue that point, and I don't really have an opinion.

I just think for all the talk about massive government spending, we should look at where the govt is spending that money, and only 2% of it is on education.

While on the subject, however, BPV, interested in your thoughts on this idea. Seems military academies are very successful in recruiting and training military leaders, who are obliged to serve their country when their education is finished. So, why not set up a similar structure for teachers? Pay for their post-HS education, train them for the profession, and require them to teach in public schools for a certain period of time afterward?

We need good teachers - just a thought.

 

[BigPapaVol]

It wouldn't require priests or pastors or any religious leader to change what they do. It would not infringe on their rights. We're not talking about forcing churches to recognize marriages. We're talking about the legal system recognizing marriages.

To let you in on a little fact: you don't have to get married in a church, or by a priest. That's what a justice of the peace is for.

nor does any clergy member have to take on every single wedding ceremony that comes his way.

 

[KB5252]

It wouldn't require priests or pastors or any religious leader to change what they do. It would not infringe on their rights. We're not talking about forcing churches to recognize marriages. We're talking about the legal system recognizing marriages.

To let you in on a little fact: you don't have to get married in a church, or by a priest. That's what a justice of the peace is for.

Here is a recap of my earlier post. You and I both know that there will be groups and or people who will seek to be married in a church by a priest if for no other reason than to try to force churches etc. to "legitimize" their agenda. That is why you have to keep marriage separate, because it is a practice rooted in religious belief and doctrine. Therefore you have to protect the religious institutions from litigation and infringements on their religious freedoms.

 

[615 Vol]

It wouldn't require priests or pastors or any religious leader to change what they do. It would not infringe on their rights. We're not talking about forcing churches to recognize marriages. We're talking about the legal system recognizing marriages.

To let you in on a little fact: you don't have to get married in a church, or by a priest. That's what a justice of the peace is for.

True, a priest can decide if he wants to do the marriage or not.

 

[KB5252]

I'm not in a position to argue that point, and I don't really have an opinion.

I just think for all the talk about massive government spending, we should look at where the govt is spending that money, and only 2% of it is on education.

While on the subject, however, BPV, interested in your thoughts on this idea. Seems military academies are very successful in recruiting and training military leaders, who are obliged to serve their country when their education is finished. So, why not set up a similar structure for teachers? Pay for their post-HS education, train them for the profession, and require them to teach in public schools for a certain period of time afterward?

We need good teachers - just a thought.

Very true!. We also need to weaken the grip of the teachers union because in many cases they protect "bad" teachers.

 

[allvol123]

SS - tell me how we do that when Boomers, who are making most of these decisions, have been waiting their whole lives to cash in on this? I'm all ears.

In terms of health care, I know very little on this, but I just returned from Holland where every citizen has health care, and they seem to be doing pretty well. My guess, and yes it's just a guess, is that if healthcare spending is cut in half, we're going to have some seriously negative side effects.

Just curious - why would you not recommend cutting egregious spending on massive defense corporations creating systems that will never see the light of day? Not talking troops here, but rather defense corporate welfare.

You asked where to cut...not whether it is going to hurt or not. Sorry...but decisions need to be made in regards to relying on the government to fund people's retirement. Someone is going to get pinched in it...called sacrifice...most are willing to do that for their children. Can start now or have them really shackled. Healthcare? Again...this really is not the role for the government. People can bring emotion into it and tell me how this person is going to suffer or that person. Well, if people really ever felt the true effects of taking control of their own healthcare they would live better. Instead, people live unhealthy lives and then want others to pay for it. You asked where to cut...those are 2 fantastic places. I'll admit...I cannot single handedly defend this country...therefore I need the government funded military. The rest...I do not need.

 

[KB5252]

True, a priest can decide if he wants to do the marriage or not.

Yes he can but then the lawsuits from gay and lesbian orgs. start and these priests will be stuck in litigation and raked over the coals for their religious beliefs.