(September 23, 2012 at 12:21 pm)TaraJo Wrote: I do understand, but I still think Norquist is a major douchebag and if Penn is in agreement with him, he's douchebag too.

With all due respect, that's an unreasonable policy for determining if someone is a douchebag or not. Agreeing with a douchebag does not necessarily make someone a douchebag. I'm not sure why you seem to think this Norquist guy is a douchebag anyway; he seems to be trying to get lower taxes for everyone by encouraging small government. That seems like a good move to me.

Quote:Making politicians promise not to raise taxes is an unreasonable policy.

Why? Taxes are already too high. If the government needs extra money, it should first try to cut spending on areas that are completely irrelevant, whilst simultaneously closing loopholes that people use to pay less tax than they owe.

Quote:For the record, I do think the tax code is a bit too complicated, but I'd suggest we balance things out: eliminate a bunch of those tax loopholes that complicate things and even things out by lowering the base tax rate.

By your own argument, aren't you now a douchebag?

In word, yes, he wants to simplify and lower taxes. In practice, he's only concerned about the taxes that impact him or his rich buddies. Case in point, he's pretty strongly opposed to Obama, even though Obama lowered taxes for most people, especially the middle class and small business owners.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ass-famil/

And when Obama wanted to extend the payroll tax cut, a tax that hits low and middle class people much harder than the wealthy, Norquist showed his true colors and said the GOP could oppose that without breaking the pledge.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/norquist-...e-20111201

Norquist is a hypocritical, self serving douchebag.

Obama treads a very fine line, I'm amazed hes managed to do it so well.

(September 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Taxes are already too high.

False

http://mattbruenig.com/2012/02/06/corpor...cord-high/

(September 23, 2012 at 9:48 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(September 22, 2012 at 9:49 pm)whateverist Wrote: I would rather vote for a rational and intelligent theist than a blowhard atheist any day.

Maybe I'm being crazy, but I thought that was the whole point of what Penn was basically alluding to.

I went back and listened to the Penn Jillette video again. (Admittedly the first time I turned if off inside the first 5 minutes.) I didn't get what you got at all. What I saw was Penn working really hard to put Obama's religious beliefs on par with Mitt's. His main message was they both are or profess to be religious as indeed they must to get elected in this country. He also says they're both smart and have their heart in the right place. In other words, no significant difference.

Okay, no one else posted one so here is a speech given by Mitt which specifically mentions "people of no faith at all" as Obama did in the clip I already posted. Please, somebody, watch both and tell me there is no difference in the regard each feels for those of us who aren't religious and that both hold strong principled positions regarding the role of religion in government.

You only need to go to 9:05 in this one and listen for about two and a half minutes.
http://youtu.be/rAeGG5BslIg

(September 23, 2012 at 6:29 pm)whateverist Wrote: Admittedly the first time I turned if off inside the first 5 minutes.

So you decided to absolutely trash a whole video when you only watched a quarter of it.

That seems logical.

Quote:What I saw was Penn working really hard to put Obama's religious beliefs on par with Mitt's. His main message was they both are or profess to be religious as indeed they must to get elected in this country. He also says they're both smart and have their heart in the right place. In other words, no significant difference.

No significant difference because they aren't significant at all (which is all you are bloody saying anyway yet want to slag off Penn for not saying the same thing). Seriously I thought this was pretty obvious.

(September 23, 2012 at 3:47 pm)cratehorus Wrote:

(September 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Taxes are already too high.

False

http://mattbruenig.com/2012/02/06/corpor...cord-high/

Sorry, I must have been ill when it was decided that "record low" was synonymous to "not too high". Also when "taxes" in general and "corporate taxes" were made the same thing.

Taxes being too high should depend on whether there is any absurd amounts of spending by the government, and whether the government could function properly without that money. In the case of the US, I'd point to three obvious areas of overspending:

1) The military.
2) The intelligence services.
3) The TSA.

I honestly don't think it would be impossible for a government to work off a budget equal to 10% of the taxable income of the country.

(September 24, 2012 at 4:23 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(September 23, 2012 at 3:47 pm)cratehorus Wrote: False

http://mattbruenig.com/2012/02/06/corpor...cord-high/

Sorry, I must have been ill when it was decided that "record low" was synonymous to "not too high". Also when "taxes" in general and "corporate taxes" were made the same thing.

Taxes being too high should depend on whether there is any absurd amounts of spending by the government, and whether the government could function properly without that money. In the case of the US, I'd point to three obvious areas of overspending:

1) The military.
2) The intelligence services.
3) The TSA.

I honestly don't think it would be impossible for a government to work off a budget equal to 10% of the taxable income of the country.

I'd love to see those cuts, too, but it won't happen. Republicans are the deficit hawks and the military is their sacred cows: they never touch it. If the Democrats ever stood up for wasteful government spending, we'd probably have a more reasonable military, but the dems don't exactly have a reputation for standing up for anything lately, do they?

(September 24, 2012 at 2:19 am)Napoléon Wrote: No significant difference because they aren't significant at all (which is all you are bloody saying anyway yet want to slag off Penn for not saying the same thing). Seriously I thought this was pretty obvious.

False. There are enormous differences. Watch the tapes of what the candidates actually say. About atheists and the place of religion in public life there are HUGE differences contrary to what blowhard man would have you believe.

(Yeah a quarter of the tape is sometimes enough. It was painful watching the rest. Have you watched either of the two I posted? If not, I'm still ahead.)

(September 24, 2012 at 4:13 pm)whateverist Wrote: False. There are enormous differences. Watch the tapes of what the candidates actually say. About atheists and the place of religion in public life there are HUGE differences contrary to what blowhard man would have you believe.

(Yeah a quarter of the tape is sometimes enough. It was painful watching the rest. Have you watched either of the two I posted? If not, I'm still ahead.)

Man the point really did go over your head in that video.

And no, I'm not watching your videos, because they're besides the point that flew over your temple.