Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Bring back George...

I love when right wingers say they don't watch fox news yet the arguments they present all spawn from one source... fox news. Maybe they are complete douche bags and get their news from someone who gets it from fox news. Me? I think they are lying out there ass and watch fox news, no one could be that dense.
 
hockeywings said:
I love when right wingers say they don't watch fox news yet the arguments they present all spawn from one source... fox news. Maybe they are complete douche bags and get their news from someone who gets it from fox news. Me? I think they are lying out there ass and watch fox news, no one could be that dense.

You are seriously butt hurt. Why do you even care? Yes, I support real conservative views, not the transformation Fox News and the current majority of GOP stand for. I sound like a broken record repeating myself, but you don't get it.

Anyway, Ron Paul is NOT supported by anyone on Fox News besides John Stossel (which his show is on FBN and I do watch and he is a Libertarian).
 
MichChamp02 said:
MSUspartan said:
Federal Income Taxes
State Income Taxes
Municipal Income Taxes
Payroll Taxes
Property Taxes
Sales Taxes
Registration of any kind is a tax (automobile)
License fees

When is it enough?

I don't know... if you don't like paying taxes, I guess you could renounce society and go live in a cave. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to fashion crude tools to hunt for sustenance, make fire to cook food & provide warmth, and make your own clothing.

Personally, I don't have time to defend my own property, provide my own health care, get rid of my own garbage, build and maintain my own streets, inspect all the food I eat, collect and purify my own water to drink, etc., and I'm happy to pay other people to do it for me, but if you'd rather live in the jungle... more power to you. Just stay the hell away from me, or I'll call the police to come and beat the snot out of you.

Ok, so my biggest objective is with Federal taxation. The federal governments only main duty should be to protect our borders and supply a military. The rest of the duties should be given back to the states.

If a state votes to have a form of government health care, privatize school etc then that is their right. If I happen to live in that state, and I disagree with the law then I will move. That is how this country was founded and intended to run. We have lost the focus of our Founding Fathers by giving too much power to the Federal government.
 
SLICK said:
so who gets your support when Ron Paul inevitably bows out ?

I'm not sure yet. I will decide that when there are 2 candidates left. It's going to be difficult because at that point it will be the less of two evils. I don't see much of a difference between Romney and Obama, they are too similar.

It's hard to endorse another candidate when I see the rest as "your typical politician."

RP1012
 
MSUspartan said:
MichChamp02 said:
I don't know... if you don't like paying taxes, I guess you could renounce society and go live in a cave. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to fashion crude tools to hunt for sustenance, make fire to cook food & provide warmth, and make your own clothing.

Personally, I don't have time to defend my own property, provide my own health care, get rid of my own garbage, build and maintain my own streets, inspect all the food I eat, collect and purify my own water to drink, etc., and I'm happy to pay other people to do it for me, but if you'd rather live in the jungle... more power to you. Just stay the hell away from me, or I'll call the police to come and beat the snot out of you.

Ok, so my biggest objective is with Federal taxation. The federal governments only main duty should be to protect our borders and supply a military. The rest of the duties should be given back to the states.

If a state votes to have a form of government health care, privatize school etc then that is their right. If I happen to live in that state, and I disagree with the law then I will move. That is how this country was founded and intended to run. We have lost the focus of our Founding Fathers by giving too much power to the Federal government.

it's great to argue that the Federal Gov't should just be there to protect our borders and not do anything else.

they tried that once. You may have heard of the "Articles of Confederation?" ...although given some of the other things you've stated here, I wouldn't bet on it. It couldn't even function to secure the borders, let alone defend the nation. Hence the constitutional convention, and the founding of a more powerful federal government, with the states subordinate to it. since that was over 200 years, ago, and you don't apparently read much, other than Glenn Beck Christmas stories, I wouldn't expect you to know much about it though.

unfortunately, the world TODAY is more complex than the conservative world view would like it to be. We haven't been a nation of small farmers providing their own sustenance since like 1820, and we're not going to go back there anytime soon.

We have over 300 million people in this country, and managing that population, with it's overwhelming urban nature requires sewers, roads, healthcare, disease control, police, fire, education, food regulation, market regulation, water, etc. etc. etc. And in order to have those things, we need to collect taxes to pay for them.

Since 1792 we've also learned more about how the world works, and invented new things that affect our lifestyle, so we've had to adapt the principles laid down in the U.S. Constitution to new things that weren't even considered at the time, like airplanes, automobiles, internet, electricity, etc. etc. And a lot of these things must be enforced or regulated on an inter-state level...

could you imagine what a disaster it would be to try and navigate a plane from NYC to LA if you had every state along the way controlling air traffic separately?

That's just one example of why your opinions in this regard are so overly simplistic as to be considered completely fucking retarded, or at best, so naive as to make me wonder whether you are have the intellect of a five year old.
 
MichChamp02 said:
MSUspartan said:
Ok, so my biggest objective is with Federal taxation. The federal governments only main duty should be to protect our borders and supply a military. The rest of the duties should be given back to the states.

If a state votes to have a form of government health care, privatize school etc then that is their right. If I happen to live in that state, and I disagree with the law then I will move. That is how this country was founded and intended to run. We have lost the focus of our Founding Fathers by giving too much power to the Federal government.

it's great to argue that the Federal Gov't should just be there to protect our borders and not do anything else.

they tried that once. You may have heard of the "Articles of Confederation?" ...although given some of the other things you've stated here, I wouldn't bet on it. It couldn't even function to secure the borders, let alone defend the nation. Hence the constitutional convention, and the founding of a more powerful federal government, with the states subordinate to it. since that was over 200 years, ago, and you don't apparently read much, other than Glenn Beck Christmas stories, I wouldn't expect you to know much about it though.

unfortunately, the world TODAY is more complex than the conservative world view would like it to be. We haven't been a nation of small farmers providing their own sustenance since like 1820, and we're not going to go back there anytime soon.

We have over 300 million people in this country, and managing that population, with it's overwhelming urban nature requires sewers, roads, healthcare, disease control, police, fire, education, food regulation, market regulation, water, etc. etc. etc. And in order to have those things, we need to collect taxes to pay for them.

Since 1792 we've also learned more about how the world works, and invented new things that affect our lifestyle, so we've had to adapt the principles laid down in the U.S. Constitution to new things that weren't even considered at the time, like airplanes, automobiles, internet, electricity, etc. etc. And a lot of these things must be enforced or regulated on an inter-state level...

could you imagine what a disaster it would be to try and navigate a plane from NYC to LA if you had every state along the way controlling air traffic separately?

That's just one example of why your opinions in this regard are so overly simplistic as to be considered completely fucking retarded, or at best, so naive as to make me wonder whether you are have the intellect of a five year old.

Yes, I understand the Articles of Confederation. Yes, the Constitution gave more powers to the federal government, but since then the federal government has been constantly growing and growing. There are so many departments it's of out of control.

Obviously everything cannot be controlled by the States. Air traffic control is a good example that I do agree with of course, and that goes along the lines of the military.

There is no reason for the federal government to be involved in education, health care and other areas where the states have the capabilities govern. Why even have "states" then?
 
Do you not consider education and health care part of "provide for the general welfare"?
 
hockeywings said:
Do you not consider education and health care part of "provide for the general welfare"?

I do, but the Federal government should allow the states to develop these programs.

It's a lot easier to influence a governor than it is to influence the President. Programs and spending would be a lot more transparent.
 
MSUspartan said:
hockeywings said:
Do you not consider education and health care part of "provide for the general welfare"?

I do, but the Federal government should allow the states to develop these programs.

It's a lot easier to influence a governor than it is to influence the President. Programs and spending would be a lot more transparent.

what if the states don't? what if some portion of the population doesn't have access to sufficient education by virtue or geography (rural Alaska, for example), or by design (school distracts drawn along racial lines)? What if some states can't or won't fund public colleges, or the gov't decides it's better served by having kids go to college that otherwise wouldn't?

what if some of these educational needs can only be addressed on a national level, and might cost money, but provide long run benefits that the private sector would not be willing to provide?
 
MichChamp02 said:
MSUspartan said:
I do, but the Federal government should allow the states to develop these programs.

It's a lot easier to influence a governor than it is to influence the President. Programs and spending would be a lot more transparent.

what if the states don't? what if some portion of the population doesn't have access to sufficient education by virtue or geography (rural Alaska, for example), or by design (school distracts drawn along racial lines)? What if some states can't or won't fund public colleges, or the gov't decides it's better served by having kids go to college that otherwise wouldn't?

what if some of these educational needs can only be addressed on a national level, and might cost money, but provide long run benefits that the private sector would not be willing to provide?

That's the power of a Republic. If the people want it then they will vote people in who will fund it.
 
hockeywings said:
I love when right wingers say they don't watch fox news yet the arguments they present all spawn from one source... fox news. Maybe they are complete douche bags and get their news from someone who gets it from fox news. Me? I think they are lying out there ass and watch fox news, no one could be that dense.

it isnt just right winders.....over 50% of the cable news watchers, watch Fox..they beat all the other combined
 
MSUspartan said:
MichChamp02 said:
what if the states don't? what if some portion of the population doesn't have access to sufficient education by virtue or geography (rural Alaska, for example), or by design (school distracts drawn along racial lines)? What if some states can't or won't fund public colleges, or the gov't decides it's better served by having kids go to college that otherwise wouldn't?

what if some of these educational needs can only be addressed on a national level, and might cost money, but provide long run benefits that the private sector would not be willing to provide?

That's the power of a Republic. If the people want it then they will vote people in who will fund it.

In a perfect system perhaps. But in a perfect system, communism works too. The problem with communism, and your system as well, is that greed takes over.
 
hockeywings said:
MSUspartan said:
That's the power of a Republic. If the people want it then they will vote people in who will fund it.

In a perfect system perhaps. But in a perfect system, communism works too. The problem with communism, and your system as well, is that greed takes over.

communism working well in Cuba, North Korea....how can you make such a statement, communism never worked
 
tsmith7559 said:
hockeywings said:
I love when right wingers say they don't watch fox news yet the arguments they present all spawn from one source... fox news. Maybe they are complete douche bags and get their news from someone who gets it from fox news. Me? I think they are lying out there ass and watch fox news, no one could be that dense.

it isnt just right winders.....over 50% of the cable news watchers, watch Fox..they beat all the other combined

And weird, those 50 percent of viewers were shown to be the most misinformed. Stupid science and your climate change.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=
 
tsmith7559 said:
hockeywings said:
In a perfect system perhaps. But in a perfect system, communism works too. The problem with communism, and your system as well, is that greed takes over.

communism working well in Cuba, North Korea....how can you make such a statement, communism never worked

Thats the point.... sigh ???
 
You can't when you account for human nature, and the perfect republic, as MSU is wanting(I can sympathize with that) is just as idealistic.
 
Dude the study is there for you to read. They took polls and EVERYTHING. no pictures for you to look at though
 
Back
Top