Lankford only OK congressman to vote against fiscal cliff

[oucub23]

It's not a false qualifier at all. Like I said - I don't trust any government leader or government agent that can't make a rational decision that is based on the laws of man and reason and not his own personal religious beliefs.

Thank gawd our gov't agents are not empowered to do so. We'd have religious police officers refusing to help **** men and legislators giving money to churches.

The crazy thing about your and 87's whole ****ed line of reasoning is: you think you're defending the faith against something, when really you're being super unpatriotic, WHICH is also something you try to defend against. You're intellectually dishonest, the both of you.

I'm not defending faith against anything. You think you know what I'm thinking, but you think wrong. What I do think is that 87 said Christians are led by Christ, and you blew it into something he never said. Did he mean it the way you think he did? I don't know. I just know that he didn't say anything about establishing a theocracy (except that he wasn't in favor of one.) He didn't say anything about every Christian in office doing anything. Then you went on some tangent about how you're a better Christian than George Washington or something. I would try to extrapolate what you mean from your postings, but I don't know that it's possible. You're all over the place.

For me, I don't want someone relying on God to guide his decision making in running a country.

I just don't believe in theocracy.

Unless you can prove to me that God exists 100% and that you know His will 100%. Then I'm down with theocracy.

Nope, I'm just against anyone that can't make a secular decision. If you can't make a secular, rational decision, you're a religious nutjob zealot of the highest order.

So do you think Lankford is trying or wants to establish a theocracy? Or that 87 or I do? Or that him being Christian makes it impossible for him to make a secular decision? Or that being led by Christ makes him unworthy of being in government? I don't even know where you're coming up with the stuff. It's not like you moved the goal posts--you took them down and put up a taco stand. Relying on God to make decisions in your life is so far from being theocratic that it's getting hard to even respond to your points. Washington fit your bill of crazy nut. So did Lincoln. Are we now going to hear about how much better Christian you are than Lincoln b/c he fought vampires or something? The best I can figure is that 87 trolled you with his comment about God running a country.

[okie52]

Pretty much everything he believes in, I probably don't.

He thinks the sky is blue... I say it's green.
Pizza is good, no it ****ing sucks.
Being **** is a choice... no it's not.

So if he had voted yes you'd disagree....?

[Sancho]

Pretty much everything he believes in, I probably don't.

He thinks the sky is blue... I say it's green.
Pizza is good, no it ****ing sucks.
Being **** is a choice... no it's not.

Sounds like you are easily controlled and manipulated. Lankford could make you do or say anything. Bizarre.

[okie52]

Sounds like you are easily controlled and manipulated. Lankford could make you do or say anything. Bizarre.

LOL

[soonerbornsoonerbret]

Sounds like you are easily controlled and manipulated. Lankford could make you do or say anything. Bizarre.

Except vote for him. Bizarre.

[playmakr]

So you supported the Bush tax cuts?

Why has soonersbornsoonerbrett not responded to this, while making more posts in this thread?

[okie52]

Why has soonersbornsoonerbrett not responded to this, while making more posts in this thread?

It appears Lankford is the issue rather than the issue.

[soonerbornsoonerbret]

It appears Lankford is the issue rather than the issue.

Lankford is the issue. He's a buffoon. At least when his name is brought up this time, it's about something he should actually be focusing his attention towards, and not abortion or **** rights.

[okie52]

Lankford is the issue. He's a buffoon. At least when his name is brought up this time, it's about something he should actually be focusing his attention towards, and not abortion or **** rights.

I doubt anyone in OK's delegation (including Coburn) would vote for pro choice or pro **** marriage. Would you vote for any of them?

[soonerbornsoonerbret]

I doubt anyone in OK's delegation (including Coburn) would vote for pro choice or pro **** marriage. Would you vote for any of them?

Haven't yet.

[okie52]

Haven't yet.

If pro choice and pro **** marriage are your litmus test I doubt you ever will.

[soonercoop1]

Cole and Inhofe are pretty much done....Coburn already is...Cole is an establishment Pub anyway... Coburn has been mostly good but he has the occassional wtf...

[OUMallen]

I'm not defending faith against anything. You think you know what I'm thinking, but you think wrong. What I do think is that 87 said Christians are led by Christ, and you blew it into something he never said. Did he mean it the way you think he did? I don't know. I just know that he didn't say anything about establishing a theocracy (except that he wasn't in favor of one.) He didn't say anything about every Christian in office doing anything. Then you went on some tangent about how you're a better Christian than George Washington or something. I would try to extrapolate what you mean from your postings, but I don't know that it's possible. You're all over the place.

For me, I don't want someone relying on God to guide his decision making in running a country.

I just don't believe in theocracy.

Unless you can prove to me that God exists 100% and that you know His will 100%. Then I'm down with theocracy.

Nope, I'm just against anyone that can't make a secular decision. If you can't make a secular, rational decision, you're a religious nutjob zealot of the highest order.

So do you think Lankford is trying or wants to establish a theocracy? Or that 87 or I do? Or that him being Christian makes it impossible for him to make a secular decision? Or that being led by Christ makes him unworthy of being in government? I don't even know where you're coming up with the stuff. It's not like you moved the goal posts--you took them down and put up a taco stand. Relying on God to make decisions in your life is so far from being theocratic that it's getting hard to even respond to your points. Washington fit your bill of crazy nut. So did Lincoln. Are we now going to hear about how much better Christian you are than Lincoln b/c he fought vampires or something? The best I can figure is that 87 trolled you with his comment about God running a country.

OK, rule #1 of LandThieves - any time you are defending 87 with logic, you need to stop what you're doing immediately and go back and pick up what you missed out on.

And like I said and I don't know where you're missing this: I don't want anyone leading our nation or empowered to make any decisions on behalf of the people if they can't make a secular, rational decision that is based on what's best for us here on earth as opposed to what's best based on the Good Book. I didn't say religious people can't legislate. I didn't say all Christians are incapable of separate their day-job from their religious convictions.

The following statements are what I said, paraphrased:
- If you are incapable of making a rational decision because of your religion, you are a religious nutjob.
- Political/governmental decisions should be based on logic and reason, and should be made in an effort to forward our lives here on earth.
- Never claimed to know precisely how Lankford makes all his decisions, but given his past and his political campaign, I find him to be suspect. If he is capable of making a rational decision in the face of his religious convictions, then I siomply disagree with the guy's platform.

[Tundra]

Why has soonersbornsoonerbrett not responded to this, while making more posts in this thread?

Bump

[pphilfran]

OK, rule #1 of LandThieves - any time you are defending 87 with logic, you need to stop what you're doing immediately and go back and pick up what you missed out on.

And like I said and I don't know where you're missing this: I don't want anyone leading our nation or empowered to make any decisions on behalf of the people if they can't make a secular, rational decision that is based on what's best for us here on earth as opposed to what's best based on the Good Book. I didn't say religious people can't legislate. I didn't say all Christians are incapable of separate their day-job from their religious convictions.

The following statements are what I said, paraphrased:
- If you are incapable of making a rational decision because of your religion, you are a religious nutjob.
- Political/governmental decisions should be based on logic and reason, and should be made in an effort to forward our lives here on earth.
- Never claimed to know precisely how Lankford makes all his decisions, but given his past and his political campaign, I find him to be suspect. If he is capable of making a rational decision in the face of his religious convictions, then I siomply disagree with the guy's platform.

You done ****ed up...rational decision? Congress? lol

[Tundra]

You done ****ed up...rational decision? Congress? lol

Rational decision-Congr****-most unpresidential president ever= the crap we have now.

[OUMallen]

You done ****ed up...rational decision? Congress? lol

This point, I cannot refute.

[87sooner]

OK, rule #1 of LandThieves - any time you are defending 87 with logic, you need to stop what you're doing immediately and go back and pick up what you missed out on.

And like I said and I don't know where you're missing this: I don't want anyone leading our nation or empowered to make any decisions on behalf of the people if they can't make a secular, rational decision that is based on what's best for us here on earth as opposed to what's best based on the Good Book. I didn't say religious people can't legislate. I didn't say all Christians are incapable of separate their day-job from their religious convictions.

The following statements are what I said, paraphrased:
- If you are incapable of making a rational decision because of your religion, you are a religious nutjob.
- Political/governmental decisions should be based on logic and reason, and should be made in an effort to forward our lives here on earth.
- Never claimed to know precisely how Lankford makes all his decisions, but given his past and his political campaign, I find him to be suspect. If he is capable of making a rational decision in the face of his religious convictions, then I siomply disagree with the guy's platform.

you like to throw around the term "intellectually dishonest".....
you are just plain dishonest with a large helping of arrogance...
why don't you just admit that what you're trying to say is "rational decision" = YOUR opinion/position.....
and everything else = religious nutjob....

[soonerbornsoonerbret]

Why has soonersbornsoonerbrett not responded to this, while making more posts in this thread?

Because I find it irrelevant to the argument that Lankford is an idiot, which is my reaction to the title of this thread. The question "So you supported the Bush tax cuts?" is a tiny little issue in a much bigger problem. It was painfully obvious to anyone that some form of agreement had to be made concerning this "fiscal cliff"... which was put in place so the government would be forced to do something about it after all the bi-partisan in-fighting last year just "kicked the can down the road" until the end of this year. Yet they waited and waited and bickered and postured, until past the last possible minute again. The solution they came up with is obviously less than perfect, but it was never going to be perfect in the first place. There was never any possible way to make everyone happy. All the while as we wait and wait on a decision, the stock market is freaking out... businesses aren't hiring people, or laying off people... the common man is not spending money during the holidays... because everyone is worried about this obviously very important decision to be made, that should have been made well before it was. Because of bi-partisan bickering and in-fighting, the entire country, and lots of the rest of the world for that matter, were left swinging in the breeze waiting. Then, when we finally do get a compromise everyone is willing to sign off on... our esteemed Congressman Lankford is one of eight to vote against it. So he opted to go ahead and vote in a way that he knew would hurt everybody. I'm not impressed and I'm not a fan.

[SoonerLibertarian]

We went over the fiscal cliff arguably decades ago when Social Security was raided starting in the 60s. Neither party wants to address the debt and deficit and monetary issues we have. Both parties want special interests dominating things. The fiscal cliff thing just kicked the can down the road again. We won't see any real change till the current monetary system we have falls. Which will probably happen real soon. Probably sooner than some think. Just like the housing bubble burst suddenly.

[oucub23]

Don't know Lankford. He's not my Rep. I do know that this plan didn't solve a damn thing. As such, it's more of the same nonsense from Washington. Until there's a group that actually holds a line and says, 'No more of this nonsense, you're not passing crap until you present something that solves the very real problems we're facing' we're not going to have anything resembling a solution. Lankford seemed to be taking that line. I like that.

[okie52]

Because I find it irrelevant to the argument that Lankford is an idiot, which is my reaction to the title of this thread. The question "So you supported the Bush tax cuts?" is a tiny little issue in a much bigger problem. It was painfully obvious to anyone that some form of agreement had to be made concerning this "fiscal cliff"... which was put in place so the government would be forced to do something about it after all the bi-partisan in-fighting last year just "kicked the can down the road" until the end of this year. Yet they waited and waited and bickered and postured, until past the last possible minute again. The solution they came up with is obviously less than perfect, but it was never going to be perfect in the first place. There was never any possible way to make everyone happy. All the while as we wait and wait on a decision, the stock market is freaking out... businesses aren't hiring people, or laying off people... the common man is not spending money during the holidays... because everyone is worried about this obviously very important decision to be made, that should have been made well before it was. Because of bi-partisan bickering and in-fighting, the entire country, and lots of the rest of the world for that matter, were left swinging in the breeze waiting. Then, when we finally do get a compromise everyone is willing to sign off on... our esteemed Congressman Lankford is one of eight to vote against it. So he opted to go ahead and vote in a way that he knew would hurt everybody. I'm not impressed and I'm not a fan.

2/3 of the pubs in the house voted against it. 2 of our congressmen were lame ducks. If the pubs don't get spending cuts in the next few months it will be a total cave on their part.

I wanted us to go over the "fiscal cliff". Just what was that cliff? A return to the Clinton tax rates for "everyone". And why had the Bush "tax cuts" been put in place for "everyone". It was to move the US out of a recession that W inherited from Clinton in 2000-2001. But for the duration of W's term it was always labeled "tax cuts" for the rich and W wasn't paying for his wars. Well, some could rightfully argue that was the case with Iraq but 9/11 and Afghanistan were hardly W's doing. So what do the dems and Obama do when he steps into office? Extend the bush tax cuts to lessen the recession. Not only are the Bush tax cuts extended for 4 years but so are unemployment benefits and a 33% reduction on payroll taxes.

Didn't you find it illogical and harmful that our president wanted to increase capital gains taxes when it has shown it will reduce tax revenues? This was to be done by Obama "out of fairness" yet this same president gave unions a $60,000,000,000 tax exemption on their healthcare plans regardless of income....fairness? logic?

Maybe our delegation was right in voting to avert the fiscal cliff if they know they will get the spending cuts in the next few months. Coburn at least stated that the public doesn't feel the pain of their entitlements or something to that effect and it might be good for them to endure the tax consequences and costs. So I'm hopeful that spending will be addressed in the next few months. But I don't begrudge Lankford for voting against the bill.

[SoonerLibertarian]

2/3 of the pubs in the house voted against it. 2 of our congressmen were lame ducks. If the pubs don't get spending cuts in the next few months it will be a total cave on their part.

I wanted us to go over the "fiscal cliff". Just what was that cliff? A return to the Clinton tax rates for "everyone". And why had the Bush "tax cuts" been put in place for "everyone". It was to move the US out of a recession that W inherited from Clinton in 2000-2001. But for the duration of W's term it was always labeled "tax cuts" for the rich and W wasn't paying for his wars. Well, some could rightfully argue that was the case with Iraq but 9/11 and Afghanistan were hardly W's doing. So what do the dems and Obama do when he steps into office? Extend the bush tax cuts to lessen the recession. Not only are the Bush tax cuts extended for 4 years but so are unemployment benefits and a 33% reduction on payroll taxes.

Didn't you find it illogical and harmful that our president wanted to increase capital gains taxes when it has shown it will reduce tax revenues? This was to be done by Obama "out of fairness" yet this same president gave unions a $60,000,000,000 tax exemption on their healthcare plans regardless of income....fairness? logic?

Maybe our delegation was right in voting to avert the fiscal cliff if they know they will get the spending cuts in the next few months. Coburn at least stated that the public doesn't feel the pain of their entitlements or something to that effect and it might be good for them to endure the tax consequences and costs. So I'm hopeful that spending will be addressed in the next few months. But I don't begrudge Lankford for voting against the bill.

Spending won't be addressed as long as we have Bush 2.0 in the white house.

[okie52]

Spending won't be addressed as long as we have Bush 2.0 in the white house.

I see the last chance when the debt ceiling comes up but I am not that hopeful. I'm hoping Coburn wouldn't have voted yes on the fiscal cliff if he didn't know they would get the spending cuts on down the road.

[SpankyNek]

Spending won't be addressed as long as we have Bush 2.0 in the white house.

Bush would have never gambled with the military being gutted. This will happen if the pubs don't increase the debt limit.

[SoonerLibertarian]

We aren't gutting the military no matter what. We've actually increased our military role overseas in many ways.

[SpankyNek]

We aren't gutting the military no matter what. We've actually increased our military role overseas in many ways.

Sequestration will castrate our Military and DHS. Obama already believes he has compromised as the tax rate increase was placed upon those making nearly double where O wanted it. He has the power of veto, and unless he gets the cuts he sees fit, he will let the complex fold, and a recession will surely happen (I think it's coming anyway)

[SoonerLibertarian]

What signs has Obama shown in the last 4 years that he wants to cut any spending? He's added 7 trillion to the debt and doubled a large deficit.

[Sooner Bob]

OK, rule #1 of LandThieves - any time you are defending 87 with logic, you need to stop what you're doing immediately and go back and pick up what you missed out on.

And like I said and I don't know where you're missing this: I don't want anyone leading our nation or empowered to make any decisions on behalf of the people if they can't make a secular, rational decision that is based on what's best for us here on earth as opposed to what's best based on the Good Book. I didn't say religious people can't legislate. I didn't say all Christians are incapable of separate their day-job from their religious convictions.

The following statements are what I said, paraphrased:
- If you are incapable of making a rational decision because of your religion, you are a religious nutjob.
- Political/governmental decisions should be based on logic and reason, and should be made in an effort to forward our lives here on earth.
- Never claimed to know precisely how Lankford makes all his decisions, but given his past and his political campaign, I find him to be suspect. If he is capable of making a rational decision in the face of his religious convictions, then I siomply disagree with the guy's platform.

How can anyone who claims to be a Christian NOT give consideration to their religious beliefs when making certain decisions in their life? That's kinda how things work for Christians.

[SpankyNek]

What signs has Obama shown in the last 4 years that he wants to cut any spending? He's added 7 trillion to the debt and doubled a large deficit.

If he lets sequestration happen, will you finally change your broken record argument?

[OUMallen]

How can anyone who claims to be a Christian NOT give consideration to their religious beliefs when making certain decisions in their life? That's kinda how things work for Christians.

I know what you're saying. But if that causes you to make an irrational decision you wouldn't otherwise make, you don't belong in office.


Would you ever vote for someone that ran on a campaign slogan of "I can't promise you I will always vote in your best interest or in the best interest of our country. Rationality does not always rule my decision-making."?

EG- most Christians agree that hyper-violent, misogynistic rap music has no redeeming value and is sinful. However, Freedom of Speech is a fundamental aspect of our society and is crucial to a democracy, even if some of it is distasteful.

A religious nutjob would try to censor rap music, or any other speech that is harmful to the church.
A responsible politician would not try to censor rap music, even if it is against his or her religious convictions.

[Tundra]

If he lets sequestration happen, will you finally change your broken record argument?

Broken record is amusing coming from someone from the left. No offense to you.

[Sooner Bob]

I know what you're saying. But if that causes you to make an irrational decision you wouldn't otherwise make, you don't belong in office.


Would you ever vote for someone that ran on a campaign slogan of "I can't promise you I will always vote in your best interest or in the best interest of our country. Rationality does not always rule my decision-making."?

In some cases what might seem irrational to a non-Christian may seem very rational to a Christian. I know that isn't the case 100% of the time, but anytime they make a decision that is unpopular with the rest of society or it uncommon with how society might view something Christians are often labelled irrational.

No I wouldn't vote for someone who ran on that statement. However, a person doesn't need to be a Christian to lack rational thought capabilities.

[SoonerLibertarian]

If he lets sequestration happen, will you finally change your broken record argument?

I'm basing it off actual history. Obama and all the democrats from 2004-2008 rightfully ran against Bush's record because of bad spending policies and bad tax polices. What have they done since taking over? Spent more money and continued those tax policies. The only difference has been that they've spent a lot more and regulated a lot more which says a lot because Bush was a big spender and regulator.

[OUMallen]

In some cases what might seem irrational to a non-Christian may seem very rational to a Christian. I know that isn't the case 100% of the time, but anytime they make a decision that is unpopular with the rest of society or it uncommon with how society might view something Christians are often labelled irrational.

No I wouldn't vote for someone who ran on that statement. However, a person doesn't need to be a Christian to lack rational thought capabilities.

Agreed. I dislike irrationality, regardless of its source.




BTW: I edited after your response. My example of what I mean:

EG- most Christians agree that hyper-violent, misogynistic rap music has no redeeming value and is sinful. However, Freedom of Speech is a fundamental aspect of our society and is crucial to a democracy, even if some of it is distasteful.

A religious nutjob would try to censor rap music, or any other speech that is harmful to the church.
A responsible politician would not try to censor rap music, even if it is against his or her religious convictions.

[Yasiel Puig]

If he lets sequestration happen, will you finally change your broken record argument?

if he doesn't let sequestration happen, will you admit that your broken record is indeed broken and BO has no intention of fixing it?

[SpankyNek]

if he doesn't let sequestration happen, will you admit that your broken record is indeed broken and BO has no intention of fixing it?

That will largely depend upon whether he brokers a deal that maintains research grants and social programs at the expense of military budgets and corporate grants.

I have not been impressed with him so far...I thought we would be out of the Middle East and have single payor healthcare by now.

[OUMallen]

That will largely depend upon whether he brokers a deal that maintains research grants and social programs at the expense of military budgets and corporate grants.

I have not been impressed with him so far...I thought we would be out of the Middle East and have single payor healthcare by now.

And guantanamo, which lingered, still lingers, but now the prisoners may be moved state-side, but will still not be charged or put on trial.

I didn't vote for BO, but I wasn't upset when he won. I thought he'd at least do some leftist stuff I liked. He hasn't even done THAT.

[Sooner Bob]

Agreed. I dislike irrationality, regardless of its source.




BTW: I edited after your response. My example of what I mean:

EG- most Christians agree that hyper-violent, misogynistic rap music has no redeeming value and is sinful. However, Freedom of Speech is a fundamental aspect of our society and is crucial to a democracy, even if some of it is distasteful.

A religious nutjob would try to censor rap music, or any other speech that is harmful to the church.
A responsible politician would not try to censor rap music, even if it is against his or her religious convictions.

I get your point, but even the example you provided is a stretch IMO. But then again I don't of any Christians (myself included) that consider rap music sinful. Some of it is outright crap, and the lyrics often describe sinful acts, and I choose not to listen to most of it. But I'm not aware of any campaigns to censor it or other often worthless types of music.

[OUMallen]

I get your point, but even the example you provided is a stretch IMO. But then again I don't of any Christians (myself included) that consider rap music sinful. Some of it is outright crap, and the lyrics often describe sinful acts, and I choose not to listen to most of it. But I'm not aware of any campaigns to censor it or other often worthless types of music.

You didn't go to Church of Christ in southern Oklahoma, then.

[Sooner Bob]

You didn't go to Church of Christ in southern Oklahoma, then.

Actually I did for about 20 years or so . . .

[oucub23]

I get your point, but even the example you provided is a stretch IMO. But then again I don't of any Christians (myself included) that consider rap music sinful. Some of it is outright crap, and the lyrics often describe sinful acts, and I choose not to listen to most of it. But I'm not aware of any campaigns to censor it or other often worthless types of music.

Al Gore was the one leading that charge. Or maybe it was his wife.

[SG1]

[nocalsooner]

I'm glad Lankford and the no votes lost. If Lankford, Rubio, and Cantor had prevailed, my marginal income tax rate would have increased 3%, but worse, I would be royally ****ed by the alternative minimum tax. And I'm well below $250,000. What were they thinking?

[oucub23]

I'm glad Lankford and the no votes lost. If Lankford, Rubio, and Cantor had prevailed, my marginal income tax rate would have increased 3%, but worse, I would be royally ****ed by the alternative minimum tax. And I'm well below $250,000. What were they thinking?

This is exactly what they were thinking. Create a situation that is so terrible that people will be glad they only have to eat a **** sandwich, because the alternative is worse.

[Stinger_1066]

yeah....
coburn....paul......
help me out with 4 more....

Coburn and Paul are both devout Christians, and I think they are both pretty rational.

[okie52]

I'm glad Lankford and the no votes lost. If Lankford, Rubio, and Cantor had prevailed, my marginal income tax rate would have increased 3%, but worse, I would be royally ****ed by the alternative minimum tax. And I'm well below $250,000. What were they thinking?

How about "shared sacrifice" and the glorious Clinton tax rates.

[Stinger_1066]

I know what you're saying. But if that causes you to make an irrational decision you wouldn't otherwise make, you don't belong in office.


Would you ever vote for someone that ran on a campaign slogan of "I can't promise you I will always vote in your best interest or in the best interest of our country. Rationality does not always rule my decision-making."?

EG- most Christians agree that hyper-violent, misogynistic rap music has no redeeming value and is sinful. However, Freedom of Speech is a fundamental aspect of our society and is crucial to a democracy, even if some of it is distasteful.

A religious nutjob would try to censor rap music, or any other speech that is harmful to the church.
A responsible politician would not try to censor rap music, even if it is against his or her religious convictions.

That is one of the reasons why we have separation of powers. If Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional then the court system will rectify it.

[nocalsooner]

How about "shared sacrifice" and the glorious Clinton tax rates.

that might be ok if everything had been indexed for inflation. without indexing the ATM would be outrageous, as would old marginal rates.

[OUMallen]

That is one of the reasons why we have separation of powers. If Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional then the court system will rectify it.

I'm not talking about measures that maybe-maybe not Constitutional. I'm talking irrational.