Lankford only OK congressman to vote against fiscal cliff

Posted 668 day(s) ago by okie522938 Views 100 Replies
Results 51 to 100 of 101
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
  1. #51
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    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 gay men and legislators giving money to churches.

    The crazy thing about your and 87's whole retarded 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.
    The following users like this post: Sooner Bob


  2. #52
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,518
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by soonerbornsoonerbret View Post
    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 gay is a choice... no it's not.
    So if he had voted yes you'd disagree....?

  3. #53
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    5,021
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by soonerbornsoonerbret View Post
    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 gay is a choice... no it's not.
    Sounds like you are easily controlled and manipulated. Lankford could make you do or say anything. Bizarre.
    2 users like Sancho's post: okie52, soonerbornsoonerbrett


  4. #54
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,518
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    Sounds like you are easily controlled and manipulated. Lankford could make you do or say anything. Bizarre.
    LOL

  5. #55
    Originally Posted by Sancho View Post
    Sounds like you are easily controlled and manipulated. Lankford could make you do or say anything. Bizarre.
    Except vote for him. Bizarre.

  6. #56
    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    So you supported the Bush tax cuts?
    Why has soonersbornsoonerbrett not responded to this, while making more posts in this thread?

  7. #57
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,518
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    Why has soonersbornsoonerbrett not responded to this, while making more posts in this thread?
    It appears Lankford is the issue rather than the issue.
    The following users like this post: pphilfran


  8. #58
    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    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 gay rights.
    The following users like this post: IndySooner


  9. #59
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,518
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by soonerbornsoonerbret View Post
    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 gay rights.
    I doubt anyone in OK's delegation (including Coburn) would vote for pro choice or pro gay marriage. Would you vote for any of them?

  10. #60
    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    I doubt anyone in OK's delegation (including Coburn) would vote for pro choice or pro gay marriage. Would you vote for any of them?
    Haven't yet.

  11. #61
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,518
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by soonerbornsoonerbret View Post
    Haven't yet.
    If pro choice and pro gay marriage are your litmus test I doubt you ever will.

  12. #62
    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...

  13. #63
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,902
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    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.

  14. #64
    Tundra's Avatar
    Posts
    2,775
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Indian Territory

    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    Why has soonersbornsoonerbrett not responded to this, while making more posts in this thread?
    Bump

  15. #65
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    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

  16. #66
    Tundra's Avatar
    Posts
    2,775
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Indian Territory

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    You done ****ed up...rational decision? Congress? lol
    Rational decision-Congrass-most unpresidential president ever= the crap we have now.

  17. #67
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,902
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    You done ****ed up...rational decision? Congress? lol
    This point, I cannot refute.

  18. #68
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    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....

  19. #69
    Originally Posted by playmakr View Post
    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.

  20. #70
    SoonerLibertarian's Avatar
    Posts
    10,622
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City

    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.

  21. #71
    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.

  22. #72
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,518
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by soonerbornsoonerbret View Post
    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.

  23. #73
    SoonerLibertarian's Avatar
    Posts
    10,622
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City

    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    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.

  24. #74
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,518
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian View Post
    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.

  25. #75
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian View Post
    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.

  26. #76
    SoonerLibertarian's Avatar
    Posts
    10,622
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City

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

  27. #77
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian View Post
    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)

  28. #78
    SoonerLibertarian's Avatar
    Posts
    10,622
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City

    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.

  29. #79
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    6,112
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    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.

  30. #80
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian View Post
    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?

  31. #81
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,902
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by Sooner Bob View Post
    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.

  32. #82
    Tundra's Avatar
    Posts
    2,775
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Indian Territory

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    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.

  33. #83
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    6,112
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    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.

  34. #84
    SoonerLibertarian's Avatar
    Posts
    10,622
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    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.

  35. #85
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,902
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by Sooner Bob View Post
    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.

  36. #86
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    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?

  37. #87
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by Romulus View Post
    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.

  38. #88
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,902
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    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.

  39. #89
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    6,112
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    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.

  40. #90
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,902
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by Sooner Bob View Post
    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.

  41. #91
    Sooner Bob's Avatar
    Posts
    6,112
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    North of Waterloo Road

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    You didn't go to Church of Christ in southern Oklahoma, then.
    Actually I did for about 20 years or so . . .

  42. #92
    Originally Posted by Sooner Bob View Post
    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.

  43. #93

  44. #94
    nocalsooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,954
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northern California

    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?

  45. #95

    Lankford only OK congressman to vote against fiscal cliff

    Originally Posted by nocalsooner View Post
    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 shit sandwich, because the alternative is worse.

  46. #96
    Stinger_1066's Avatar
    Posts
    21,271
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    On the golf course

    Originally Posted by 87sooner View Post
    yeah....
    coburn....paul......
    help me out with 4 more....
    Coburn and Paul are both devout Christians, and I think they are both pretty rational.

  47. #97
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    7,518
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by nocalsooner View Post
    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.

  48. #98
    Stinger_1066's Avatar
    Posts
    21,271
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    On the golf course

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    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.

  49. #99
    nocalsooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,954
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northern California

    Originally Posted by okie52 View Post
    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.

  50. #100
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    7,902
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by Stinger_1066 View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. A letter from Congressman Lankford
    By okie52 in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: April 12th, 2013, 04:44 PM
  2. Replies: 273
    Last Post: January 28th, 2013, 03:09 PM
  3. White House offer on avoiding fiscal cliff
    By pphilfran in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: December 9th, 2012, 11:17 AM
  4. The Fiscal Cliff and the Grand Bargain
    By Sooner5030 in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 29th, 2012, 12:40 AM
  5. Replies: 30
    Last Post: August 25th, 2012, 12:21 AM