Originally posted by Ascendancy
Obamacare will magically be responsible for a price hike on Papa John's pizza, however that's supposed to work.
I wonder why only Papa John's is hiking up their prices, while other fast food chains aren't? Could it be that he is a firm supporter of Romney? I hope for his sake that the 15 cent hike on each pizza sold does not turn around and bite him on his ass. I hate his food anyways, so this will be just one more reason why I wouldn't buy his trash.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Which could just mean you're a poor observer.
That could also be a possibility, but it is simply not true. 🙂
Originally posted by Peach
...Oklahoma ia far from being the most conservative state in the US. It may be a red state, but that isn't enough. Try looking at the policies of some other states, like Arizona, Texas, Mississippi, Missouri, etc. Look at the bills they try passing there. OK is not even close.
One or two polices does not a conservative state make. OKC takes the cake in being the overall most conservative state I have observed and studied. Just because we don't pass an immigration law does not mean it was not considered.
What you don't see is the overall score that I would place. They may be 4th in conservative immigration, 3rd in evangelical related policies, 1st in gay marriage sentiments, etc. But their overall placement has the lowest score (if you add up the ranks). And this is not localized to a few areas: it is fairly homogeneous in OK.
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Obamacare will magically be responsible for a price hike on Papa John's pizza, however that's supposed to work.
WHAT? This sacrilege will not stand! *grabs pitchfork*
Yes I am a Christian and my friends and I have had this discussion many times over. We believe that the US is imploding from within ranging from immorality, health-care policies, the economy and world affairs. For example the situation in Syria: we intervened in Libya, but refuse to do so in Syria. Why?: Russia and China. When did this country become afraid of those countries? Our foreign policy has gone to the crapper. Leaking classified information to make yourself look good? How dispicable is that?
Sure this president may have given the order to kill bin Laden, but he did not kill the terrorist. Watch this video: http://youtu.be/X-Xfti7qtT0
It seems to me, that many give him a free pass on the very destructive policies. They really don't care. It is extremely sad.
Was Kennedy afraid of the Soviet Union during the 62 missile crisis? No. So why did our fearless leader (I say that mockingly) back off missile defense in Poland? He cowed to a meager Russian threat (they threatened war). The Russian military currently is a joke - they can beat up a 3rd world country, but a world power is a different story. China is no threat in the region.
Yes of course Kennedy was afraid- he was absolutely petrified.
Why didn't the US go into Hungary in 1956? Why did the US have to pull out of North Korea? There has never been any time in modern (i.e. post WW2) history where the US has not feared Russia and China, for the very sensible reason that they are vastly powerful. The Russian military might not be what it once was, but it's still a significant force so what are you suggesting? You want war with Russia?
You are trying to hark back to a state of affairs that never existed. You are also implying that the US should be so powerful as to do whatever it likes no matter who disagrees, overriding the UN Security Council veto. Disturbing on both counts.
The same applies to your thoughts on things like immorality and the economy. The truth is, the long-term trend of these things for all Western nations is upwards. You are having nostalgia for a time when things were worse.
The blue helmets watched in 95 the genocide in Rewanda. The UN is weak just like the League of Nations. The League of Nations was powerless and let Socialism, Communism and Nazism rise to power and from 39-45, 65 million people were killed in the most destructive war in history. They'd rather sit back, pass ineffective resolutions and watch people die by the hundreds of thousands. 1991, Saddam killed his own people with poison gas and the UN did nothing. So, I wouldn't place faith in the UN.
62 - Kennedy blockaded Cuba and brought the U.S. within 30 minutes of nuclear war because he was willing to deny the Soviets a FOB.
56 - Covertly, U.S. troops were in Hungary.
65-73 - Covertly, U.S. and Russian troops fought each other in Vietnam, Thailand and Laos.
79-88 - Soviet Union invades Afghanistan and the U.S. supplies the Afghanis with weapons and CIA officers for 'training.' (unfortunately that would come back to haunt us)
Naval warfare:
1968 - USS Scorpion (SSN-589) sinks. Officially, some mechanical failure, but many right ranking officers admit that it was sunk by enemy action aka Russians destroyed the submarine.
Korean War - Americans were denied airstrikes on China. China and NK could not win therefore a cease-fire was signed. By the way, technically the US is still at war with NK because no peace treaty was signed.
Socialism had nothing to do with WW2, and maybe if the US had not been such an ass and stayed out the League of Nations it might have worked out better.
'Covertly US troops were in Hungary'- oh REALLY now? The Hungarian rebels don't remember that, and these theoretical troops must have been completely useless because they did nothing. The Hungarians were BEGGING the US for an intervention, and on much clearer moral grounds than Syria today. But they didn't- because Russia could not be trifled with so. The US stood by and watched the tanks crush democracy there, and the rebels never forgave the US for it.
Not at war with China though, is the US? No, because as soon as China intervened, the whole US plan there had to be completely abandoned, and Truman had to fire MacArthur before he dragged the world to annihilation. The US would not dare go to war against China and could not retake the ground it lost.
Face it- in ALL of modern history, the US has been terrified of these two other superpowers, often beyond reasonably so. Your idea that this is some new, modern weakness is absurd. There is literally nothing to be done about Syria as it stands, and the situation would have been no different fifty years ago. You were scared of them then, you are scared of them now- and to do as you suggest would be madness.
Originally posted by UshgarakNot at war with China though, is the US? No, because as soon as China intervened, the whole US plan there had to be completely abandoned, and Truman had to fire MacArthur before he dragged the world to annihilation. The US would not dare go to war against China and could not retake the ground it lost.
America was never 'afraid' of China, Truman fired MacArthur because MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons on China, which would have brought the Soviet Union into the war and started a nuclear confrontation.
Don't confuse 'not wanting a nuclear war' with 'being afraid of confrontation with China'
I meant America is not still at war with China now, in reply to the comment about North Korea. The important difference being that the US need have no fear of continued hostilities with North Korea. China is a different matter- they wanted out of that war ASAP.
Of course the US was afraid of China- it had a massive superiority in manpower and had just kicked them out of North Korea. They couldn't just ignore that.
I am afraid it is untrue to say it was specially about the use of nuclear weapons that got MacArthur fired, something Truman himself never ruled out. MacArthur himself denied ever wanting to use nuclear weapons. It was his wish for conventional action against China that was the breaking point (well, that and that he wouldn't shut up about it in public). The US would not dare go to all-out war with China.
When I say 'afraid', I don;t mean outright cowering in the corner. I am only matching Truculent's language invoked about why the US doesn't intervene in Syria. These are countries that have to be taken seriously.
Originally posted by Darth TruculentI like how you just take it for granted that it's your country's right to intervene wherever and whenever it wants. The U.S. and Turkey have been mulling over a no-fly zone, Libya-style. In that UNSC vote, Russia and China were absentee voters. This time round they've been actively vetoing everything. But you take it as a sign of weakness that America doesn't just say "Screw you guys, we're going to Syria"? How about taking a hint that America doesn't have the right to do whatever, whenever, wherever, to whomever it likes. You're not the moral authority of the world.
For example the situation in Syria: we intervened in Libya, but refuse to do so in Syria.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I meant America is not still at war with China now, in reply to the comment about North Korea. The important difference being that the US need have no fear of continued hostilities with North Korea. China is a different matter- they wanted out of that war ASAP.Of course the US was afraid of China- it had a massive superiority in manpower and had just kicked them out of North Korea. They couldn't just ignore that.
I am afraid it is untrue to say it was specially about the use of nuclear weapons that got MacArthur fired, something Truman himself never ruled out. MacArthur himself denied ever wanting to use nuclear weapons. It was his wish for conventional action against China that was the breaking point (well, that and that he wouldn't shut up about it in public). The US would not dare go to all-out war with China.
When I say 'afraid', I don;t mean outright cowering in the corner. I am only matching Truculent's language invoked about why the US doesn't intervene in Syria. These are countries that have to be taken seriously.
As for Syria, I don't think American policy makers think China or Russia would actually directly oppose an American-led military intervention. It would be far more costly than Libya, but America could intervene and topple Al-Assad just as it toppled Hussein in 03.
That's the reason America is doing nothing, because America doesn't want another Iraq. Russia and China digging their heels in just allows America to come off as if its trying and blame whatever falls on those dastardly Russians, while Russia gets to pretend like it intimidated the big bad Americans. The whole thing is diplomatic cockstroking for all parties concerned.
Originally posted by Oliver North
if you were to ask Jesus, do you think he would keep his money or use it to help the less fortunate?why do you think it is better for you not to be like Jesus?
He'd say, and I mother crappin' quote: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."
So if the government decides to tax you on shit you don't want, TFB: Jesus AND Paul both said to obey the laws of the land.
In other words, don't be a rebellious douchenugget: pay your taxes.
However, that doesn't mean you cannot participate in government and get stuff struck down with which you don't agree.
Also, I've also given you my spiel how Jesus would not want you to pay taxes for charity but would want you to conduct the charity directly. Paying your taxes is far from legitimate charity, imo. Just like legitimate rape. lolololol
K, I'm done.
my point was about the morality of "I don't want to pay for other people to live" contrasted against the fact Jesus lived and taught the exact opposite of that.
sure, Jesus said render to Caesar (in the version of the bible decided upon by politicians hundreds of years after christ's death), while at the same time being highly rebellious against the established politico-religious system. sure, "do what the state says" can have lots of unfortunate moral consequences, that is all interesting (much of what Jesus said is worth mulling over at least), but that political sentiment is different from the moral sentiment.
DT opposes obamacare because he doesn't feel he should pay for other people, even though he can afford it. that is a moral statement about how society should behave, and one that is directly at odds with what Jesus taught about living a moral life.
though, not surprisingly, DTs argument has evolved from "do you really want to take care of others" to "we can't afford to take care of others", though, I have no issues with the presumption that he would oppose any form of public health care, even if it was affordable (which it clearly is).