Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The ideal candidate?
06-19-2015, 03:18 PM,
#1
The ideal candidate?
***
Posts: 794
Threads: 142
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 0
#1
While I'm forced to hear about mostly idiot candidates over the next year and a half, I sat down today to figure out who I'd vote for; the following candidate who matched up to most of these positions:

1. Pro-Environment - focus on preservation, conservation, overhaul the way we handle waste (no more landfills); no plastic bags; crack down on pollution even more. More national land acquisition if possible. (National Parks; promote funding of State Parks). National campaign to get Americans concerned about their surroundings. I still see folks throwing trash out the car window regularly.
2. Energy - focus on renewable energy and spend "some" money to clean up older fossil fuel plants but lead to eventually phase them out.
3. Infrastructure - new jobs, better roads; who can argue with that?
4. Military - maintain a strong presence, but reign in wasteful projects; immediate stop. I support Ike's warning still about the military industrial complex.
5. Gay marriage; let's just get this one over with. Who cares? It's no one else's business anyway. Again; if the church objects, let them. A civil union will be the best the couple will get. Keep the government out of it beyond allowing the civil union.
6. 100% separation of church and state; if the church gets public on any political point like they do today, they immediately lose any special tax status.
7. No more corporate bailouts; primarily banks.
8. The POTUS does not create jobs.
9. Healthcare; although the AHA is not good by any means, it needs to rework, not elimination. We need a universal or single payer system. All standard h/c needs like runny nose, broken bones, fever are covered 100%; any risky business you may do like race care driving, bungie jumping requires your own additional insurance; and that could include using firearms....sorry guys!
10. Gun Control; a candidate that is willing to work both sides of the aisle; knowing his boundaries, and come up with a reasonable plan to identify those folks if possible that shouldn't have them. Beyond that is out of bounds. You cannot punish law abiding folks. I'd also like to see the POTUS work to unify States reciprocity nationwide, so as to make all Americans easily understand what the laws are.
11. Taxes: flat tax in which all personal income is taxed 20% with no write-offs. Corporations too have a flat tax on all revenue, say at 30%. Whatever the numbers turn out to be, if you simplify the tax and hold firm, the Feds can make due with that. Any direct subsidies are eliminated from all corporate ventures (oil/gas/agriculture/wind farms too); however the Feds can encourage competition by offering awards for the most innovation.
12. 100% fair global trade agreements that will benefit the American worker AND the corporations equally.
13. Foreign policy: stay out of other nation's problems unless they specifically and publicly ask for help. If we go in to kill the enemy, don't be "nice" about it and accept the fact that there will be collateral damage. Be up front about it and go in hard and decisively. If you can't do that, you've already lost.


The US needs to lead the way and other nations can follow. Right now, we have no plan and it seems the status quo is comfortable to most our leadership today.

1. Pro-Environment - focus on preservation, conservation, overhaul the way we handle waste (no more landfills); no plastic bags; crack down on pollution even more. More national land acquisition if possible. (National Parks; promote funding of State Parks). National campaign to get Americans concerned about their surroundings. I still see folks throwing trash out the car window regularly.
2. Energy - focus on renewable energy and spend "some" money to clean up older fossil fuel plants but lead to eventually phase them out.
3. Infrastructure - new jobs, better roads; who can argue with that?
4. Military - maintain a strong presence, but reign in wasteful projects; immediate stop. I support Ike's warning still about the military industrial complex.
5. Gay marriage; let's just get this one over with. Who cares? It's no one else's business anyway. Again; if the church objects, let them. A civil union will be the best the couple will get. Keep the government out of it beyond allowing the civil union.
6. 100% separation of church and state; if the church gets public on any political point like they do today, they immediately lose any special tax status.
7. No more corporate bailouts; primarily banks.
8. The POTUS does not create jobs.
9. Healthcare; although the AHA is not good by any means, it needs to rework, not elimination. We need a universal or single payer system. All standard h/c needs like runny nose, broken bones, fever are covered 100%; any risky business you may do like race care driving, bungie jumping requires your own additional insurance; and that could include using firearms....sorry guys!
10. Gun Control; a candidate that is willing to work both sides of the aisle; knowing his boundaries, and come up with a reasonable plan to identify those folks if possible that shouldn't have them. Beyond that is out of bounds. You cannot punish law abiding folks. I'd also like to see the POTUS work to unify States reciprocity nationwide, so as to make all Americans easily understand what the laws are.
11. Taxes: flat tax in which all personal income is taxed 20% with no write-offs. Corporations too have a flat tax on all revenue, say at 30%. Whatever the numbers turn out to be, if you simplify the tax and hold firm, the Feds can make due with that. Any direct subsidies are eliminated from all corporate ventures (oil/gas/agriculture/wind farms too); however the Feds can encourage competition by offering awards for the most innovation.
12. 100% fair global trade agreements that will benefit the American worker AND the corporations equally.
13. Foreign policy: stay out of other nation's problems unless they specifically and publicly ask for help. If we go in to kill the enemy, don't be "nice" about it and accept the fact that there will be collateral damage. Be up front about it and go in hard and decisively. If you can't do that, you've already lost.


The US needs to lead the way and other nations can follow. Right now, we have no plan and it seems the status quo is comfortable to most our leadership today.
Reply
Find
Reply
06-19-2015, 07:47 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-19-2015, 07:53 PM by mikereddot.)
#2
RE: The ideal candidate?
***
Posts: 2,268
Threads: 207
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 0
#2
Problem is...THEY ALL LIE.

I'll vote for the guy that says, "Government is the problem, and i"m here to make it smaller"

I'll vote for the guy that says, "Government is the problem, and i"m here to make it smaller"
Reply
Find
Reply
06-20-2015, 07:30 AM,
#3
RE: The ideal candidate?
*
Posts: 320
Threads: 14
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation: 0
#3
I'll go for that. Seem to remember some president saying that "Government was the problem, not the solution", but all he ever managed to do was end the cold war, cut taxes and increase revenue, carry a gun and mostly try and leave everyone alone.
Reply
Find
Reply
06-20-2015, 08:40 AM,
#4
RE: The ideal candidate?
***
Posts: 2,268
Threads: 207
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 0
#4
(06-20-2015, 07:30 AM)British Gunner Wrote: I'll go for that. Seem to remember some president saying that "Government was the problem, not the solution", but all he ever managed to do was end the cold war, cut taxes and increase revenue, carry a gun and mostly try and leave everyone alone.

All while having a democrat controlled upper and lower house.
(06-20-2015, 07:30 AM)British Gunner Wrote: I'll go for that. Seem to remember some president saying that "Government was the problem, not the solution", but all he ever managed to do was end the cold war, cut taxes and increase revenue, carry a gun and mostly try and leave everyone alone.
All while having a democrat controlled upper and lower house.
Reply
Find
Reply
06-20-2015, 09:34 AM,
#5
RE: The ideal candidate?
***
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 8
#5
Government STILL is the problem. Thank God for the Second Amendment. The more the government tells us it is time to rescind the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments, the more they are needed to protect Liberty and Freedom. We don't want to become a totalitarian, socialist state. We are running out of other people's money, and the left in America has found that after it could no longer spend other people's money, it could spend future generations money. Now Obama and his henchmen have even exhausted that.

We need another Reagan!
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper

We need another Reagan!
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
Reply
Find
Reply
06-28-2015, 04:27 PM,
#6
RE: The ideal candidate?
*
Posts: 317
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: 2
#6
Word has it Scott Walker will be running.
Reply
Find
Reply
06-28-2015, 08:51 PM,
#7
RE: The ideal candidate?
***
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 2
#7
(06-19-2015, 03:18 PM)ssphoto Wrote: While I'm forced to hear about mostly idiot candidates over the next year and a half, I sat down today to figure out who I'd vote for; the following candidate who matched up to most of these positions:

1. Pro-Environment - focus on preservation, conservation, overhaul the way we handle waste (no more landfills); no plastic bags; crack down on pollution even more. More national land acquisition if possible. (National Parks; promote funding of State Parks). National campaign to get Americans concerned about their surroundings. I still see folks throwing trash out the car window regularly.
2. Energy - focus on renewable energy and spend "some" money to clean up older fossil fuel plants but lead to eventually phase them out.
3. Infrastructure - new jobs, better roads; who can argue with that?
4. Military - maintain a strong presence, but reign in wasteful projects; immediate stop. I support Ike's warning still about the military industrial complex.
5. Gay marriage; let's just get this one over with. Who cares? It's no one else's business anyway. Again; if the church objects, let them. A civil union will be the best the couple will get. Keep the government out of it beyond allowing the civil union.
6. 100% separation of church and state; if the church gets public on any political point like they do today, they immediately lose any special tax status.
7. No more corporate bailouts; primarily banks.
8. The POTUS does not create jobs.
9. Healthcare; although the AHA is not good by any means, it needs to rework, not elimination. We need a universal or single payer system. All standard h/c needs like runny nose, broken bones, fever are covered 100%; any risky business you may do like race care driving, bungie jumping requires your own additional insurance; and that could include using firearms....sorry guys!
10. Gun Control; a candidate that is willing to work both sides of the aisle; knowing his boundaries, and come up with a reasonable plan to identify those folks if possible that shouldn't have them. Beyond that is out of bounds. You cannot punish law abiding folks. I'd also like to see the POTUS work to unify States reciprocity nationwide, so as to make all Americans easily understand what the laws are.
11. Taxes: flat tax in which all personal income is taxed 20% with no write-offs. Corporations too have a flat tax on all revenue, say at 30%. Whatever the numbers turn out to be, if you simplify the tax and hold firm, the Feds can make due with that. Any direct subsidies are eliminated from all corporate ventures (oil/gas/agriculture/wind farms too); however the Feds can encourage competition by offering awards for the most innovation.
12. 100% fair global trade agreements that will benefit the American worker AND the corporations equally.
13. Foreign policy: stay out of other nation's problems unless they specifically and publicly ask for help. If we go in to kill the enemy, don't be "nice" about it and accept the fact that there will be collateral damage. Be up front about it and go in hard and decisively. If you can't do that, you've already lost.


The US needs to lead the way and other nations can follow. Right now, we have no plan and it seems the status quo is comfortable to most our leadership today.

6. Disagree 100%. free speech is more important than almost anything. You cannot start controlling who can say what just because you don't like what they say. In fact, I disagree with your position 700%, we wouldn't even have this country if your position regarding churches was taken in 1776. In fact, no one who signed the Declaration would agree with you either.

9. "We need a universal or single payer" Disagree 100%, what we need is market forces. We need a NO PAYER system. Let the user pay, costs will fall through the floor and everyone will afford it in one generation.

10. "Gun Control; a candidate that is willing to work both sides of the aisle" Unfortunately, the other side wants to eliminate all guns no matter what and they will not compromise, so this is really not possible.

The rest I more or less agree with.
(06-19-2015, 03:18 PM)ssphoto Wrote: While I'm forced to hear about mostly idiot candidates over the next year and a half, I sat down today to figure out who I'd vote for; the following candidate who matched up to most of these positions:

1. Pro-Environment - focus on preservation, conservation, overhaul the way we handle waste (no more landfills); no plastic bags; crack down on pollution even more. More national land acquisition if possible. (National Parks; promote funding of State Parks). National campaign to get Americans concerned about their surroundings. I still see folks throwing trash out the car window regularly.
2. Energy - focus on renewable energy and spend "some" money to clean up older fossil fuel plants but lead to eventually phase them out.
3. Infrastructure - new jobs, better roads; who can argue with that?
4. Military - maintain a strong presence, but reign in wasteful projects; immediate stop. I support Ike's warning still about the military industrial complex.
5. Gay marriage; let's just get this one over with. Who cares? It's no one else's business anyway. Again; if the church objects, let them. A civil union will be the best the couple will get. Keep the government out of it beyond allowing the civil union.
6. 100% separation of church and state; if the church gets public on any political point like they do today, they immediately lose any special tax status.
7. No more corporate bailouts; primarily banks.
8. The POTUS does not create jobs.
9. Healthcare; although the AHA is not good by any means, it needs to rework, not elimination. We need a universal or single payer system. All standard h/c needs like runny nose, broken bones, fever are covered 100%; any risky business you may do like race care driving, bungie jumping requires your own additional insurance; and that could include using firearms....sorry guys!
10. Gun Control; a candidate that is willing to work both sides of the aisle; knowing his boundaries, and come up with a reasonable plan to identify those folks if possible that shouldn't have them. Beyond that is out of bounds. You cannot punish law abiding folks. I'd also like to see the POTUS work to unify States reciprocity nationwide, so as to make all Americans easily understand what the laws are.
11. Taxes: flat tax in which all personal income is taxed 20% with no write-offs. Corporations too have a flat tax on all revenue, say at 30%. Whatever the numbers turn out to be, if you simplify the tax and hold firm, the Feds can make due with that. Any direct subsidies are eliminated from all corporate ventures (oil/gas/agriculture/wind farms too); however the Feds can encourage competition by offering awards for the most innovation.
12. 100% fair global trade agreements that will benefit the American worker AND the corporations equally.
13. Foreign policy: stay out of other nation's problems unless they specifically and publicly ask for help. If we go in to kill the enemy, don't be "nice" about it and accept the fact that there will be collateral damage. Be up front about it and go in hard and decisively. If you can't do that, you've already lost.


The US needs to lead the way and other nations can follow. Right now, we have no plan and it seems the status quo is comfortable to most our leadership today.
6. Disagree 100%. free speech is more important than almost anything. You cannot start controlling who can say what just because you don't like what they say. In fact, I disagree with your position 700%, we wouldn't even have this country if your position regarding churches was taken in 1776. In fact, no one who signed the Declaration would agree with you either.

9. "We need a universal or single payer" Disagree 100%, what we need is market forces. We need a NO PAYER system. Let the user pay, costs will fall through the floor and everyone will afford it in one generation.

10. "Gun Control; a candidate that is willing to work both sides of the aisle" Unfortunately, the other side wants to eliminate all guns no matter what and they will not compromise, so this is really not possible.

The rest I more or less agree with.
Reply
Find
Reply
06-29-2015, 06:55 AM,
#8
RE: The ideal candidate?
*
Posts: 320
Threads: 14
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation: 0
#8
As a fairly new US citizen, I take the right and responsibility of voting in presidential elections very seriously. Anytime someone thinks hard about who they will vote for (whether I agree or disagree) is doing things properly.

1. Pro-environment. For the most part I completely agree, we should support National Parks etc, but when pro-environment becomes anti-people (California Farmers with no water because of 3 fish in a river; loggers losing jobs over an owl that lives in K-mart signs just as well as trees, loss of power infrastructure to massively inefficient windpower and gerbils on treadmills), there is a problem.
2. Oil and nuclear power are really the only fuel sources that can adequately power the economy. If renewable energy was any good, it would not need subsidies (esp bankrupt solar panel companies).
3. Agree, but also agree with #8
4. Absolutely agree. As Roosevelt said "Speak softly, but carry a big stick"
5. I am happy to support civil unions, but gay marriage (despite the Supreme Court) is an oxymoron. Thousands of years of human civilization have confirmed the unique benefits of a male and female parent bringing up the next generation.
6. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. Free speech enshrined in the First Amendment is the first for a reason. Yes there are some so-called reverends and fathers who are left-wing whackos. but that's what you have to put up with. The abolition of slavery in the UK as well as USA would not have occurred without the churches speaking out.
7. Completely agree
8. Completely agree
9. Being from the UK, I can provide a unique perspective on single payer health care..... It doesn't work. Health care is rationed, decisions on who gets what drugs are made by administrators not doctors, the wait time for operations such as hip replacements can be years. Yes there is a huge amount of waste and corruption in the health care system, but when the consumer buys health care directly, just like we buy gas or cars or food, prices will come down. It worked pretty well before.
10. Anytime the phrase "common sense" is used before any form of legislation you know that not one ounce of common sense is any where near it. How many thousands of gun control laws are on the books?, why would a new one be different. Let's have someone who will enforce existing gun laws.
11,12,13 Agree with for the most part.

1. Pro-environment. For the most part I completely agree, we should support National Parks etc, but when pro-environment becomes anti-people (California Farmers with no water because of 3 fish in a river; loggers losing jobs over an owl that lives in K-mart signs just as well as trees, loss of power infrastructure to massively inefficient windpower and gerbils on treadmills), there is a problem.
2. Oil and nuclear power are really the only fuel sources that can adequately power the economy. If renewable energy was any good, it would not need subsidies (esp bankrupt solar panel companies).
3. Agree, but also agree with #8
4. Absolutely agree. As Roosevelt said "Speak softly, but carry a big stick"
5. I am happy to support civil unions, but gay marriage (despite the Supreme Court) is an oxymoron. Thousands of years of human civilization have confirmed the unique benefits of a male and female parent bringing up the next generation.
6. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. Free speech enshrined in the First Amendment is the first for a reason. Yes there are some so-called reverends and fathers who are left-wing whackos. but that's what you have to put up with. The abolition of slavery in the UK as well as USA would not have occurred without the churches speaking out.
7. Completely agree
8. Completely agree
9. Being from the UK, I can provide a unique perspective on single payer health care..... It doesn't work. Health care is rationed, decisions on who gets what drugs are made by administrators not doctors, the wait time for operations such as hip replacements can be years. Yes there is a huge amount of waste and corruption in the health care system, but when the consumer buys health care directly, just like we buy gas or cars or food, prices will come down. It worked pretty well before.
10. Anytime the phrase "common sense" is used before any form of legislation you know that not one ounce of common sense is any where near it. How many thousands of gun control laws are on the books?, why would a new one be different. Let's have someone who will enforce existing gun laws.
11,12,13 Agree with for the most part.
Reply
Find
Reply
06-29-2015, 07:29 AM,
#9
RE: The ideal candidate?
***
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 2
#9
(06-29-2015, 06:55 AM)British Gunner Wrote: As a fairly new US citizen, I take the right and responsibility of voting in presidential elections very seriously. Anytime someone thinks hard about who they will vote for (whether I agree or disagree) is doing things properly.

1. Pro-environment. For the most part I completely agree, we should support National Parks etc, but when pro-environment becomes anti-people (California Farmers with no water because of 3 fish in a river; loggers losing jobs over an owl that lives in K-mart signs just as well as trees, loss of power infrastructure to massively inefficient windpower and gerbils on treadmills), there is a problem.
2. Oil and nuclear power are really the only fuel sources that can adequately power the economy. If renewable energy was any good, it would not need subsidies (esp bankrupt solar panel companies).
3. Agree, but also agree with #8
4. Absolutely agree. As Roosevelt said "Speak softly, but carry a big stick"
5. I am happy to support civil unions, but gay marriage (despite the Supreme Court) is an oxymoron. Thousands of years of human civilization have confirmed the unique benefits of a male and female parent bringing up the next generation.
6. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. Free speech enshrined in the First Amendment is the first for a reason. Yes there are some so-called reverends and fathers who are left-wing whackos. but that's what you have to put up with. The abolition of slavery in the UK as well as USA would not have occurred without the churches speaking out.
7. Completely agree
8. Completely agree
9. Being from the UK, I can provide a unique perspective on single payer health care..... It doesn't work. Health care is rationed, decisions on who gets what drugs are made by administrators not doctors, the wait time for operations such as hip replacements can be years. Yes there is a huge amount of waste and corruption in the health care system, but when the consumer buys health care directly, just like we buy gas or cars or food, prices will come down. It worked pretty well before.
10. Anytime the phrase "common sense" is used before any form of legislation you know that not one ounce of common sense is any where near it. How many thousands of gun control laws are on the books?, why would a new one be different. Let's have someone who will enforce existing gun laws.
11,12,13 Agree with for the most part.

I agree with all of this. Well stated.
(06-29-2015, 06:55 AM)British Gunner Wrote: As a fairly new US citizen, I take the right and responsibility of voting in presidential elections very seriously. Anytime someone thinks hard about who they will vote for (whether I agree or disagree) is doing things properly.

1. Pro-environment. For the most part I completely agree, we should support National Parks etc, but when pro-environment becomes anti-people (California Farmers with no water because of 3 fish in a river; loggers losing jobs over an owl that lives in K-mart signs just as well as trees, loss of power infrastructure to massively inefficient windpower and gerbils on treadmills), there is a problem.
2. Oil and nuclear power are really the only fuel sources that can adequately power the economy. If renewable energy was any good, it would not need subsidies (esp bankrupt solar panel companies).
3. Agree, but also agree with #8
4. Absolutely agree. As Roosevelt said "Speak softly, but carry a big stick"
5. I am happy to support civil unions, but gay marriage (despite the Supreme Court) is an oxymoron. Thousands of years of human civilization have confirmed the unique benefits of a male and female parent bringing up the next generation.
6. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. Free speech enshrined in the First Amendment is the first for a reason. Yes there are some so-called reverends and fathers who are left-wing whackos. but that's what you have to put up with. The abolition of slavery in the UK as well as USA would not have occurred without the churches speaking out.
7. Completely agree
8. Completely agree
9. Being from the UK, I can provide a unique perspective on single payer health care..... It doesn't work. Health care is rationed, decisions on who gets what drugs are made by administrators not doctors, the wait time for operations such as hip replacements can be years. Yes there is a huge amount of waste and corruption in the health care system, but when the consumer buys health care directly, just like we buy gas or cars or food, prices will come down. It worked pretty well before.
10. Anytime the phrase "common sense" is used before any form of legislation you know that not one ounce of common sense is any where near it. How many thousands of gun control laws are on the books?, why would a new one be different. Let's have someone who will enforce existing gun laws.
11,12,13 Agree with for the most part.
I agree with all of this. Well stated.
Reply
Find
Reply
07-06-2015, 03:55 PM,
#10
RE: The ideal candidate?
***
Posts: 794
Threads: 142
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 0
#10
6. 100% separation of church and state; if the church gets public on any political point like they do today, they immediately lose any special tax status.
***
6. Disagree 100%. free speech is more important than almost anything. You cannot start controlling who can say what just because you don't like what they say. In fact, I disagree with your position 700%, we wouldn't even have this country if your position regarding churches was taken in 1776. In fact, no one who signed the Declaration would agree with you either.

>>> I see your point. Free speech is important, but I still am against it being abused by "speaking for" all a groups membership. Also, I'm referring to keeping it out of political policy making. If a board member or spokeperson for a religious group wants to have free speech, let it be on individual terms. I suspect our country wasn't as much a "melting pot" over 200 years ago like it is today. As and example, it is not the churches business to make policy over same ***** marriage. They can ban it per their policy, but the State can certainly treat those folks with equal fairness. Call it civil union. Conversely, a gay couple cannot expect the church to accommodate them, and it's not up to the government to get involved with religious affairs either. They can argue with the church all they want, but the government will always treat people equally and fairly, despite religion.
***
6. Disagree 100%. free speech is more important than almost anything. You cannot start controlling who can say what just because you don't like what they say. In fact, I disagree with your position 700%, we wouldn't even have this country if your position regarding churches was taken in 1776. In fact, no one who signed the Declaration would agree with you either.

>>> I see your point. Free speech is important, but I still am against it being abused by "speaking for" all a groups membership. Also, I'm referring to keeping it out of political policy making. If a board member or spokeperson for a religious group wants to have free speech, let it be on individual terms. I suspect our country wasn't as much a "melting pot" over 200 years ago like it is today. As and example, it is not the churches business to make policy over same ***** marriage. They can ban it per their policy, but the State can certainly treat those folks with equal fairness. Call it civil union. Conversely, a gay couple cannot expect the church to accommodate them, and it's not up to the government to get involved with religious affairs either. They can argue with the church all they want, but the government will always treat people equally and fairly, despite religion.
Reply
Find
Reply
07-06-2015, 05:41 PM,
#11
RE: The ideal candidate?
***
Posts: 1,393
Threads: 79
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 2
#11
(07-06-2015, 03:55 PM)ssphoto Wrote: 6. 100% separation of church and state; if the church gets public on any political point like they do today, they immediately lose any special tax status.
***
6. Disagree 100%. free speech is more important than almost anything. You cannot start controlling who can say what just because you don't like what they say. In fact, I disagree with your position 700%, we wouldn't even have this country if your position regarding churches was taken in 1776. In fact, no one who signed the Declaration would agree with you either.

>>> I see your point. Free speech is important, but I still am against it being abused by "speaking for" all a groups membership. Also, I'm referring to keeping it out of political policy making. If a board member or spokeperson for a religious group wants to have free speech, let it be on individual terms. I suspect our country wasn't as much a "melting pot" over 200 years ago like it is today. As and example, it is not the churches business to make policy over same ***** marriage. They can ban it per their policy, but the State can certainly treat those folks with equal fairness. Call it civil union. Conversely, a gay couple cannot expect the church to accommodate them, and it's not up to the government to get involved with religious affairs either. They can argue with the church all they want, but the government will always treat people equally and fairly, despite religion.

I am just not seeing your point. No matter how you phrase it, it still sounds like censorship. If a religious organization permits its clergy to speak about politics from the pulpit, it is not my, yours, or the governments right or business to tell that clergyman he can't say it.
(07-06-2015, 03:55 PM)ssphoto Wrote: 6. 100% separation of church and state; if the church gets public on any political point like they do today, they immediately lose any special tax status.
***
6. Disagree 100%. free speech is more important than almost anything. You cannot start controlling who can say what just because you don't like what they say. In fact, I disagree with your position 700%, we wouldn't even have this country if your position regarding churches was taken in 1776. In fact, no one who signed the Declaration would agree with you either.

>>> I see your point. Free speech is important, but I still am against it being abused by "speaking for" all a groups membership. Also, I'm referring to keeping it out of political policy making. If a board member or spokeperson for a religious group wants to have free speech, let it be on individual terms. I suspect our country wasn't as much a "melting pot" over 200 years ago like it is today. As and example, it is not the churches business to make policy over same ***** marriage. They can ban it per their policy, but the State can certainly treat those folks with equal fairness. Call it civil union. Conversely, a gay couple cannot expect the church to accommodate them, and it's not up to the government to get involved with religious affairs either. They can argue with the church all they want, but the government will always treat people equally and fairly, despite religion.
I am just not seeing your point. No matter how you phrase it, it still sounds like censorship. If a religious organization permits its clergy to speak about politics from the pulpit, it is not my, yours, or the governments right or business to tell that clergyman he can't say it.
Reply
Find
Reply
07-07-2015, 05:11 PM,
#12
RE: The ideal candidate?
*
Posts: 320
Threads: 14
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation: 0
#12
Churches are little more than social clubs if they have no say in the culture around them. Are they to have first amendment rights curtailed just because they speak from a specific view point?. The censorship is already starting in Oregon where Christian bakers have been told not to talk at all about their law suit with a lesbian couple, and especially not if they have the audacity to talk about their faith. If it wasn't for churches speaking out we would be a lot worse off. Of course there are left wing ideologues who use the pulpit as a platform, but that is the price you pay. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, it doesn't guarantee that anyone has to listen to you.
Reply
Find
Reply
07-16-2015, 03:35 PM,
#13
RE: The ideal candidate?
***
Posts: 794
Threads: 142
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 0
#13
I'll concede to those points. I was reacting to how the media gives so much weight to religious leaders that inevitably effects politics, which I don't like. Sometimes emotional political choices are made at the expense of fact-based and logical common sense solutions. Abortion being a prime example.
Reply
Find
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Red Dot Arms Forum | Return to Top | | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication