-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
This should be good news, but Romney will most likely be replaced with another politician who is equally as dense.
I remember when Ron Paul was running for president. He absolutely annihilated every single debate he was in - but the media always focused on Romney and Gingrich.
Media: "Mitt Romney and Gingrich steal the show at the Republican debate!"
Me: "Oh, who won the debate?"
Media: "Ron Paul."
Me: "Not Romney?"
Media: "Nope, he placed second."
Me: "Gingrich?"
Media: "Third."
Me: "So Ron Paul won the debate?"
Media: "By a landslide."
Me: "So Ron Paul was the highlight of the debate!"
Media: "No, Romney and Gingrich were."
Me: "So what about Ron Paul?"
Media: "Who?"
Me: "Seriously?"
Media: "Oh, right, the guy who actually answered the questions instead of beating around the bush. He won the debate."
Me: "And you're barely mentioning his name?"
Media: "Well, Romney and Gingrich stole the show."
Me: "Why?"
Media: "Because we decided we wanted to focus on them."
TL;DR - Regardless as to whether or not you agreed with Ron Paul, at least Ron Paul answered the questions instead of beating around the bush. At least Ron Paul was honest and actually told everyone what he planned on doing instead of feeding us a bunch of soft soap we wanted to hear. But the media just barely mentioned him and put their focus almost entirely in Romney and Gingrich.
I'm not the biggest fan of Rand Paul, but I definitely feel he would make the best president we've had in years.
I remember when Ron Paul was running for president. He absolutely annihilated every single debate he was in - but the media always focused on Romney and Gingrich.
Media: "Mitt Romney and Gingrich steal the show at the Republican debate!"
Me: "Oh, who won the debate?"
Media: "Ron Paul."
Me: "Not Romney?"
Media: "Nope, he placed second."
Me: "Gingrich?"
Media: "Third."
Me: "So Ron Paul won the debate?"
Media: "By a landslide."
Me: "So Ron Paul was the highlight of the debate!"
Media: "No, Romney and Gingrich were."
Me: "So what about Ron Paul?"
Media: "Who?"
Me: "Seriously?"
Media: "Oh, right, the guy who actually answered the questions instead of beating around the bush. He won the debate."
Me: "And you're barely mentioning his name?"
Media: "Well, Romney and Gingrich stole the show."
Me: "Why?"
Media: "Because we decided we wanted to focus on them."
TL;DR - Regardless as to whether or not you agreed with Ron Paul, at least Ron Paul answered the questions instead of beating around the bush. At least Ron Paul was honest and actually told everyone what he planned on doing instead of feeding us a bunch of soft soap we wanted to hear. But the media just barely mentioned him and put their focus almost entirely in Romney and Gingrich.
I'm not the biggest fan of Rand Paul, but I definitely feel he would make the best president we've had in years.
Progressive yes. However, that's not a very good thing at least here - they have more respect for animals and the environment than human life. Libertarian is a better choice for new ideas and liberties.
I agree with Percepi on this one. Rand Paul is a good choice, Ted Cruz would also be a good choice. They work together on passing bills, one more conservative socially than the other.
I agree with Percepi on this one. Rand Paul is a good choice, Ted Cruz would also be a good choice. They work together on passing bills, one more conservative socially than the other.
L
I am surprised he was even considered. This would have been his third attempt.
Romney told FOX News that he was not going to run a couple of months ago, and they kept pressuring him about it.
Even after he annouced he was withdrawing from the competition yesterday, FOX continued to go on about it. It's almost like they want to lose.
I have a theory. I think the GOP wants to run Romney again because either they know they can't beat Hillary, and they don't want to put any money behind anyone, or else they want her to win because they like her. Why else would they pick him? They aren't stupid.
Or at least... I don't think they are. Anyone who thinks that woman belongs in the White House is probably not the sharpest tack in the box.
Romney told FOX News that he was not going to run a couple of months ago, and they kept pressuring him about it.
Even after he annouced he was withdrawing from the competition yesterday, FOX continued to go on about it. It's almost like they want to lose.
I have a theory. I think the GOP wants to run Romney again because either they know they can't beat Hillary, and they don't want to put any money behind anyone, or else they want her to win because they like her. Why else would they pick him? They aren't stupid.
Or at least... I don't think they are. Anyone who thinks that woman belongs in the White House is probably not the sharpest tack in the box.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, when Romney came along he swept the media off their feet and pretty much stole the show even though Ron Paul had worked his butt off. He was pretty much the deus ex machina in the negative for the Republican party. Sponsoring him as the official candidate just caused a great divide in their voter base.
I believe the government is quite inefficient with spending, so I didn't feel they were the party for me. They felt the government should invest in certain things such as healthcare (if I remember correctly) and numerous things they felt would help the environment. The problem is, if the government invests in bad projects, it not only wastes money but can lock good ideas out. Or worse, the government can claim, "This is the way we're going to do things" and more efficient solutions wouldn't be able to make their way in because it's hard to negate laws.
J
Honesty earns you a buncha points. 
Wouldn't healthcare and environmental energy initiatives be a good thing? I really can't see the Democrats or Republicans, as partisan and petty as they can be, making any genuine steps toward these things and yet a majority of Americans want affordable (or even free) healthcare (who wouldn't, apart from those who own hospitals and big pharma?), and a majority recognize the need for more care towards the environment.
Private investors examine projects carefully and they decide how much money they want to invest according to the odds of success and failure. If the investment is a success, the private investor profits. If not, the investor loses money. No matter the outcome, it's the investor who is effected by the financial outcome of the project. If the project fails, the investor takes the hit - nobody else does. This is good for people who decide not to invest in projects because they don't get hit with debt when and if the project goes under.
The government isn't some sort of magical entity. The government is an investing agency that plays by special rules available to nobody else. The government does not invest its own money into projects - it invests OUR money into projects against our will. Not only that, but the government is allowed to rack up debt whereas private investors must stay out of debt. If the government invests well... well, who knows what happens? Can you actually think of a single government program that turns a profit? When the government invests poorly, the government doesn't lose out - we do instead.
What if the government decided to invest in solar roadways?
[video=youtube;qlTA3rnpgzU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU[/video]
Do you feel the government should invest in this project? What about those who don't want to spend their tax dollars on this project, why can't they invest in an alternative?
The same is true for healthcare as well. Why do I have to buy health insurance? Why can't I invest $100 into my bank account every month and let it built into a sizable enough sum to pay for most medical conditions I might obtain in the future? Or why can't I choose to invest in whatever healthcare system I choose? Why should I be forced to invest in certain healthcare systems? Why should I be forced to invest in a government system if I feel another system would fit my needs better?
The problem is, good intentions don't maximize the efficiency of results. This is why people are generally careful in how they invest their money. But let's face it, the government is anything but careful with money. Worst of all, we're the ones paying.
I decided college wasn't for me. So why am I paying taxes for other people to go to college? Why am I being punished for not going to college?! Why am I paying for someone else to have a market advantage over me? It's not like I can go into a job interview and say, "You know how you wanted to hire that college graduate? Guess who payed for his college. I did." Most jobs don't require college education, so obtaining a college education for these jobs is a waste of time, money, and resources. The argument about people needing college to be overall smarter is also a flawed argument because there are more efficient ways to make people expand their mind than making them spend large sums of money to learn things that are supposed to be related to work - but rarely is used for work or anything what-so-ever.
The government works against tax payers. Imagine if I wanted to train for a really nice job that you were eyeing. How mad would you be if I stole 20% of your paycheck, obtained a degree with that money, then was hired for a job you applied for because I was more educated than you? Or what if you opened a pharmacy and I decided I wanted to open one too. What would you do if 10% of your profits went into my own pharmaceutical business, opened right across the street from you? You would be pretty mad at me after I put you out of business since I can afford to lower prices more due to competing against you with your own money!
This is how the government works.
The government isn't some sort of magical entity. The government is an investing agency that plays by special rules available to nobody else. The government does not invest its own money into projects - it invests OUR money into projects against our will. Not only that, but the government is allowed to rack up debt whereas private investors must stay out of debt. If the government invests well... well, who knows what happens? Can you actually think of a single government program that turns a profit? When the government invests poorly, the government doesn't lose out - we do instead.
What if the government decided to invest in solar roadways?
[video=youtube;qlTA3rnpgzU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU[/video]
Do you feel the government should invest in this project? What about those who don't want to spend their tax dollars on this project, why can't they invest in an alternative?
The same is true for healthcare as well. Why do I have to buy health insurance? Why can't I invest $100 into my bank account every month and let it built into a sizable enough sum to pay for most medical conditions I might obtain in the future? Or why can't I choose to invest in whatever healthcare system I choose? Why should I be forced to invest in certain healthcare systems? Why should I be forced to invest in a government system if I feel another system would fit my needs better?
The problem is, good intentions don't maximize the efficiency of results. This is why people are generally careful in how they invest their money. But let's face it, the government is anything but careful with money. Worst of all, we're the ones paying.
I decided college wasn't for me. So why am I paying taxes for other people to go to college? Why am I being punished for not going to college?! Why am I paying for someone else to have a market advantage over me? It's not like I can go into a job interview and say, "You know how you wanted to hire that college graduate? Guess who payed for his college. I did." Most jobs don't require college education, so obtaining a college education for these jobs is a waste of time, money, and resources. The argument about people needing college to be overall smarter is also a flawed argument because there are more efficient ways to make people expand their mind than making them spend large sums of money to learn things that are supposed to be related to work - but rarely is used for work or anything what-so-ever.
The government works against tax payers. Imagine if I wanted to train for a really nice job that you were eyeing. How mad would you be if I stole 20% of your paycheck, obtained a degree with that money, then was hired for a job you applied for because I was more educated than you? Or what if you opened a pharmacy and I decided I wanted to open one too. What would you do if 10% of your profits went into my own pharmaceutical business, opened right across the street from you? You would be pretty mad at me after I put you out of business since I can afford to lower prices more due to competing against you with your own money!
This is how the government works.
Last edited:
V
One, this has absolutely nothing to do with Mitt Romney or the 2016 presidential race.
Two: No freakin' way! Solar roadways are impractical, monstrously expensive, and accomplish nothing that can't be done much more cheaply and efficiently with solar panels on building roofs. This idea has been batted around for a couple years. It's utter nonsense. The couple who developed the idea spend over two million dollars in grant money to build a 12X12-foot "example" of their product. Seventy dollars a square foot for these things, not including installation and roadbed preparation, vs. a little over three dollars a square foot for asphalt and five dollars a square foot for concrete to a finished product.
This idea is DOA.
Now, would you two mind not derailing the thread, please?
Two: No freakin' way! Solar roadways are impractical, monstrously expensive, and accomplish nothing that can't be done much more cheaply and efficiently with solar panels on building roofs. This idea has been batted around for a couple years. It's utter nonsense. The couple who developed the idea spend over two million dollars in grant money to build a 12X12-foot "example" of their product. Seventy dollars a square foot for these things, not including installation and roadbed preparation, vs. a little over three dollars a square foot for asphalt and five dollars a square foot for concrete to a finished product.
This idea is DOA.
Now, would you two mind not derailing the thread, please?
Last edited:
I disagree with the idea that the government should be lending debt from privatized institutions to begin with. The government should be the sole arbiter of currency -- central bank -- not privatized third parties.
I think it's a good idea. So far as tax dollars, I believe its the governments responsibility to use the tax dollars of its citizens for the citizens' benefit, as they feel is correct. If investing in this meant government road ways that generated cheaper electricity for x Americans and had x effect on the environment, then providing it is within taxation budgets and not built on borrowed money from privatized institutions then yea. In fact, I think lending money should be something governments shouldn't do nor have to do -- government should never be under the thumb of currency, currency should be under the thumb of government. Centralized bank, please.
You shouldn't ''have' to buy health insurance, but considering the very socieoeconomic system we live in dictates that there must be poorer people (otherwise how can there be richer ones), and that there are never enough jobs to gain full employment for all citizens, it should be a consideration by those who uphold that system to provide for those citizens unable to find medical means. If you'd rather save five hundred grand for all your future medical expenses then you should have that right, but you should still have to pay taxes to help those who can't afford to do that. Otherwise, we might as well call our socioeconomic system Social Darwinism, like a twisted form of eugenics ''you got none of this currency that makes people valid enough to live? And you have cancer?? .... Send him to the camp''.
Because 350 million people live in America. Millions of independent systems would be shambles.
I agree. The government are often careless. Military expenditure springs to mind. I can, however, understand and even stand behind risks motivated by desire to see people better off. Risks like social healthcare, or a robust benefits and back-to-work system, or community projects for underprivelaged people, or for free education.
Because you were given the opportunity, and you'd have gotten the same tax dollars to pay for yours. Cut off affordable education, I can't see a country lasting too much longer in the modern day. Let's flip this. Why should someone who wants to learn be forced to break the bank to do it?
Bank being the operative word there. Common denominator. Continuous problem.
You're paying taxes like everyone else. Those taxes go to innumerable causes, not all to college kids.
This is why I hate capitalism. Market advantage, commercial success. It's all a bit greedy and envious and polluted. What did you want to be as a kid, before you realized without money society thinks you're inherently worthless? I wanted to be a fireman to help people in trouble. Firemen get paid terrible wages where I live.
I disagree that education should be about moulding children with predefined knowledge to survive within capatilistic socioeconomic constraints to begin with. Somewhat agree with you here.
I don't know if I would view the situation that way. I'd probably say ''they went for the better employee'' or ''someone else met their needs''. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with their criteria, their percived needs, or their perspectives, but it's a capitalist system where education in its methods creates more chance of sucess within its constraints.
I don't think that actually happens, but I can see what your'e saying about taxation being taken then given to others. But really, that's sort of the point of taxation.
I think it's a good idea. So far as tax dollars, I believe its the governments responsibility to use the tax dollars of its citizens for the citizens' benefit, as they feel is correct. If investing in this meant government road ways that generated cheaper electricity for x Americans and had x effect on the environment, then providing it is within taxation budgets and not built on borrowed money from privatized institutions then yea. In fact, I think lending money should be something governments shouldn't do nor have to do -- government should never be under the thumb of currency, currency should be under the thumb of government. Centralized bank, please.
You shouldn't ''have' to buy health insurance, but considering the very socieoeconomic system we live in dictates that there must be poorer people (otherwise how can there be richer ones), and that there are never enough jobs to gain full employment for all citizens, it should be a consideration by those who uphold that system to provide for those citizens unable to find medical means. If you'd rather save five hundred grand for all your future medical expenses then you should have that right, but you should still have to pay taxes to help those who can't afford to do that. Otherwise, we might as well call our socioeconomic system Social Darwinism, like a twisted form of eugenics ''you got none of this currency that makes people valid enough to live? And you have cancer?? .... Send him to the camp''.
Because 350 million people live in America. Millions of independent systems would be shambles.
I agree. The government are often careless. Military expenditure springs to mind. I can, however, understand and even stand behind risks motivated by desire to see people better off. Risks like social healthcare, or a robust benefits and back-to-work system, or community projects for underprivelaged people, or for free education.
Because you were given the opportunity, and you'd have gotten the same tax dollars to pay for yours. Cut off affordable education, I can't see a country lasting too much longer in the modern day. Let's flip this. Why should someone who wants to learn be forced to break the bank to do it?
Bank being the operative word there. Common denominator. Continuous problem.
You're paying taxes like everyone else. Those taxes go to innumerable causes, not all to college kids.
This is why I hate capitalism. Market advantage, commercial success. It's all a bit greedy and envious and polluted. What did you want to be as a kid, before you realized without money society thinks you're inherently worthless? I wanted to be a fireman to help people in trouble. Firemen get paid terrible wages where I live.
I disagree that education should be about moulding children with predefined knowledge to survive within capatilistic socioeconomic constraints to begin with. Somewhat agree with you here.
I don't know if I would view the situation that way. I'd probably say ''they went for the better employee'' or ''someone else met their needs''. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with their criteria, their percived needs, or their perspectives, but it's a capitalist system where education in its methods creates more chance of sucess within its constraints.
I don't think that actually happens, but I can see what your'e saying about taxation being taken then given to others. But really, that's sort of the point of taxation.