headoverheels 334 #1 October 14, 2004 Off the designate topic of domestic affairs, that is. The moderator asks a war on terrror leading question, and Kerry runs with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 October 14, 2004 Bush: "The (tax) code should encourage marriage, not discourage marriage." I say that's totally bullshit. The tax code ought to treat every dollar just as green as the next one.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 334 #3 October 14, 2004 QuoteBush: "The (tax) code should encourage marriage, not discourage marriage." I say that's totally bullshit. The tax code ought to treat every dollar just as green as the next one. It's not bullshit that tax code should not penalize marriage. Why should my GF and I pay thousands in additional income tax, just to be married? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 October 14, 2004 For the love of all that's holy . . . would they PLEASE frame them the same! This is bugging the crap out of me! GWB is being framed MUCH tighter than Kerry. Just take a look at the split screen on MSNBC.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 October 14, 2004 What I'm saying is that whether or not you're married shouldn't enter into it. Two people living together should have the same tax rate as two people that are married AND the same rate as two people living as singles.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 October 14, 2004 OMG, for a second there I thought it was going to get better, but it's even worse now! GWB's head is HUGE!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #7 October 14, 2004 >It's not bullshit that tax code should not penalize marriage. That's exactly what Paul said. There should be no benefit and no penalty to being married. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canuck278 0 #8 October 14, 2004 kerry is doing very well right now....and it really has nothing to do with what either of them is talking about.....he is speaking into the camera....he is talking too the people watching. Bush is all over the place. Steve Therapy is expensive, popping bubble wrap is cheap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #9 October 14, 2004 Actually, I think Bush is doing well, if you ignore the odd forced chuckles and "never minds" (which are partly, I'm sure, suggestions from his handlers.) Kerry's biggest problem is that he doesn't answer a lot of questions - a lot of his answers start off with "Well, but president Bush said . . . " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #10 October 14, 2004 I was kinda looking forward to some fresh answers from both of them. You'd think with the basic change in topic they be able to do that.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #11 October 14, 2004 That assault weapons ban stuff was new . . . nice.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lewmonst 0 #12 October 14, 2004 QuoteFor the love of all that's holy . . . would they PLEASE frame them the same! This is bugging the crap out of me! GWB is being framed MUCH tighter than Kerry. Just take a look at the split screen on MSNBC. I noticed that also. I think it was worse in the last debate because Bush was actually higher in the frame than Kerry, even though more podium was showing because he's shorter. Maybe they got criticized for that and maybe now they're only framing from the top of the podium up, which would have to force the framing on GW to be closer... Either way, gw's head is too big no matter how you frame it. I can't wait to read the fact-checkers on this one... peace lewhttp://www.exitshot.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #13 October 14, 2004 QuoteBush: "The (tax) code should encourage marriage, not discourage marriage." I say that's totally bullshit. The tax code ought to treat every dollar just as green as the next one. The tax code is nothing but a group of incentives. IRAs to save, mortgage deduction to buy a house, charaties,... The fact that you don't believe the family serves any purpose that should be encouraged is your opinion and total bullshit too! -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 October 14, 2004 Quote The tax code is nothing but a group of incentives. Isn't this coming from the people (Republicans) that are supposedly against social engineering? Aren't we supposed to be getting less government intrusion in our lives? Why is the tax code, of all things, being used for the purposes of social engineering? It's silly.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #15 October 14, 2004 >The fact that you don't believe the family serves any purpose that should > be encouraged is your opinion and total bullshit too! There is value in encouraging things that help with our national security (like, say, energy independence or border security.) I am against the government doing 'social engineering' and using incentives to try to skew society towards an ideal they have, like everyone should be married or everyone should own a home. It's none of their business. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #16 October 14, 2004 QuoteWhy is the tax code, of all things, being used for the purposes of social engineering? It's silly. Social engineering? Yes, we want to discourage people from being stable. Spend everything, then look to social security and medicare to take care of you. A welfare state is good. But, the tax code is far from just social issues. It's encouraging investment into certain areas. Providing certain benefits to employees. You'd be rather surprise why the tax code is the way that it is; it actually has a purpose. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #17 October 14, 2004 QuoteI am against the government doing 'social engineering' and using incentives to try to skew society towards an ideal they have, like everyone should be married or everyone should own a home. It's none of their business. I disagree. The concept of a stable family environment in which to raise our progeny is the business of the government more so than giving someone something for nothing. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #18 October 14, 2004 So then . . . you're for sin taxes and taxes on bullets and . . .quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 October 14, 2004 QuoteWhy is the tax code, of all things, being used for the purposes of social engineering? It's silly. Aren't all statutes, regulations and rules for the purpose of social engineering? Why should the tax code be treated differently? Jeez, even the debates over a flat tax vs. National Sales Tax are argued over social engineering. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #20 October 14, 2004 QuoteSo then . . . you're for sin taxes and taxes on bullets and . . . I have no problem with taxes on tobacco or alcohol. As for bullets, I can't agree with your suggested rationale that [Mr.Mackey]Guns are bad, um-kay[/MM] -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #21 October 14, 2004 Quote The concept of a stable family environment in which to raise our progeny is the business of the government more so than giving someone something for nothing. Really? Lemme quote something that I think was pretty well thought out. Quote We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. I'm not seeing a lot about creating stable families. In other words, I don't think it's the business of government to be anywhere near my family (or lack of one).quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #22 October 14, 2004 QuoteLemme quote something that I think was pretty well thought out. Quote We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. I'm not seeing a lot about creating stable families. In other words, I don't think it's the business of government to be anywhere near my family (or lack of one). It wasn't really a consideration back then. Family units were necessary to survive for both money and support -- think family farm. Today, it is not as economically "necessary." -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #23 October 14, 2004 >The concept of a stable family environment in which to raise our >progeny is the business of the government more so than giving >someone something for nothing. I disagree. We are fools if we hand over the structuring of our families to our government. It is simply none of their business. We are a free people, and we should use that freedom to create our families as we see fit, not try to make laws that encourage people to create cost-saving marriages so they get that $2000 piece of paper. Such marriages do not give us a better future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #24 October 14, 2004 Did you hear Kerry say Idear (as opposed to idea)! That is just one of my pet peeves. Another is people with pet peeves.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #25 October 14, 2004 Bush took this one.... Kerry really screwed up when he took the low blow at Cheney's daughter calling her a lesbian... Big FUBAR... Bush took it.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
