[QUOTE=RevBS;440588]A Freudian slip more likely.[/QUOTE][B]There You Go Again![/B]
ROFLMAO.
Printable View
[QUOTE=RevBS;440588]A Freudian slip more likely.[/QUOTE][B]There You Go Again![/B]
ROFLMAO.
Excellent post Punter. As Dccpa put it, government works best when it's closest to the people. If Californians want a "progressive" state and Texans want freedom and liberty, then why not let them have it.
[QUOTE=Punter127;440587]Nope not joking, exaggerating yes, but not joking. Perhaps political cleansing would have been a better choice of words, because that's what progressives like you and Rev BS try to do with your constant attempts at character assassination of people and media outlets that disagree with you.
That's absurd, I [B]buy[/B] my electricity and natural gas from publicly owned [U]state regulated[/U] utilities, I [B]buy[/B] my water from a municipally-owned utility, fire protection is provided by volunteer and local city and county fire departments. Police protection is provided by city, county, and state governments, federal law enforcement only addresses crimes that violate federal laws. And we don't need a federal police force, as a matter of fact we have to much federal intervention in local law enforcement already, which has lead to the militarization of local law enforcement agency that we're seeing today. Our school systems are run by local school boards not the federal government, again federal intervention has led to the disastrous public school system we have today. Almost all of what you named off is owned by someone other than the federal government and most of what the fed does control should be turned over to the states. The primary function of the federal government should be interstate commerce and defense.
The idea that the federal government should extract money from the people in the form of taxes and then use that same money as a weapon to gain compliance with the political whims of the day whilst lining the pockets of their political cronies is ludicrous at best. Equally ludicrous is the suggestion that we could not have the above mentioned services without the federal government, if anything the fed makes these services more costly and less efficient. There is a role for the federal government but it should be very limited.[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, the Feds have managed to infiltrate almost every state and local expenditure with "contributions" that have strings attached; however, even with the strings from Washington, state and local governments are more responsive to the needs of the people.
Tres3.
[QUOTE=Punter127;440587]Perhaps political cleansing would have been a better choice of words, because that's what progressives like you and Rev BS try to do with your constant attempts at character assassination of people and media outlets that disagree with you.[/QUOTE]Conservatives and their media outlets routinely damage their own character by their own words. Some of us simply point it out occasionally.
So you disagree with Don B's statement that the only legitimate task of government is defending individual rights. That's what I thought. But yet you supported it by your "Thanks". Clearly his statement is untenable, so now you clarify that this is about the federal government, though you still disagree with Don by your citation of interstate commerce and defense. Thank you for being more specific. I don't understand why you guys "Thank" each other when you actually don't agree. And I'll bet you support more of a federal role than what you cited (for example, functions within the DHHS, would you replicate the FDA and CDC at each state level?). This seems to be a theme on the right; they bash government routinely and say they want small government, but when you get to specifics there are actually a lot of things they want the government to do.
Tiny, Political donations do not alone determine political affiliation. Has it not occured to you that Wall Street often donates to the party most likely to win, to establish a record of support to the party in power?
[QUOTE]Democrats are more likely to provide special tax breaks and corporate welfare for Wall Street.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]You want to take capital away from those who use it best and allocate it to government instead. That's the progressive solution: [URL]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE]Lies and distortion. Look at the tax and regulatory legislation under Obama that Republicans opposed. Nowhere have I said I support communism and the abolition of private property (in your link). I do support higher taxation on Wall Street casino players, who absolutely do not use capital better than government. I'm pretty sure a $100 M infrastructure program will create more jobs and help the economy more than $100 M re-invested in a long or short position of a public company.
Your ongoing mischaracterizations are sad but not surprising. This is what Republicans (and Libertarians) must do; if they were to accurately describe the views and goals of Democrats, with proper context, their base would erode. Therefore constant mischaracterization is needed.
[QUOTE=Esten;440602]I don't understand why you guys "Thank" each other when you actually don't agree.[/QUOTE]It's call the "circling of wagons" as in the Frontier Days. Guns vs Bows and Arrows. That is how the NRA came into being, somebody said.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;440590]Excellent post Punter. As Dccpa put it, government works best when it's closest to the people. If Californians want a "progressive" state and Texans want freedom and liberty, then why not let them have it.[/QUOTE]Thanks Tiny,
I'm in full agreement with your thinking, the only problem I see for a "progressive" state is they would still have to follow the Constitution, which they don't seem to like very much.
[QUOTE=Tres3;440591]Unfortunately, the Feds have managed to infiltrate almost every state and local expenditure with "contributions" that have strings attached; however, even with the strings from Washington, state and local governments are more responsive to the needs of the people.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]You're 100% correct, I think a case can be made that the infiltration you speak of is by design. Always be leery of strangers bearing gifts!
And progressives just keep getting stranger and stranger, just read some of the recent post on this thread.
[QUOTE=Esten;440602]Conservatives and their media outlets routinely damage their own character by their own words. Some of us simply point it out occasionally.[/QUOTE]Progressives and their media outlets routinely damage their own character by their own words. Some of us simply point it out occasionally. Works both ways Dude.
[QUOTE=Esten;440602] you disagree with Don B's statement that the only legitimate task of government is defending individual rights. That's what I thought. But yet you supported it by your "Thanks". Clearly his statement is untenable, so now you clarify that this is about the federal government, though you still disagree with Don by your citation of interstate commerce and defense. Thank you for being more specific. I don't understand why you guys "Thank" each other when you actually don't agree. And I'll bet you support more of a federal role than what you cited (for example, functions within the DHHS, would you replicate the FDA and CDC at each state level?). This seems to be a theme on the right; they bash government routinely and say they want small government, but when you get to specifics there are actually a lot of things they want the government to do.[/QUOTE]The argument about big government has always been about the federal government everyone including you knows that, you're just trying to spin your way out of a hole you dug for yourself.
I don't speak for Don B nor I am I required to agree with every word he writes in order to thank him for a post, sorry Esten you don't get to make the rules. Thanks again for your post Don B!
I'm not going to cherry pick government agencies and programs with you because it's pointless.
But I will remind you that we already have "replication" of many things at state level. Do you know of a state that doesn't have a health department or DMV or highway department, I think most if not all even have their own OSHA. (the names may vary) Do you think the federal government should be allowed to tell California they can't sell medical marijuana? Do you think the Fed has the right to tell Colorado they can't legalize marijuana? Do you think terminally ill people should be refused the right to take experimental drugs because the FDA has refused to approve it because they're concerned it might cause pimples on you ass? (for the simpletons among us that was an exaggeration) I don't have a big problem with keeping some agencies like the FDA but they should be pretty much powerless and limited to making suggestions or recommendations to the states, let the people of each state decide what's right for them. The Constitution should be the only thing limiting the states.
[QUOTE=Esten;440603]Tiny, Political donations do not alone determine political affiliation. Has it not occured to you that Wall Street often donates to the party most likely to win, to establish a record of support to the party in power?[/QUOTE]You have a good point. The fact that Ackman made 64 donations to Democrats (ten of which were to Democrat PAC's) and one donation to a Republican (Romney) since 2008 does not determine his political affiliation. Maybe Ackman was just trying to promote his agenda. This would tend to support what I wrote, which you said was a lie and distortion:
[QUOTE=Tiny12;440583]
Democrats are more likely to provide special tax breaks and corporate welfare for Wall Street. [/QUOTE]That is, Wall Street has found it easier to buy off Democrats than Republicans. Take a look at the links I posted about Ackman for example.
[QUOTE=Esten;440603]Nowhere have I said I support communism and the abolition of private property (in your link)....Your ongoing mischaracterizations are sad but not surprising. This is what Republicans (and Libertarians) must do; if they were to accurately describe the views and goals of Democrats, with proper context, their base would erode. Therefore constant mischaracterization is needed.[/QUOTE]I'm not trying to persuade the "base" of anything, especially the Republican base, since I'm not a Republican. I am only trying to help you on your voyage of self discovery. You explained here what a neoliberal is. As a result of your kindness, I realized that's what I am. I came out of the closet, and wear the neoliberal badge with pride. I'm just trying to return the favor. Seriously, I'd be trying to pin the Marxist label on EAP instead of you, in view of his continually calling some of us "Fascists", but his responses are pretty weak. And if you were dictator of the USA, you would take a huge chunk of the economy and move it from the private sector to the federal government.
[QUOTE=Esten;440603] I'm pretty sure a $100 M infrastructure program will create more jobs and help the economy more than $100 M re-invested in a long or short position of a public company.[/QUOTE]
That may be right, especially if the $100 million infrastructure program were run by private enterprise or a state or local government. Your guy in Washington takes a $800 billion stimulus program, and by the time he's finished pandering to his supporters and runs the money through the federal bureaucracy, we get poor value for the money spent.
[B]Is MSNBC turning on Obama?[/B]
A year ago you'd never have heard this discussion on MSNBC's Morning Joe.
"The MSNBC panelists, not a Tea Party member in the lot, make the very strong point that there's maybe just a little more than a "smidgen" of corruption at the IRS. And maybe the FBI, who couldn't find any problems at the IRS even before they had appointed an Obama campaign donor to investigate it".
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFUF0vYNN04[/URL]
[QUOTE=Punter127;440619]Progressives and their media outlets routinely damage their own character by their own words. Some of us simply point it out occasionally. Works both ways Dude.[/QUOTE]I agree, MSNBC is a good example (at times). But I think conservatives outperform progressives here, in their endless attempts to cast Obama and Democrats in a negative light.
BTW, did you even watch the Youtube link you posted? They said Lerner's words demonstrated bias that fed the GOP narrative. They did not say that Lerner's actions were biased or corrupt. Guess what, the government is full of folks with bias. Democrats and Republicans. Like the Republican who said he was responsible for implementing the words "Tea Party" as a flag criteria. Lerner was dumb to put her opinions in an email, but an email does not equate with corruption. Let us know when you find that smidgen of corruption.
The last time we had 6 consecutive months of 200K+ jobs was 1997. That's right, [B]1997[/B]. Not even Bush and all those tax cuts could do better. Again we see the epic exposure of Republican falsehoods that trickle-down economics is superior, that Obama's policies have failed, and that the Affordable Care Act is a big jobs killer.
The US economy also set a new record for consecutive months of private-sector job growth. The labor market is clearly strong.
No doubt the ODS crowd will try to claim that part time jobs are up, and that wage growth is anemic because of Obama. Let's see if they can make a convincing case that any weakness in these areas are due to Obama's policies, rather than effects of capitalism and corporatism.
The US Jobs Market Just Accomplished Something It Hasn't Done Since 1997
[URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/july-jobs-report-200k-growth-for-first-time-since-1997-2014-8[/URL]
[QUOTE=Esten;440708]I agree, MSNBC is a good example (at times). But I think conservatives outperform progressives here, in their endless attempts to cast Obama and Democrats in a negative light.
BTW, did you even watch the Youtube link you posted? They said Lerner's words demonstrated bias that fed the GOP narrative. They did not say that Lerner's actions were biased or corrupt. Guess what, the government is full of folks with bias. Democrats and Republicans. Like the Republican who said he was responsible for implementing the words "Tea Party" as a flag criteria. Lerner was dumb to put her opinions in an email, but an email does not equate with corruption. Let us know when you find that smidgen of corruption.[/QUOTE]Your calling someone biased is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Tres3.
"She just plays into Republicans worst suspicions." (Joe Scarborough)
[QUOTE=Esten;440708]I agree, MSNBC is a good example (at times). But I think conservatives outperform progressives here, in their endless attempts to cast Obama and Democrats in a negative light.[/QUOTE]But of course you do, I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
[QUOTE=Esten;440708]BTW, did you even watch the Youtube link you posted? They said Lerner's words demonstrated bias that fed the GOP narrative. They did not say that Lerner's actions were biased or corrupt. Guess what, the government is full of folks with bias. Democrats and Republicans. Like the Republican who said he was responsible for implementing the words "Tea Party" as a flag criteria. Lerner was dumb to put her opinions in an email, but an email does not equate with corruption. Let us know when you find that smidgen of corruption.[/QUOTE]Not only did I watch it, I heard what they said, you're the one who needs to read my previous post and play the video again starting at about the 1:27 mark, and remember this is the far-left-wing fringe MSNBC.
Here's what they said:
[I][b]If the question is was there political, ideological bias inside the IRS, its hard to argue no after you read that, said Willie Geist.
And malice, added MSNBC contributor Nicolle Wallace. She (Lerner) equates Republicans as inferior to terrorists. I think motive is there, I think state of mind is there again,[highlight] if this were a legal proceeding, they've got their gal.[/highlight][/b][/I]
Lois Lerner labeled people on the right "assholes" and "crazies" who are more likely to "take us down" than foreign terrorists. That's coming from a senior manager at the IRS, a group that is supposed to be absolutely non-partisan. She's entitled to her opinion about those who don't agree with her politically, I've said worse about progressives, and I will again. I believe progressives who want to replace the Constitution with "critical thinking" are the greatest threat the United States faces today.
But there's a difference between Lois Lerner and me, I'm not responsible for writing or enforcing IRS regulations, Lois Lerner was.
The problem isn't that she has different opinion than me, or that she even held a senior position at the IRS, it's that she acted on her opinion in her enforcement of IRS regulations. Anybody that doesn't believe that surely believes in the tooth fairy.
[I]"The Department of Justice so far has declined to investigate the IRS and isn't likely to ever do so as long as Eric Holder is in charge. President Obama is Holders close friend and pulled his fat out of the fire by blocking the Fast and Furious investigation.
Obama has said there is not a smidgen of evidence tying Lerner's crusade against conservatives to the White House efforts to see Obama re-elected. That, of course, is what all the stonewalling and crashed hard drives are about. One of the impeachment charges against President Nixon was that he used the IRS to target political enemies. The smart money says thats exactly what Obama did, but any evidence of it has surely been scrubbed, and Lerner has been bought off or possibly threatened to keep her mouth shut."[/I]
I don't think the American people need proof beyond a shadow of a doubt in the court of public opinion, they know what transpired here. I also think your refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing is helping make the case for smaller government, which would have limited opportunities for abuse of power. It's time to start taking away the tools of evilness and our current tax system is a good place to start. It's time to reduce the IRS to nothing more than bill collectors by adopting a fair flat tax across the board, no exceptions. The flat tax would also take away some of the tools used to cater to special interest.