I think Reagon said it best. Government is not the answer to our problems. Government is the problem.
With 99.999% certainty I can say: Government stinks
Printable View
I think Reagon said it best. Government is not the answer to our problems. Government is the problem.
With 99.999% certainty I can say: Government stinks
[QUOTE=Black Shirt]Wild walleye,
Is that free drinks you are offering, I am willing to be the moderator.
Anything else free?[/QUOTE]I just need you to bring an investor for my Argie company.
[QUOTE=Esten]the 'screw the poor' right.[/QUOTE]Esten,
It's amazing how your mind thinks. How exactly is the "right" screwing the poor? By the fact that some people who happen to be politically conservative also choose not to give the money they've earned to others?
So how exactly does that philosophy apply to everyone else. For example, as you walk down the sidewalk, are [u]you[/u] "screwing" the other pedestrians because you've quietly decided not to give them your money?
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson]Esten,
It's amazing how your mind thinks. How exactly is the "right" screwing the poor? By the fact that some people who happen to be politically conservative also choose not to give the money they've earned to others?
So how exactly does that philosophy apply to everyone else. For example, as you walk down the sidewalk, are [u]you[/u] "screwing" the other pedestrians because you've quietly decided not to give them your money?
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]I understand Esten. When people who are susceptible to being influenced by others are constantly bombarded by slogans and propaganda, they internalize it as fact, even though they have never seen actual proof that the slogan or propaganda is accurate.
Obama is in Nashua, NH less than a mile away from my home. As I was passing the speech site I saw several dozen protester on the streets. One sign that I saw which cracked me up was "Obama is Washington's Juan Peron".
I am sure my good friend Sid would agree.
[QUOTE=Metkim]Obama is in Nashua, NH less than a mile away from my home. As I was passing the speech site I saw several dozen protester on the streets. One sign that I saw which cracked me up was "Obama is Washington's Juan Peron". I am sure my good friend Sid would agree.[/QUOTE]And Michelle as Evita? Ouch! Too close to the bone for me!
Jackson, perhaps you missed it in Esten's earlier post but he referred to his true colors - "progressive". God save us from the "progressives" since they think the Constitution and Bill of Rights are crap and should be scraped. They are way worse than "liberals" - in fact "progressives" give "liberals" a bad name!
Progressives believe the "power elite" should run the country since we poor stupid masses are unable to think for ourselves, we must be lead for our own good.
[QUOTE=Esten]I don't want to talk at length about poverty. But according to the US Census Bureau, approximately 13% of the US population or 40 million people live in poverty. No they are not in the same 'abject' poverty (I never used that word) as in some other countries. But that's no reason to ignore them. Nobody's proposing to go give them new cars and plasma TVs. And I doubt many people want to significantly equalize incomes (I don't) But in a country as wealthy as the US, some of us would like to do a little more to ensure their basic needs are met and that they have realistic opportunities to improve their quality of life if they work for it. This isn't just about people who live in poor neighborhoods, but other groups you may not immediately think of, such as seniors and people who can't find a job. At the level of affluence in the US, some consider the persistence of poverty for tens of millions of Americans to be a national disgrace.[/QUOTE]Esten,
The poor in the USA are better off than the average person in Europe by many measures. Congress and the Obama administration will likely make everyone in the U S worse off, by reducing the incentive for people to work and to start and grow businesses. The policies you espouse not only hurt the wealthy, they also hurt the middle class and those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. See [url]http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf[/url]. That's unless you want to avoid reading something that might contradict your prejudices.
Jackson,
I was not referring so much to individuals as to policies. Republican policies tend to reduce spending on social programs, and increase the concentration of wealth in the wealthy. Some at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder might rightly feel 'screwed' by such policies.
Obama's Q&A at the House GOP retreat was great television.
One notable exchange was with Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling. Instead of just asking his question, he starts in on a long prologue filled with Republican talking points on deficits and debt. At one point Obama jumps in to ask if there's a question coming. Eventually Hensarling gets to his question on the debt, but framing it against Obama and the administration. Obama calls him out on using the Q&A to run a campaign rather than having serious discussion. And then goes on to systematically point out the distortions in his prologue.
I said something before about Obama cutting through the Republican bs and that's just what he did. Apparently after Obama's strong performance, some Republicans were regretting the decision to have allowed television cameras in. FOX news cut away early.
You can prattle on about any Obama photo op you want (he does about 200/ day) however, before you blow all your goo, try answering the 10-20 points on which you were called out.
Your answer to Jax is only an answer in the eyes of Bill Clinton (I. E. 'an answer is a reply') Trying including some substance in your reply / answer.
P. S. I will still by you a drink and Blackshirt will still deliver Daddy Warbucks
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]You can prattle on about any Obama photo op you want (he does about 200/ day) however, before you blow all your goo, try answering the 10-20 points on which you were called out.
Your answer to Jax is only an answer in the eyes of Bill Clinton (I. E. 'an answer is a reply') Trying including some substance in your reply / answer.
P. S. I will still by you a drink and Blackshirt will still deliver Daddy Warbucks[/QUOTE]Dude, I'm not going to shave my head.
[QUOTE=Esten]Republican policies tend to reduce spending on social programs, and increase the concentration of wealth in the wealthy. Some at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder might rightly feel 'screwed' by such policies.[/QUOTE]We contend that you are looking at this incorrectly. We believe that that statement (repeated so many times by liberals with no proof except skewed statistics to back it up) should read:
"Republican policies tend to reduce spending on social programs because when more people are wealthy social programs are not needed as much. These policies tend to increase the concentration of wealth in those who work. Some at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder feel put-upon to actually produce by such policies, or remain poor as the other option, and they feel screwed by that policy."
Again, capitalistic policies have pulled more people out of poverty and provided a better life for more people than any government / socialist program in the history of the world. If you have examples of where that is incorrect and where the government produced programs that actually made things better FOR MORE PEOPLE, please post them so we can see more than "my heart bleeds for those who lack."