[quote]countingbeans wrote:
We need to put the social stuff aside, for now, maybe for awhile, until we fix what has become a broken country.
[/quote]
You assume an entitlement society will be allowed to be fixed without a shift in the social stuff.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
To be perfectly honest, my general impression of you (by what I remember of your posts and the impression they have made) is that your views are liberal.
[/quote]
I only post what I think most will disagree with, there is no point in contributing to the republican circle jerks that sometimes go on here.[/quote]
You are on a conservative site…with quite a few, highly intelligent people.
If you want a liberal circle jerk, there are literally thousands of sites you can post on, starting with MSNBC and CNN.
/not asking you to leave, but come on I have been here 11 years and it’s always leaned right…just ask my boy Irish, hahaha.[/quote]
My point was I don’t like circle jerks of any kind.
Speaking of CNN, its usually not that biased but today was a bit anti-ryan. To be fair I’ve seen at least one anti-obama headline and romney coverage has been pretty neutral so far.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
To be perfectly honest, my general impression of you (by what I remember of your posts and the impression they have made) is that your views are liberal.
[/quote]
I only post what I think most will disagree with, there is no point in contributing to the republican circle jerks that sometimes go on here.[/quote]
You are on a conservative site…with quite a few, highly intelligent people.
If you want a liberal circle jerk, there are literally thousands of sites you can post on, starting with MSNBC and CNN.
/not asking you to leave, but come on I have been here 11 years and it’s always leaned right…just ask my boy Irish, hahaha.[/quote]
My point was I don’t like circle jerks of any kind.
Speaking of CNN, its usually not that biased but today was a bit anti-ryan. To be fair I’ve seen at least one anti-obama headline and romney coverage has been pretty neutral so far.[/quote]
To be fair there are probably just as many liberals on this site, they just don’t like to argue like the conservatives here.
There used to be quite a few more lefties in here, but they all departed.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
We need to put the social stuff aside, for now, maybe for awhile, until we fix what has become a broken country.
[/quote]
You assume an entitlement society will be allowed to be fixed without a shift in the social stuff.
[/quote]
x2 One of my qualms with the democratic party.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
AC and Fletch:
The three of us need to start a Political Party…you’ve both hit on my same issues.
We have SYSTEMIC problems in our Government, that will require Bi-Partisan changes. Our government is a mess…and neither the DEMS, GOP or TeaPublicans have all the answers.
(I’ll post more, probably tomorrow…)
Mufasa[/quote]
Sounds awsome.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Can we all agree to hate eachother’s view on social issues after we stop heading for economic endgame?
[/quote]
The most religious posters here think atheism and the social issues are directly responsible for any economic downfalls. To them dropping those issues would be dropping everything.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Can we all agree to hate eachother’s view on social issues after we stop heading for economic endgame?
[/quote]
The most religious posters here think atheism and the social issues are directly responsible for any economic downfalls. To them dropping those issues would be dropping everything.[/quote]
Well, I think atheists are capable of being social conservatives.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the best thing they could do for Mitt is not allow any questions [/quote]
Confused again?
It’s Obama that doesn’t respond very well without his teleprompter.
Romney is great on his feet and will no doubt give a good accounting of himself in the debates.[/quote]
How about you formulate your opinion and allow me to formulate mine 
[/quote]
I have formulated my opinion, that is you’re opinion is wrong!
[/quote]
It is my opinion that it is not possible you have the ability to formulate anything. Your so called opinions are right out of the Republican play book
[/quote]
It’s people like you that the Obama people speak to when they spread their lies about the republicans being racist, and the rich not paying taxes and scaring granny about republicans taking away her social security check. And the rest of the endless nonsense bla bla bla… They’ve been lying to you for a long time and you’ve been eating it up like homemade brownies.
You and about 35% of the democratic base are incapable of an original thought. All you know is vote democrat and the sad part is you don’t even know why the hell you’re you’re doing it!
[/quote]
Fuck you Zeb
[/quote]
This is the type of discourse that you and yours are very good at.
You well represent the base Obama supporter.
Good for you!
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I only post what I think most will disagree with, there is no point in contributing to the republican circle jerks that sometimes go on here.[/quote]
Conservative and republican are two different things, and I don’t see a ton of republican specific circle jerks.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Can we all agree to hate eachother’s view on social issues after we stop heading for economic endgame?
[/quote]
The most religious posters here think atheism and the social issues are directly responsible for any economic downfalls. To them dropping those issues would be dropping everything.[/quote]
And to further your argument, they are unwilling/unable to compromise. It’s that lack of a bigger picture, lack of patience and and almost infantile view of the world that will cost us this election. If you look at the Christian Coalition website, the headline is NOT that Ryan has a plan that will help fix the economy, not that Ryan is well spoken and will whip Joe Biden’s ass in debate, it’s that Ryan is pro-life! Seriously, I can’t make this shit up:
http://www.cc.org/user_submitted_news/republicans
NEWSFLASH: If we don’t find a way to COMPROMISE and fix the economy/job market, it won’t MATTER who is pro-life or anti-gay - we’ll all be living in a world of shit (those of us who survive).
These conservative Christians are a minority in this country, yet they feel entitled to legislate their beliefs into laws that affects the majority that don’t share their views. They hold back science, oppose the teaching of evolution (despite CLEAR evidence supporting it), want to outlaw homosexuality and make abortion illegal.
THAT’S WHY WE HAVE A DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE. If the religious right would not make the republican party look like a bunch of crazed, bible thumping lunatics, then FAR more people would vote republican.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
We need to put the social stuff aside, for now, maybe for awhile, until we fix what has become a broken country.
[/quote]
You assume an entitlement society will be allowed to be fixed without a shift in the social stuff.
[/quote]
eh, good point.
Back to the drawing board for me and my rose colored glasses, lol.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I think the GOP is playing the long game by picking Ryan. While he doesn’t immediately “give” Romney OH or FL, Romney’s war chest should be able to deliver that (He’s shown that he can be effective with his advertizing, right now he’s just biding his time). If Romney wins (and manages to get us out of recession) then he is virtually guaranteed a second term. After his 8 years, assuming no one steps on their dicks TOO badly, Ryan will be a VERY hard candidate to beat in 2020. He’s young now, but in eight years and little grey hair I think he’ll be VERY presidential. I think it’s a smart pick and one that has the potential to give the GOP a solid chance of controlling the White House for the better part of the next two decades
Interesting view.
Who would be ‘the powers that be’ within the GOP that would devise and execute such a long term plan? I don’t have much knowledge in that area.[/quote]
There is no such long-term plan. I didn’t respond to this poster because he was making erroneous assumptions:
-
No one plays the “long game” when there is a Presidential race to win TODAY!
-
“e (Romney) has shown that he can be effective with his advertising.” He has shown nothing vs Obama as yet. The Romney campaign has to raise their game if they are going to compete with the Obama smear machine.
-
“Right now he’s just biding his time.” No one who has a functioning brain stem “bides their time” in a Presidential race with under 90 days to go. It is a virtual sprint to the finish line at this point.
In short the end game scenario that the poster subscribes to could very well happen. IF Romney wins, and IF Romney wins a second term, and IF Ryan looks respectable for those 8 years. But, if the poster actually thinks that this has been planned out to the year 2020 he should wake up because he must be dreaming.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
We need to put the social stuff aside, for now, maybe for awhile, until we fix what has become a broken country.
[/quote]
You assume an entitlement society will be allowed to be fixed without a shift in the social stuff.
[/quote]
eh, good point.
Back to the drawing board for me and my rose colored glasses, lol.[/quote]
The social stuff really has no bearing on the entitlements. It’s all economics and ridiculous policies: If people were given more opportunity and better education they would make better decisions. If we decriminalized drugs and taxed them like alcohol and tobacco we wouldn’t break up as many families and drive them towards welfare. If we made people receiving government subsidies actually WORK, then they’d soon realize they can do for themselves. If we had a child care system that was either free or subsidized for low income people then we could not pay them thousands of dollars per month to sit around the house, we could pay a fraction of that to watch their kids so they can work. There are PLENTY of things we could do to help people improve their lives without legislating religion.
If we encouraged every gay couple to get married (or civilly unioned however you want to call it) and adopt a child or two we could END child homelessness and lift many disadvantaged kids out of poverty… But that would be just HORRIBLE, now wouldn’t it?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The social stuff really has no bearing on the entitlements. [/quote]
Single mothers aren’t more likely to vote for entitlements? Childless elderly, or those whose children are also impoverished, or whose children are in prison, won’t vote for entitlements? An entitlement society is a safety net for the socially liberal middle and lower income.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
We need to put the social stuff aside, for now, maybe for awhile, until we fix what has become a broken country.
[/quote]
You assume an entitlement society will be allowed to be fixed without a shift in the social stuff.
[/quote]
eh, good point.
Back to the drawing board for me and my rose colored glasses, lol.[/quote]
The social stuff really has no bearing on the entitlements. It’s all economics and ridiculous policies: If people were given more opportunity and better education they would make better decisions. If we decriminalized drugs and taxed them like alcohol and tobacco we wouldn’t break up as many families and drive them towards welfare. If we made people receiving government subsidies actually WORK, then they’d soon realize they can do for themselves. If we had a child care system that was either free or subsidized for low income people then we could not pay them thousands of dollars per month to sit around the house, we could pay a fraction of that to watch their kids so they can work. There are PLENTY of things we could do to help people improve their lives without legislating religion.
If we encouraged every gay couple to get married (or civilly unioned however you want to call it) and adopt a child or two we could END child homelessness and lift many disadvantaged kids out of poverty… But that would be just HORRIBLE, now wouldn’t it?[/quote]
Many consider some of the programs you mentioned to be social issues. Many of your solutions which I agree with can be considered social solutions to issues. Entitlement is a social issue and work ethic is just that, an ethic.
There’s also issues that run rampant like out of wedlock pregnancies and one parent families that are rewarded by social programs. I don’t see that as sustainable and part of that is morality and values and it’s just as much an economical issue too.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The social stuff really has no bearing on the entitlements. [/quote]
Single mothers aren’t more likely to vote for entitlements? Childless elderly, or those whose children are also impoverished, or whose children are in prison, won’t vote for entitlements? An entitlement society is a safety net for the socially liberal middle and lower income. [/quote]
Spot on!
In fact an argument could be made that virtually every social problem ultimately costs the government (the taxpayer) more money.
And not to single out single mothers (pun not intended). Who are THEIR parents more likely to vote for? Their brothers, their sisters? What about the baby daddy that doesn’t want to actually have to support the kid daily? Their friends? How about anyone that has the imagination to realize their lifestyle could leave them with…consequences? They likely vote for the nanny state man. The safety net for any ‘oopsies!’ The entitlement state is the absentee father, the replacement adult child for the elderly, the new dad, the new mom, the bread earner.
Edit: But that’s it for me, don’t want to take this thread too far off course. But social issues will be big. Romney has claimed socially conservative positions he will end up having to answer for over and over again. We will hear lots more about those.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I think the GOP is playing the long game by picking Ryan. While he doesn’t immediately “give” Romney OH or FL, Romney’s war chest should be able to deliver that (He’s shown that he can be effective with his advertizing, right now he’s just biding his time). If Romney wins (and manages to get us out of recession) then he is virtually guaranteed a second term. After his 8 years, assuming no one steps on their dicks TOO badly, Ryan will be a VERY hard candidate to beat in 2020. He’s young now, but in eight years and little grey hair I think he’ll be VERY presidential. I think it’s a smart pick and one that has the potential to give the GOP a solid chance of controlling the White House for the better part of the next two decades
Interesting view.
Who would be ‘the powers that be’ within the GOP that would devise and execute such a long term plan? I don’t have much knowledge in that area.[/quote]
There is no such long-term plan. I didn’t respond to this poster because he was making erroneous assumptions:
[/quote]LOL thanks for finally giving this poster the courtesy of pointing out the error in this poster’s thinking! [quote]
-
No one plays the “long game” when there is a Presidential race to win TODAY!
[/quote]In politics there is ALWAYS a long game. We have a two party system. I assure you that thought is given to how decisions today will affect the future of the party. [quote] -
“e (Romney) has shown that he can be effective with his advertising.” He has shown nothing vs Obama as yet. The Romney campaign has to raise their game if they are going to compete with the Obama smear machine.
[/quote]He is following the exact same strategy that he did in the primary: He’s letting the opposition do what they want, even getting a bit ahead in the polls. He let’s the press say, “what is Romney going to do about so and so?”, and then a few weeks before it counts, he outspends the shit out of them, kicks their ass in a few debates and wins.[quote] -
“Right now he’s just biding his time.” No one who has a functioning brain stem “bides their time” in a Presidential race with under 90 days to go. It is a virtual sprint to the finish line at this point.
[/quote]I think that Romney has a functioning brain stem, as do his handlers. If you don’t call what he’s currently doing (not much) “biding his time”, what would you call it? He’s letting Obama bray and squeal like the donkey that he is. All Obama is doing is just throwing shit, not “defining him” as you see it. With the addition of Ryan and his ability to communicate, energize and make everyone who opposes his economic view look like an idiot, he has gained momentum leading up to the convention (less than two weeks away) at which time he will gain MORE momentum, ramp up HIS attack ads, and come out energized with gunz blazing. That’s not a bad strategy.[quote]
In short the end game scenario that the poster subscribes to could very well happen. IF Romney wins, and IF Romney wins a second term, and IF Ryan looks respectable for those 8 years. But, if the poster actually thinks that this has been planned out to the year 2020 he should wake up because he must be dreaming.
[/quote]
Just because a chess match is in it’s beginning stages doesn’t mean you don’t have a mid-game and end-game strategy. C’mon - this is the EXACT SAME strategy they used with George H W Bush under Reagan. And you know how many Reagan nut-huggers there are. It’s impossible for this NOT to have been discussed.
In case you haven’t noticed, these people view politics as WAR. They’ll be studying Machiavelli to Sun Tzu and I assure you the GOP has a long term plan. Them HAVING a long term plan and exercising it would explain PERFECTLY why they didn’t conform to YOUR short term ideas! They’ve placed their bet on the current horse (Romney) and they’re hedging their bet on the next race. Even if Romney loses, his pick of Ryan will have given Ryan enough legitimacy to where he would have little trouble surpassing the other GOP presidential hopefuls. This is Win/Win either way if you look at the BIG PICTURE.
At least that’s what “this poster” thinks.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The social stuff really has no bearing on the entitlements. [/quote]
Single mothers aren’t more likely to vote for entitlements? Childless elderly, or those whose children are also impoverished, or whose children are in prison, won’t vote for entitlements? An entitlement society is a safety net for the socially liberal middle and lower income. [/quote]
You know it’s funny, Social Security for example.
It is the most regressive tax ever. Even if you un-cap it, you don’t solve the problem, because people can’t do basic math and see it is an entitlement because it is a giant ponzi scheme, and it benefits those with more money, more than those that actually need it.
Yet people love the shit out of it.
(I can explain what I mean if anyone would like.)
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
We need to put the social stuff aside, for now, maybe for awhile, until we fix what has become a broken country.
[/quote]
You assume an entitlement society will be allowed to be fixed without a shift in the social stuff.
[/quote]
eh, good point.
Back to the drawing board for me and my rose colored glasses, lol.[/quote]
The social stuff really has no bearing on the entitlements. It’s all economics and ridiculous policies: If people were given more opportunity and better education they would make better decisions. If we decriminalized drugs and taxed them like alcohol and tobacco we wouldn’t break up as many families and drive them towards welfare. If we made people receiving government subsidies actually WORK, then they’d soon realize they can do for themselves. If we had a child care system that was either free or subsidized for low income people then we could not pay them thousands of dollars per month to sit around the house, we could pay a fraction of that to watch their kids so they can work. There are PLENTY of things we could do to help people improve their lives without legislating religion.
If we encouraged every gay couple to get married (or civilly unioned however you want to call it) and adopt a child or two we could END child homelessness and lift many disadvantaged kids out of poverty… But that would be just HORRIBLE, now wouldn’t it?[/quote]
Many consider some of the programs you mentioned to be social issues. Many of your solutions which I agree with can be considered social solutions to issues. Entitlement is a social issue and work ethic is just that, an ethic.
There’s also issues that run rampant like out of wedlock pregnancies and one parent families that are rewarded by social programs. I don’t see that as sustainable and part of that is morality and values and it’s just as much an economical issue too.[/quote]
I think that religious issues and entitlement issues are at odds with one another. I think that religious based legislation on abortion contributes to the single mother epidemic. I think that the religious based discrimination against homosexuality actively prevents the forming of potentially stable families that could ADOPT children and get them out of a life of poverty. I think that religious bans on contraception and even TALKING about contraception in public schools contributes to unplanned and unfunded pregnancy that the government then steps in and WE the taxpayer pay for.
The religious right needs to make up it’s mind: do they want every single possible fetus taken to full term - even if it’s parents can’t provide for it, necessitating state support? OR do we take steps to keep these often unwanted children from being born in the first place through effective education and administration of contraceptives and state funded abortions. Do we allow couples that CAN’T have children of their own to adopt the unwanted kids that slip through the system? OR do we just pay their parents to sit at home and collect a check?
You can’t have it both ways…