[quote]Sloth wrote:
I see no problem at all with any of that. She didn’t create the programs which then created distortions in pricing and competition. And, at least she’s productive instead of sitting at home watching Jerry Springer. I’m sure she, at least, actually pays taxes.[/quote]
You missed my point, Sloth.
I have no problem with it either.
But at least recognize that government has it’s place…instead of being portrayed as “evil incarnate”…when you have benefitted from Government programs as much, if not more, than the vaunted “Ghetto Queen”.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I see no problem at all with any of that. She didn’t create the programs which then created distortions in pricing and competition. And, at least she’s productive instead of sitting at home watching Jerry Springer. I’m sure she, at least, actually pays taxes.[/quote]
You missed my point, Sloth.
I have no problem with it either.
But at least recognize that government has it’s place…instead of being portrayed as “evil incarnate”…when you have benefitted from Government programs as much, if not more, than the vaunted “Ghetto Queen”.
Mufasa[/quote]
Uh uh, the small government types didn’t distort tuition and health care costs through these programs. They should absolutely feel free to use them while pushing for smaller government. Left wingers don’t get to create market distorting programs, charge us for it, and then tells us if we use them we must keep silent.
“…Left wingers don’t get to create market distorting programs, charge us for it, and then tells us if we use them we must keep silent…”
LOL!
Let me get this “right” (no pun intended)!
The “lefties” only create all this Government Crap (which isn’t true; but for the sake of argument, let’s say it is. Let’s liken the “lefties” to drug dealers).
“Lefties” and “Righties” use them (and most liklely, equally)…get hooked on them…BUT…it’s okay that the “righties” use them…because, what…only “righties” pay taxes???
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m still learning more about Perry.
Didn’t someone post that he had numerous political “liabilities” that would surely come out in the campaign?
One problem with putting “religion” at the forefront of your campaign and/or your POLITICAL life, is that you best hope that you don’t have a few embarrassing boy-toys or hoochies in the closet.
The fall simply becomes greater and faster when people smell hypocrisy. Putting religion at the forefront is like putting political “chum” in the water.
And one thing that you can be assured of; ALL candidates are gathering all the little negative tidbits they can against all of their possible opponents; it ain’t just the “MSLM”.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Certainly, I agree. The MSLM comes out in full force once the chosen candidate appears. And, that’s when it actually matters, in the general election. If the candidate is Romney you won’t be able to pick up a paper, turn on TV or surf the net without reading or hearing the word MORMON. They will be relentless. Just as relentless as they were in vetting Obama…oh wait they never did that huh? That’s because they’re fair right?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The only way a woman gets fair treatment by those dogs is if she’s a democrat. [/quote]
It has nothing to do with her being a woman, and everything to do with her having no understanding of history and making moronic statements just like her Alaskan counterpart.
If a Republican woman presented herself more rational and dignified (like Madeline Albright) and less like a bible-thumping half-wit that appeals only to the emotional aspect of a very small group of people, she would be much harder to take on.
I despise Ann Coulter but someone like her is much more difficult to tear into because as evil as she is, she does not present herself in that “Aw shucks” kinda way that 40 farmers in the midwest like but the rest of the country rolls its eyes at.
[/quote]
You know you’re right it’s all Bachman’s fault. She’s an idiot. They always Graduate retards from one of the most prestigious law schools in the country (William & Mary). And the press is completely fair. In fact, they’re much like you, they don’t write nasty things about republicans because they’re registered as democrats (about 90% of them). They just happen to see what’s there and report it in an unbiased fashion. Just as they did with Obama. Boy they really went after him huh? They talked all about his inexperience, his 20 year love affair with the church of hate, his history with the radical left…poor guy. But…he still got elected.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t think Bachmann is being treated as dumb at all…but somewhat hypocritical.
From the farm subsidies she has received over the years (and continues to receive)…to
government Loans she received for school…to the Medicaire payments that her husband’s clinic receives.
All legal and fine, for sure…but you can’t go around ranting about lazy people being on the government dole or keeping the government “out of our Lives”.
Mufasa[/quote]
I see no problem at all with any of that. She didn’t create the programs which then created distortions in pricing and competition. And, at least she’s productive instead of sitting at home watching Jerry Springer. I’m sure she, at least, actually pays taxes.[/quote]
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
There is only one thing I disagree with you here on, Zeb…(and I’ve said it MANY times before)…
MAKING AN ISSUE OF ROMNEY’S RELIGION WILL NOT, AND HAS NOT, COME FROM THE LEFT…IT’S BEEN FROM, AND WILL BE, FROM THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT.
Mufasa[/quote]
Oh, it comes in a generalized form from the left. Look at the “oh no, theocracy is coming to America!” stuff that comes with a mention of Palin, Bachmann, or Perry.
“Lefties” and “Righties” use them (and most liklely, equally)…get hooked on them…BUT…it’s okay that the “righties” use them…because, what…only “righties” pay taxes???
Wow!
Mufasa
[/quote]
Really, Mufasa? Really? You simply can not grasp the difference between what is, and what ought to be? Tea party folk must operate in world where tuition HAS been pushed up and up by financial aid, for example. The difference is the ‘righties’ would rather it be different, and seek to change it. Sort of a critical difference…
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Would you elect a Mormon?[/quote]
Would you elect an atheist, even assuming they agree with you on almost every political position, and their only difference was a lack of religion?
Be honest.[/quote]
If he supported freedom of religion, was against abortion, believed in free market and small government and did not let there atheism control policy, then yes I would.
The only inherent problem with atheists is the lack of submissiveness, and elected official is to serve, not rule. Theists generally inherently have some sense of serving where as atheists lack it inherently. It you think your ‘it’ it’s hard to take orders. In a republic, your there to represent, so you take orders from constituents, ultimately.
I understand there are plenty of theists who sodomize this notion with a rusty knife, but I am talking general inherent notions.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I wonder if the nominee will divide the Republican party[/quote]
eh, I doubt it. I mean it always looks that way through the primaries. But after words everybody gets in line.
They better not fuck this up, Obama is weak an vulnerable. All they have to do is hammer his ineptness on economy right into the white house. Right now, I’d say the presidency is pretty much the republican’s to lose. The golden opportunity is now.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t think Bachmann is being treated as dumb at all…but somewhat hypocritical.
From the farm subsidies she has received over the years (and continues to receive)…to
government Loans she received for school…to the Medicaire payments that her husband’s clinic receives.
All legal and fine, for sure…but you can’t go around ranting about lazy people being on the government dole or keeping the government “out of our Lives”.
Mufasa[/quote]
Typical “Small government Republicanism” at its finest. Speak out of both sides of the mouth while taking all you can from a system you decry and vote against.
[/quote]
See, that doesn’t bother me too much. There’s a shrinking market for medicare because the payments to providers keep getting cut down and doctors are dropping their support. So one could argue, if one were so inclined (and I am NOT) that the Bachmans’ clinic is providing foe socially disadvantaged blah blah blah… In any case, it is a market and people deserve to get paid for their services. And on the subject of student loans: they are almost required for school now, let alone med school, vet school, or law school where the tuition and fees are more than many people working full-time make in a year. So that doesnt bother me. Besides, if you had to wait for somebody “outside” the system to change things it would almost never be changed, so that is a political impractability, on both sides of the aisle.
The thing that would piss me off, however, is her–or anybody–decrying the system to the public and then voting FOR said system during office.
I have to be honest, guys…this argument is fascinating to me:
“… I’ll use Government services, loans etc. because they are there; and I have the right to…but the difference between me and a liberal is that I don’t want to use them…”
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
We gotta get past the religious labels and get to the meat.
[/quote]
Kinda of go hand in hand, well should and used to go hand in hand.
In years past if I was Catholic it meant a few things, meant I wasn’t against consumption (capitalism), but I was an advocate for the widows and orphans. I also thought government shouldn’t be centralized. It meant I had reverence and honor for marriage and was against abortion. Meant I was against the death penalty and mistreatment of prisoners. It also meant I was conservative morally, but I also believed in freedom of conscience and religion. I believe freedom in America was freedom to do what we ought/should do and not do whatever we just pleased.
But, alas we have tried to push religion into the categories next to if the man wears boxers or briefs.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I have to be honest, guys…this argument is fascinating to me:
“… I’ll use Government services, loans etc. because they are there; and I have the right to…but the difference between me and a liberal is that I don’t want to use them…”
I just don’t know what else to say…
Mufasa[/quote]
Let’s make sure we’re seeing this clearly. This isn’t just that we use them because the subsidies are there, we use them because we HAVE to in order to operate and compete. We don’t want to HAVE to use them, and we know if they are AVAILABLE we will HAVE to use them in the end because when they are AVAILABLE it makes it almost impossible to stay afloat and compete if you don’t.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Survival is the mother of preparation, subsidies are inherently reactionary. They require almost zero preparation of the individual and cause moral hazards that usually far outweigh the benefit alone.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Left wingers don’t get to create market distorting programs, charge us for it, and then tells us if we use them we must keep silent…”
LOL!
Let me get this “right” (no pun intended)!
The “lefties” only create all this Government Crap (which isn’t true; but for the sake of argument, let’s say it is. Let’s liken the “lefties” to drug dealers).
“Lefties” and “Righties” use them (and most liklely, equally)…get hooked on them…BUT…it’s okay that the “righties” use them…because, what…only “righties” pay taxes???
Wow!
Mufasa
[/quote]
No.
But you dont get to complain about people taking what they can after you have extorted money out them and made it virtually impossible to make it without the subsidies you put in place.
If every other farmer gets money you either take it too or you are fucked-
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You know you’re right it’s all Obama’s fault. He’s an idiot. They always Graduate retards from one of the most prestigious law schools in the country (Harvard). And the press is completely fair. In fact, they’re much like you, they don’t write nasty things about democrats because they’re registered as republicans. They just happen to see what’s there and report it in an unbiased fashion.[/quote]
Come on now ZEB, the press was never unbiased, but there is a level of equilibrium here.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Would you elect a Mormon?[/quote]
Would you elect an atheist, even assuming they agree with you on almost every political position, and their only difference was a lack of religion?
Be honest.[/quote]
If he supported freedom of religion, was against abortion, believed in free market and small government and did not let there atheism control policy, then yes I would.
The only inherent problem with atheists is the lack of submissiveness, and elected official is to serve, not rule. Theists generally inherently have some sense of serving where as atheists lack it inherently. It you think your ‘it’ it’s hard to take orders. In a republic, your there to represent, so you take orders from constituents, ultimately.
I understand there are plenty of theists who sodomize this notion with a rusty knife, but I am talking general inherent notions. [/quote]
You’re going to have to explain how atheists lack the ability to serve the public, because simply saying “they inherently lack the ability” isn’t going to cut it. Public service is a very simple concept, you seem to think it needs a theological underpinning when I and many others like myself (atheists) understand it just fine without the need for a God.
However, to the main point, if you would elect based on positions held and not some sense of kinship based on flavor of theological viewpoint, then I applaud you.
(This thread really should be changed to “Keep the Government OUT of my SS/Medicaire/Student Loans/Farm Subsidies” thread!)
Look, guys.
I have no problem with politicians and other people availing themselves of Government Jobs, subsidies,unemployment, Loans and programs…cool…really.
But don’t go around pointing fingers at others; creating an “us-them”/“right-left” environment; and accusing others of sucking at the tit of the Government…when you are walking around with breast milk sloshing in your stomach and dried colostrum around your lips.