11 Feb 08
Originally posted by scherzoI don't care for any of the candidates, so I will probably write in Ronald McDonald. Just kidding -- as much as I disagree with McCain, he is infinitely more preferable to either of the two Socialist candidates: Obama and Clinton.
Who are you all voting for/wish you could vote for?
I'm for Obama to the end!
Just so you all know, I'm going to stop posting in this thread after this; just see how things turn out.
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by duecerYou poor, pitiful, deluded creature. Liberals of today share nothing in common with what you describe. For them, "change" means nothing more than more tax money for more government programs, so the smart people in Washington, D.C., can make decisions for you and I, which ultimately means less individual liberty for everyone.
you say liberal like its aninsult, instead of the compliment that it is😕
Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and e ...[text shortened]... g unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation.[4]
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Rittertalk about deluded...🙄
You poor, pitiful, deluded creature. Liberals of today share nothing in common with what you describe. For them, "change" means nothing more than more tax money for more government programs, so the smart people in Washington, D.C., can make decisions for you and I, which ultimately means less individual liberty for everyone.
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHow can you tackle more than one issue at a time? Of course there are other issues that require attention, however, to bring them up while talking about this particular issue is nothing more than deflecting the arguement altogether.
My sense of his argument was more like "pro-lifers in the US are hypocrites, since those same people tend to be very hawkish. Their position cannot be taken seriously for this reason" But that's just my interpretation.
11 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDon't you mean parent? I mean, does the father have a say? He is not required by law to consent.
The parents.
I agree the parents should be held accountable and will be held accountable. However, the same could be said for anyone who goes around and kills. The question then becomes, should it be endorsed by the state?
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by duecerI would have to say that your more deluded than DSR. After all, you think that John Edwards still (or ever) had a part to play in the current Democratic party nomination process.
talk about deluded...🙄
I haven't had a chance to reply to your post about what liberals believe just yet, but there are some interesting points in there that expose some interesting points
But, anyway, liberals in the Deocratic Party today (and outside) hold the view that government, rather than individuals is better suited for determining whats best for people. That government should 'take care' of us from cradle to the grave. That indivduals don't have enough common sense or sense of personal responsibility to take care of themselves.
Liberals also think that money in the hands of government can do more than money in the hands of individuals or private groups. Liberals also promote class envy on a massive scale, crying that no one or no corporation should have too much money or make too much profit, we hear this from all the Democratic candidates, but if a corporation issues stock.... who is the corporation but all the people who bought stock in that entity, that could be me buying 5 shares of CocaCola or Exxon, or your 401K buying thousands of shares of Halliburton(smiles). So when liberals cry out that corporations make too much money, where do they think that money is going to? When people like john Edwards wants to make corporations pay for everything for their workers or penalise them in some fashion, who suffers? Or when Hillary wants to raise taxes on corporations to pay for all her government handout programs ... she could be taking money from you or your kids.
Well, enough for now..... You have a great day!
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716Okay, I'm back.
I would have to say that your more deluded than DSR. After all, you think that John Edwards still (or ever) had a part to play in the current Democratic party nomination process.
I haven't had a chance to reply to your post about what liberals believe just yet, but there are some interesting points in there that expose some interesting points
But, ...[text shortened]... ld be taking money from you or your kids.
Well, enough for now..... You have a great day!
SMS Bear, you are a Republican . . . and that is an insult.
Just thought I'd throw that in. Keep debating.
11 Feb 08
Originally posted by scherzoNo I'm a independent conservative, I have even voted for Democrats at the state level in my younger days, I was a registered Democrat for 10 years.
Okay, I'm back.
SMS Bear, you are a Republican . . . and that is an insult.
Just thought I'd throw that in. Keep debating.
But that was a few decades ago in a place called Maryland.
11 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SMSBear716You are obviously ill informed on how the nomination process occurs, If neither candidate has the minimum number of delagates, then they will have to broker a deal with the also rans, and with the tight race looming in the democratic party, that looks more like a possibility, than in previous years. They (Obama and Clinton) are actively pursuing Edwards' endorsement, both sides know they would have a distinct advantage if they get it.
I would have to say that your more deluded than DSR. After all, you think that John Edwards still (or ever) had a part to play in the current Democratic party nomination process.
I haven't had a chance to reply to your post about what liberals believe just yet, but there are some interesting points in there that expose some interesting points
But, ld be taking money from you or your kids.
Well, enough for now..... You have a great day!
In answering your point about class envy; I have read many posts where you mention this. I think the repukes are far more adept at promoting class envy. They have riled the middleclass into thinking the lower class "welfare queens" have it so good. If they really think that, then why don't they quit their jobs and go on public assistance if they thinks its so cushy?
Money in the hands of the government, in many instances, can do more than in the hands of the individual. Would you be able to build a bridge over a river so you can get back and forth to work? Could you pave 10 miles of road for the same reason? Could most Americans give their children the quality education they need to compete in the market today? How about national security? Do you personally own a tank? Any anti-aircraft guns in your back yard? If someone puts out a new wonder drug, how will you know its safe? Your nieghbor decides to build a hog skin tannery in his back yard, think the zoning commission can help with that? Your house catches fire, have a couple thousand gallon water tank with a high pressure pump and hose handy.
You sir, live in a dream world. You want to live in this great country, and recieve the benefit of public education, civili engineering, public safety etc.. and you are not willing to pay for it. You are as un American as they come. I am ashamed of you.
12 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerAnd you sir are a liberal hack, There isn't anyone in this country opposed to providing for national security, well liberals like to temper that by providing as little as possible just to skate by. As I remember from a document somewhere, the government's responsibility is to provide for a national defense, insure domestic traquility, promoting the general welfare of the country.
You are obviously ill informed on how the nomination process occurs, If neither candidate has the minimum number of delagates, then they will have to broker a deal with the also rans, and with the tight race looming in the democratic party, that looks more like a possibility, than in previous years. They (Obama and Clinton) are actively pursuing Edwards' endo you are not willing to pay for it. You are as un American as they come. I am ashamed of you.
I think its the last point where conservatives and social liberals have the greatest clash. A while back Nancy Pelosi was helping to push a bill part of which would have provided the children of illegal immigrants scholarships to attend American colleges? So tell me which of the three items I mentioned above does that fall under? Promoting the general welfare of the country? Seems a number of social liberals in Congress thought so, fortunately it was defeated by conservatives with the help of the American people.
How about tax rebates for illegals under the economic stimulus bill that was just passed... which category would you place that under?
Social security payments for illegal immigrants, that would fall under?
How about the 8,000 + earmarks the Democrats got and the 3000 + the Republicans got in the last budget bill. You honestly think all of them fall into one of the three areas the federal government suppose to be responsible for?
I suppose we can stretch it a bit and say that paying out more money to people currently enrolled in Social Security and Medicare than they ever paid in could be considered promoting the general welfare of some people in the country, of course do social liberals have a solution or plan to keep Social security from going bankrupt, other than taxing the American middle class (we can't get it from the poor you worry so much about) more and more?
The wife and I paid the Federal government $27000 in taxes in 2007 ... not counting Social Security and Medicare. We have paid similiar amounts the last 18 years we have been married. How much more in taxes do you suggest we pay to the Federal government so they can redistribute it?
I doubt you will answer that question truthfully, I'll just get more social liberal/'bleeding heart' goobledy gook from you and others. Which will only go to prove my conservative views.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by whodey😉
Ah yes, its the arguement, "The world is such an evil place, why are you then concerned with innocent lives that are snuffed out that will be spared this evil place? Therefore, just don't concern yourself with other evil acts such as abortion". It kinda reminds me of the mother who went insane and drowned her children in a bathtube so as to spare them from possibly going to hell.
Its a weak arguement, but I guess its is one nonetheless.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by SMSBear716wow, only 3000 for the repukes this last go around. Stings like hell when you guys lose the election doesn't it? Gues what? they are going to lose again. And yes I do think you should be paying the taxes that you do. The government has paid for the infastructure that enables corporations, and business' to operate. You are just paying back what you owe. How's about asking Ross perot to provide for your general welfare. Do you really think if the federal govt. didn't exist, that he would give one good goddamn about wether you could retire at 65 with healthcare. Think he'de build roads for all his employees. If there was no minimum wage, think he'de pay everyone a living wage. Again I say to you that you are deluded. The rich gain the most from good government, and piss and moan about it the whole time.
And you sir are a liberal hack, There isn't anyone in this country opposed to providing for national security, well liberals like to temper that by providing as little as possible just to skate by. As I remember from a document somewhere, the government's responsibility is to provide for a national defense, insure domestic traquility, promoting the gener ...[text shortened]... art' goobledy gook from you and others. Which will only go to prove my conservative views.
Just so ya know, my wife and I pay about the same as you in taxes, you don't hear me complaining right? you retard.
12 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by duecerRetard... well thats a personal attack.... I'd report you for that but your just too insignificat to bother with.... at least at that level. Much more fun to torture with common sense and logic.
wow, only 3000 for the repukes this last go around. Stings like hell when you guys lose the election doesn't it? Gues what? they are going to lose again. And yes I do think you should be paying the taxes that you do. The government has paid for the infastructure that enables corporations, and business' to operate. You are just paying back what you owe. How's nd I pay about the same as you in taxes, you don't hear me complaining right? you retard.
Sorry you can't help but stooping to that kind of attack, but hey then its a typical liberal thing and its what they do when they have lost, sorta like small children.
Yep, you may pay the same taxes, but you got kids, we have zero deductions on two legs.....or don't you claim them? I gather this from your profile, btw.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by duecerWouldn't you rather have that part of your $27k that goes to social programs ( which Are needed) go to the needy instead of the humungous gov't bureaucracy that administers the program, and those that abuse the system? I'd bet half your taxes are pissed away on bureaucracy? That's my only beef with these programs.
wow, only 3000 for the repukes this last go around. Stings like hell when you guys lose the election doesn't it? Gues what? they are going to lose again. And yes I do think you should be paying the taxes that you do. The government has paid for the infastructure that enables corporations, and business' to operate. You are just paying back what you owe. How's ...[text shortened]... nd I pay about the same as you in taxes, you don't hear me complaining right? you retard.
F. GRANNY.