Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Compromise and working together = More government laws/regulations, and more spending. It has never, ever been less government and less spending. I'm sick of "compromise and working together" due to this. Of course elected leaders want bi-partisanship, it means a bigger government, more money they can spend(give) to themselves, their friends, supporters, families, etc..
I'm sick of everyone wanting to put their hands in my pockets to fund their pet causes. I'm sick of these people compromising on voting for justices who don't think I have a right to own a handgun in my own home, that my only recourse for self-defense/protection is to call the government.
I didn't vote for Mourdock, I voted against the status quo....a status quo which likely has destroyed this country. I foresee a break-up of the states in the coming decade or two. Those who want taxpayer funded abortion on demand with no parental consent for teens will be able to live in those states where that is legal. Those who want criminal laws based upon the Bible can live in those states. Those who want to give 75% of their paycheck to local government to have a huge welfare system can live in a state with such a tax rate. Those who want a state where firearms are banned can live in such a place. If a break-up doesn't happen, I can see the losing side finally just giving up. Screw working, live off the dole. Screw raising your kids right, if a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate is good for one group, it should be good for all. Screw working hard, just demand things be given to you. If you can't beat them, join the others sides lowest of the low. Be lazy, don't work hard, help grow the welfare state. Only a fool would work hard and make good money in a socialist country. Stuff like working, studying hard in college would be for suckers.
Compromise and working together = More government laws/regulations, and more spending. It has never, ever been less government and less spending. I'm sick of "compromise and working together" due to this. Of course elected leaders want bi-partisanship, it means a bigger government, more money they can spend(give) to themselves, their friends, supporters, families, etc..
I'm sick of everyone wanting to put their hands in my pockets to fund their pet causes. I'm sick of these people compromising on voting for justices who don't think I have a right to own a handgun in my own home, that my only recourse for self-defense/protection is to call the government.
I didn't vote for Mourdock, I voted against the status quo....a status quo which likely has destroyed this country. I foresee a break-up of the states in the coming decade or two. Those who want taxpayer funded abortion on demand with no parental consent for teens will be able to live in those states where that is legal. Those who want criminal laws based upon the Bible can live in those states. Those who want to give 75% of their paycheck to local government to have a huge welfare system can live in a state with such a tax rate. Those who want a state where firearms are banned can live in such a place. If a break-up doesn't happen, I can see the losing side finally just giving up. Screw working, live off the dole. Screw raising your kids right, if a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate is good for one group, it should be good for all. Screw working hard, just demand things be given to you. If you can't beat them, join the others sides lowest of the low. Be lazy, don't work hard, help grow the welfare state. Only a fool would work hard and make good money in a socialist country. Stuff like working, studying hard in college would be for suckers.
The scary thing to me, is Mourdock stated that compromise to him was getting dems to fall in line with the tea party. That isn't compromise, that is a dictatorship.
It is sad when a guy like Lugar, who has always been more concerned about getting the job done regardless of what side of the aisle was getting it done, and he is painted as a liberal baby killer. What's worse, is the mindless drones in the tea party actually buy that.
Compromise and working together = More government laws/regulations, and more spending. It has never, ever been less government and less spending. I'm sick of "compromise and working together" due to this. Of course elected leaders want bi-partisanship, it means a bigger government, more money they can spend(give) to themselves, their friends, supporters, families, etc..
I'm sick of everyone wanting to put their hands in my pockets to fund their pet causes. I'm sick of these people compromising on voting for justices who don't think I have a right to own a handgun in my own home, that my only recourse for self-defense/protection is to call the government.
I didn't vote for Mourdock, I voted against the status quo....a status quo which likely has destroyed this country. I foresee a break-up of the states in the coming decade or two. Those who want taxpayer funded abortion on demand with no parental consent for teens will be able to live in those states where that is legal. Those who want criminal laws based upon the Bible can live in those states. Those who want to give 75% of their paycheck to local government to have a huge welfare system can live in a state with such a tax rate. Those who want a state where firearms are banned can live in such a place. If a break-up doesn't happen, I can see the losing side finally just giving up. Screw working, live off the dole. Screw raising your kids right, if a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate is good for one group, it should be good for all. Screw working hard, just demand things be given to you. If you can't beat them, join the others sides lowest of the low. Be lazy, don't work hard, help grow the welfare state. Only a fool would work hard and make good money in a socialist country. Stuff like working, studying hard in college would be for suckers.
For anything to get done in this country, everyone (including you) is going to have to accept that they're not going to get everything they want. Government will have to be larger than some wish and smaller than others may want. If your behavior is driven by the actions of a minority, Rave, then that's on you, not them. As Lugar implied, should Mourdock win in November, he's going to face a harsh reality once he reaches Washington.
And besides, Tea Partiers like Mourdock are just a variation of the 1994 class, and we see what that got us when they had control of the White House and both congressional chambers -- bigger government, bigger deficits and at least one unneccessary war. Fool me once, shame on them. Fool me twice......No thanks.
For anything to get done in this country, everyone (including you) is going to have to accept that they're not going to get everything they want. Government will have to be larger than some wish and smaller than others may want. If your behavior is driven by the actions of a minority, Rave, then that's on you, not them. As Lugar implied, should Mourdock win in November, he's going to face a harsh reality once he reaches Washington.
There is a breaking point, but folks don't want to see that. When the middle class is one rung above the cradle-to-the-grave welfare class, they will join the welfare class. Why, why would anyone work when they can do whatever they want and just live on welfare? Let the government take care of you, that way you can sit at home or work some easy job like running bar codes over a laser. No need to study all that hard in college, no need for college debt, no need to worry about healthcare (Medicaid), no need to worry about food (WIC, food stamp card), no need to worry about money ($8-$9/hour job plus Hoosier Works cash), no need to worry about huge rents (Section 8 rental voucher). I only have so much I'm willing to take, then I'm joining everyone else on the welfare dole. You and other suckers who are willing to work will have no problem paying 40% more in taxes to fund this lifestyle for millions of the rest of us....right? I mean, your not going to get everything you want, like a reasonable tax rate.
Compromise and working together = More government laws/regulations, and more spending. It has never, ever been less government and less spending. I'm sick of "compromise and working together" due to this. Of course elected leaders want bi-partisanship, it means a bigger government, more money they can spend(give) to themselves, their friends, supporters, families, etc..
I'm sick of everyone wanting to put their hands in my pockets to fund their pet causes. I'm sick of these people compromising on voting for justices who don't think I have a right to own a handgun in my own home, that my only recourse for self-defense/protection is to call the government.
I didn't vote for Mourdock, I voted against the status quo....a status quo which likely has destroyed this country. I foresee a break-up of the states in the coming decade or two. Those who want taxpayer funded abortion on demand with no parental consent for teens will be able to live in those states where that is legal. Those who want criminal laws based upon the Bible can live in those states. Those who want to give 75% of their paycheck to local government to have a huge welfare system can live in a state with such a tax rate. Those who want a state where firearms are banned can live in such a place. If a break-up doesn't happen, I can see the losing side finally just giving up. Screw working, live off the dole. Screw raising your kids right, if a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate is good for one group, it should be good for all. Screw working hard, just demand things be given to you. If you can't beat them, join the others sides lowest of the low. Be lazy, don't work hard, help grow the welfare state. Only a fool would work hard and make good money in a socialist country. Stuff like working, studying hard in college would be for suckers.
Well, if you think nothing gets done in Congress now, just look at what will happen if there isn't any compromise. Government would come to a complete halt. No raises, no employees since congress wouldn't be able to agree so they would be locked out and nothing gets done period. No one to push paperwork, no fbi, dea, cia, irs, etc. No earmarked money heading down to the state level reaches it hurting the states who then themselves have to cut back. No courts, no federal prisons so just let the prisoners go now and be done with it and they can once again terrorize local communities. I'm sorry soldier about your PTSD but the VA is closed. Bottom line, even a dysfunctional government is better than NO Government.
Hard liners are only hard line with things they don't agree with. If it's not "their" way then it's obviously wrong. That in and of itself is a farce. What might not be important to you, could be extremely beneficial to someone else. Under that logic, why would an Indiana senator vote for something that benefits Ohio. There's nothing in it for Indiana or Illinois or Michigan so obviously for people in those states, that's a waste of taxpayer money but could be exactly what Ohio needs. But damn them! No freebies cause I ain't gettin nuthin out of it!
When dealing with others, compromise is a must irregardless if it's government or your marriage.
The scary thing to me, is Mourdock stated that compromise to him was getting dems to fall in line with the tea party. That isn't compromise, that is a dictatorship.
So was it "dictatorship" when the Stimulus and Obamacare were rammed through by the Democrat super-majority in the Senate and House? Democrats didn't give a damn about Republican's thoughts on anything when they had all the control. The Republican dissent in the healthcare debate was irrelevant because the Democrats had control of both the Senate and the House. All they had to do was get all the Dems to vote for it and it would pass. Remember, the hold up was because Obama had trouble persuading enough House Democrats to vote for it. In the end, 34 House Democrats still voted against Obamacare. Thus, the anti-Obamacare side was the one made up of bi-patrisanship. The pro-Obama care side OTOH was strictly Democrat and took advantage of their super-majority to ram through whatever they wanted, even though there were people in their own party who didn't support it. That sounds like the "dictatorship" you are complaining about Mourdock advocating.
"Compromise" is liberal code-speak for Republicans needing to cave to Democrats. But you never hear liberals advocating that Democrats should move to the right. Nope, when they have the majorities like they did after 08 then they ram through whatever the hell they want. Democrats didn't care one iota about some of the ideas that Republicans had for healthcare reform.
Most of the people who are upset about Lugar getting the boot are Democrats. Indiana Republican voters did the right thing, as is evidenced by the fact that John Kerry wrote a letter mourning Lugar's loss.
So was it "dictatorship" when the Stimulus and Obamacare were rammed through by the Democrat super-majority in the Senate and House? Democrats didn't give a damn about Republican's thoughts on anything when they had all the control.
Simple question: What was the GOP alternative to Obamacare?
Compromise and working together = More government laws/regulations, and more spending. It has never, ever been less government and less spending. I'm sick of "compromise and working together" due to this. Of course elected leaders want bi-partisanship, it means a bigger government, more money they can spend(give) to themselves, their friends, supporters, families, etc..
I'm sick of everyone wanting to put their hands in my pockets to fund their pet causes. I'm sick of these people compromising on voting for justices who don't think I have a right to own a handgun in my own home, that my only recourse for self-defense/protection is to call the government.
I didn't vote for Mourdock, I voted against the status quo....a status quo which likely has destroyed this country. I foresee a break-up of the states in the coming decade or two. Those who want taxpayer funded abortion on demand with no parental consent for teens will be able to live in those states where that is legal. Those who want criminal laws based upon the Bible can live in those states. Those who want to give 75% of their paycheck to local government to have a huge welfare system can live in a state with such a tax rate. Those who want a state where firearms are banned can live in such a place. If a break-up doesn't happen, I can see the losing side finally just giving up. Screw working, live off the dole. Screw raising your kids right, if a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate is good for one group, it should be good for all. Screw working hard, just demand things be given to you. If you can't beat them, join the others sides lowest of the low. Be lazy, don't work hard, help grow the welfare state. Only a fool would work hard and make good money in a socialist country. Stuff like working, studying hard in college would be for suckers.
So was it "dictatorship" when the Stimulus and Obamacare were rammed through by the Democrat super-majority in the Senate and House? Democrats didn't give a damn about Republican's thoughts on anything when they had all the control. The Republican dissent in the healthcare debate was irrelevant because the Democrats had control of both the Senate and the House. All they had to do was get all the Dems to vote for it and it would pass. Remember, the hold up was because Obama had trouble persuading enough House Democrats to vote for it. In the end, 34 House Democrats still voted against Obamacare. Thus, the anti-Obamacare side was the one made up of bi-patrisanship. The pro-Obama care side OTOH was strictly Democrat and took advantage of their super-majority to ram through whatever they wanted, even though there were people in their own party who didn't support it. That sounds like the "dictatorship" you are complaining about Mourdock advocating.
"Compromise" is liberal code-speak for Republicans needing to cave to Democrats. But you never hear liberals advocating that Democrats should move to the right. Nope, when they have the majorities like they did after 08 then they ram through whatever the hell they want. Democrats didn't care one iota about some of the ideas that Republicans had for healthcare reform.
Most of the people who are upset about Lugar getting the boot are Democrats. Indiana Republican voters did the right thing, as is evidenced by the fact that John Kerry wrote a letter mourning Lugar's loss.
I will add to this excellent post.
Whatever a dem complains about others doing is what the dems are doing themselves. Complain about others to distract or legitamize the wrong you are doing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.