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.
I'm a redneck.. I've been to france.. I've told them we are arrogant..
Do I need to clarify my redneckness?
His ratings are slipping fast...He can go bye-bye and take his CFR and their global agenda with him. I'm sure after 4 years of socialism and throw in AMNESTY for the illegals and the GOP will win in 2012....
His ratings are slipping fast...He can go bye-bye and take his CFR and their global agenda with him. I'm sure after 4 years of socialism and throw in AMNESTY for the illegals and the GOP will win in 2012....
You gotta wait for bigthirsty's response for a while, hazel, he's right now typing another huge message for me. So, step aside and wait
And while you're at it, you forgot the TOTUS in your message
The IMAGE of the Democratic party can be summed up with one word....PELOSI! Don't even get us started with Obummer and his socialistic agenda for our country...I don't think any REDNECK would go on foreign soil (FRANCE) and tell them that American's are arrogant like our newly elected president just did...or tell the fine folks in Mexico that's its our fault for their gun and crime problems.
Because American's ARE arrogant. I've traveled throughout much of the world and I have never been embarrassed to the extent of utter shame as when I see the quite arrogant behavior that many traveling Americans display. So you don't like the fact that Obama told the truth about our appearance to the rest of the world. Tough. Get over it. We ARE arrogant.
I'd say after the last eight years we have come across as nothing short of a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant dopes consistently meddling in affairs that we shouldn't be meddling in.
Furthermore, try not to make yourself sound like a rolling Fox News ticker with a less than comprehensive understanding of what socialism is. This nation was founded as a Republic - not a Democracy and not a socialist state. The news media, particularly Fox News, has put this "spin" on the word socialism to imply that anybody who is put at more of an advantage because of government policy should be deemed "socialist" in nature. This includes welfare programs, health care/insurance, etc... However, if they are to use this example, they should also not forget to mention that things such as roads, bridges, parks and recreation centers, youth centers (such as the YMCA), public schools, etc... could just as well fall under this newly deemed designation of "socialism." If that's what we're calling "socialism" - the helping of those who need it, then I'm all for it. I'm surprised that it's commonly the right-wing "conservatives" and "Christians" (often attached to the same party) who are so ardently against the betterment of those less fortunate.
True "conservatism," I would imagine, would say, to put all of the previous mentioned things into the realm of private corporations, allow them to fund things like bridges, roads, etc... and leave the government out of it. Now, I'm no stranger to this sort of thing. We did the same thing in Iraq under the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration in which we contracted out the war in billions of billions of dollars to private corporations such as Blackwater, KBR, etc... But, in the end, guess what happened? It was still our taxpayer dollars paying for these corporations to go fight and sustain a hefty portion of the Iraq War for us. So, in all reality, the only difference is that we're putting a middle man in place of the government. While I will admit that these corporations may provide a somewhat better service than, say, government employees milking the teat to stay in a war zone, build bridges, roads, etc... It all comes down in the end to a rather "socialized" and government funded operation anyway and in all likelihood, at a greater cost to the taxpayer.
Now, of course, we could just say that we should drop our taxes substantially, eliminate government funded social programs such as education, roads, bridges, health care, etc... and allow private corporations to take over. But, alas, think of the egregious price differential between what we pay in taxes now as opposed to what private corporations would charge us for things like health care, road and bridge usage (tolls would be rather high I imagine), education, etc...
So, let's not get all high and mighty on this "socialist bent" because most people don't know what the hell they're listening to. A true "socialist" country would be clearly distinguishable from something as our current Republic. So, allow me to make this clear before I step off the podium. This nation was founded as a Republic with our judiciary, legislative, and executive branches comprising the three independent modicums of government. President Obama does not hold complete and absolute power over anything, nor does Pelosi, nor do any of the Supreme Court Justices. It's a tri-fold effort. That's not to say one can't try to encourage the other, but, it makes our country through and through a Republic. Not a Socialist State.
A Socialist State, as one that people consistently try to pin the Obama Administration as working towards, as I said before, would be very much distinguishable from a Republic. We can play the semantics game all we want to and say that government subsidized health care is "socialism" but I'd venture to lament that it would be nothing like the health care of an actual Socialist State in which all business organizations are more or less eliminated and every single thing is provided by the government. That is not what President Obama is striving for and, even if it were, I don't see it passing Our Republic's (as in "By the People for the People) system of checks and balances.
Because American's ARE arrogant. I've traveled throughout much of the world and I have never been embarrassed to the extent of utter shame as when I see the quite arrogant behavior that many traveling Americans display. So you don't like the fact that Obama told the truth about our appearance to the rest of the world. Tough. Get over it. We ARE arrogant.
I'd say after the last eight years we have come across as nothing short of a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant dopes consistently meddling in affairs that we shouldn't be meddling in.
Furthermore, try not to make yourself sound like a rolling Fox News ticker with a less than comprehensive understanding of what socialism is. This nation was founded as a Republic - not a Democracy and not a socialist state. The news media, particularly Fox News, has put this "spin" on the word socialism to imply that anybody who is put at more of an advantage because of government policy should be deemed "socialist" in nature. This includes welfare programs, health care/insurance, etc... However, if they are to use this example, they should also not forget to mention that things such as roads, bridges, parks and recreation centers, youth centers (such as the YMCA), public schools, etc... could just as well fall under this newly deemed designation of "socialism." If that's what we're calling "socialism" - the helping of those who need it, then I'm all for it. I'm surprised that it's commonly the right-wing "conservatives" and "Christians" (often attached to the same party) who are so ardently against the betterment of those less fortunate.
True "conservatism," I would imagine, would say, to put all of the previous mentioned things into the realm of private corporations, allow them to fund things like bridges, roads, etc... and leave the government out of it. Now, I'm no stranger to this sort of thing. We did the same thing in Iraq under the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld administration in which we contracted out the war in billions of billions of dollars to private corporations such as Blackwater, KBR, etc... But, in the end, guess what happened? It was still our taxpayer dollars paying for these corporations to go fight and sustain a hefty portion of the Iraq War for us. So, in all reality, the only difference is that we're putting a middle man in place of the government. While I will admit that these corporations may provide a somewhat better service than, say, government employees milking the teat to stay in a war zone, build bridges, roads, etc... It all comes down in the end to a rather "socialized" and government funded operation anyway and in all likelihood, at a greater cost to the taxpayer.
Now, of course, we could just say that we should drop our taxes substantially, eliminate government funded social programs such as education, roads, bridges, health care, etc... and allow private corporations to take over. But, alas, think of the egregious price differential between what we pay in taxes now as opposed to what private corporations would charge us for things like health care, road and bridge usage (tolls would be rather high I imagine), education, etc...
So, let's not get all high and mighty on this "socialist bent" because most people don't know what the hell they're listening to. A true "socialist" country would be clearly distinguishable from something as our current Republic. So, allow me to make this clear before I step off the podium. This nation was founded as a Republic with our judiciary, legislative, and executive branches comprising the three independent modicums of government. President Obama does not hold complete and absolute power over anything, nor does Pelosi, nor do any of the Supreme Court Justices. It's a tri-fold effort. That's not to say one can't try to encourage the other, but, it makes our country through and through a Republic. Not a Socialist State.
A Socialist State, as one that people consistently try to pin the Obama Administration as working towards, as I said before, would be very much distinguishable from a Republic. We can play the semantics game all we want to and say that government subsidized health care is "socialism" but I'd venture to lament that it would be nothing like the health care of an actual Socialist State in which all business organizations are more or less eliminated and every single thing is provided by the government. That is not what President Obama is striving for and, even if it were, I don't see it passing Our Republic's (as in "By the People for the People) system of checks and balances.
I detect a liberal in our midst...Sorry, it is what it is...
I detect a liberal in our midst...Sorry, it is what it is...
No. I declare myself as neither. I am registered to vote as a Democrat but I would have no qualms about voting for a Republican. Yes, I am liberal in my thoughts that the government should have no say in personal affairs like marriage, abortion, etc... But, I think there are a few "Liberal Republicans" that may run for President (although they wouldn't get elected) who could fit that bill nicely while maintaining fiscal conservatism.
I don't like errant government spending. I do feel that the Obama Administration has spent somewhat recklessly and I have criticized the Administration for that as well. But, I will defend the Obama Administration from errant accusations.
Because American's ARE arrogant. I've traveled throughout much of the world and I have never been embarrassed to the extent of utter shame as when I see the quite arrogant behavior that many traveling Americans display. So you don't like the fact that Obama told the truth about our appearance to the rest of the world. Tough. Get over it. We ARE arrogant.
We are also the most generous.What about the people who come to this country illegally(breaking the law) and people turn their heads..do other countries do this? Not to mention we have to stop celebrating certain holidays publicly because it offends somebody or hurts somebody`s feelings. Go to an arab country and tell them to stop worshiping in public or stop doing things they have been doing for hundreds of years because you feel offended. People come to this country and we have to learn to speak their language and pander to their beliefs and ideology. They come to this country to get educated, some stay and make a fortune, others return to their homeland with degree in hand and riicule the very country that made their life better. That is what annoys me the most. People come..take advantage of the freedoms and the greatness of this country and then turn around and bash it. Then you have Americans,left wing fanatics who wouldn`t survive 5 seconds in another country with their blustering ranting but because they have the freedoms they have here in this country,they are free to bite the hand that feeds them..amazing.
Quote:
I'd say after the last eight years we have come across as nothing short of a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant dopes consistently meddling in affairs that we shouldn't be meddling in.
Your opinion, but millions of others feel different. Just be glad you live in an arrogant country that lets you rant against the government.
Quote:
Furthermore, try not to make yourself sound like a rolling Fox News ticker with a less than comprehensive understanding of what socialism is.
I get it, anyone who disagrees with you doesn`t understand politics. Maybe you sound like a roling cnn or msnbc news ticker. you would be one of the few since not many people watch those stations anymore.
Don`t get me started on the fox news thing. Fox news beats the daylights out of cnn..msnbc..nbc..abc and the whole lot. Somebody must be watching fox. You prefer the left wing ccn, msnbc etc. That is your right. But don`t put down the people that watch fox and claim they don`t understand. As if those indoctrinated by the mainstream media are knowledgable.
Quote:
This nation was founded as a Republic - not a Democracy and not a socialist state. The news media, particularly Fox News, has put this "spin" on the word socialism
News media spinning, especially fox..now that is a joke. Everyone in their right mind knows the overwhelming majority of the news stations are in the bag for democrats. But they have it in for fox news, because again they are losing viewrs by the thousands. people are getting tired of their slanted news. In my opinion, the uneducated, lazy, ideologs watch msnbc. They don`t want the facts to get in the way of their news.
Quote:
to imply that anybody who is put at more of an advantage because of government policy should be deemed "socialist" in nature. This includes welfare programs, health care/insurance, etc... However, if they are to use this example, they should also not forget to mention that things such as roads, bridges, parks and recreation centers, youth centers (such as the YMCA), public schools, etc... could just as well fall under this newly deemed designation of "socialism." If that's what we're calling "socialism" - the helping of those who need it, then I'm all for it. I'm surprised that it's commonly the right-wing "conservatives" and "Christians" (often attached to the same party) who are so ardently against the betterment of those less fortunate.
Wonder what the principles were that made this country great. How about capitalism,the right to free speech among others,and limited government. We are in debt way over our heads and falling fast. It wasn`t just the free spending democrats who did this. The more rights you give to the government the less you have. The more money you give to the government the more power you give them. Yu have no idea the amount of taxdollars that are absolutely WASTED in the hands of big government.
Your argument about bridges, roads, etc. is very shallow. The infrastructure and the other things you talked about were just fine well before the government starts brainwashing you into believing they don`t have enough money for those things. Just keeping give them more of your money and watch what happens to it. The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. Look at the European countries that lambast the U.S. The very system you seem to be advocating. They sure are a shining example of what works aren`t they. That`s why people from those countries risked life and limb to come here. Now that we are turning into them we don`t seem so attractive anymore.
bigthirsty, you're spilling over like a bunch of released barrels from a truck
First up, chill pill.
I wrote that message not to accuse you, though I was compelled to pick your delusion And throughout my post and yours, you can see a lot of agreement.
It was a centrist look at political theory. And here you are again, talking from a democrat standpoint countering centrist thoughts.
I have to say again that I am not taking any side, dem or GOP. Since I don't have political affiliation on either side, I can give you a fair assessment of your knee-jerk tirade over the GOP.
Even those polls you have, I can tell you I can find you other polls with McCain leading.
Why I will still try impressing upon you in this item is that, I was part of the McCain as well as Obama's official pages on Facebook. I was a silent observer in both pages.
Immediately after announcing Palin, McCain was surging ahead and went as high as 7 to 8% more than Obama. For about a month or so, Obama's supporters were literally crying in that group. It had one million members by the way. And some were promising to emigrate the US if McCain won, from what it looked like.
Lucky for them, Lehmann Brothers happened and the floodgates were opened and McCain was simply washed away.
If you still dispute this, I'm
And when you say populist bs, it surprises me. You seem like living in your own circle. Populism is the central aspect of modern politics. Deny me all you want, but a lion's share of the voters believe promises and solutions of politicians who pander to what they like to hear, when the promisers know full well what they speak about can't be brought into complete effect.
You're biased with the GOP. It's making you surrender reason to your passion.
P.S: I didn't mean O'Reilly or Hannity himself to become Prez. I was doing a metaphor, but the very mention of these names inflames you to go shortsighted on apparent metaphoric writing
CA.. I'm not disputing anything. I gave you gallup polls.. you gave me facebook. Of course Palin gave McCain a bump. Every national convention gives every candidate a jump.. it generally lasts about a week. However, even after the republican convention the jump was never enough to pass Obama.. it narrowed the gap a bit and then it went back to normal.
I'm biased against the current GOP. I don't hide that. Just as I was biased against the dems in the 90's and early in this decade.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. You seem to be upset that at one point in time I had "buh bye bush" as my status.
The mere mention of O'Reilly or Hannity irks me because they are anti-american. That is why they bother me.
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.
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.
