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.
Not my words, just passing it along. Somehow makes me laugh and cry at the same time:
Things Only a Republican Could Believe (http://www.pop.ly/2t6l - broken link)
I make no apologies if you consider yourself a Republican. I am a registered Independent and have voted Republican at various levels of government, but the current crop of Republicans at the national level are off the reservation. To call them bat sh*t crazy would be an insult to bat sh*t.
Things Only a Republican Could Believe:
*Parents who don't want their children to pray in school are Anti-American zealots -- parents who don't want their children to listen to a speech by the President of the United States telling them to...Mod cut-copyright issue-see link for rest of article
There you go.
Have fun.
Lots of great points...but not all Republicans feel that way and probably some democrats will also fit some of the statements.
Especially love the Clinton one....LOL and so true!
Last edited by Reads2MUCH; 09-06-2009 at 08:51 AM..
What kind of response is that? I don't advocate old people dying in the streets. I advocate children, family, and community helping out the elderly if they were not wise enough to prepare for the future.
Yeah, like they help take care of the neurologically/psychologically impaired who make up much of the homeless population.
How elitist of you. You are mistaken if you believe that all old people have children and family. Many don't. If they've worked minimum wage jobs all their lives or were disabled at some point, preparing for the future wasn't an option -- surviving the present was. And if they do have children and family, they may be trying to survive on minimum wage jobs.
Yes, you are advocating people dying in the streets.
How would you define theft? Maybe I don't know the definition. I was under the impression that it is when one's property is taken without consent of the owner.
To be honest, I couldn't care less about some "Model of Christian Charity". Do we live in a theocracy now?
Why don't some of you people just come out and say that theft is good as long as the beneficiaries are those that you define as worthy. I am already aware of your belief that anyone who does not want to contribute to correct what you perceive as "injustice" is selfish.
Well here it is. Theft is the confiscation of property (which can include, money, land, ideas, possessions) from the rightful owner against thier will.
Taking money, in the form of taxes, from one group and giving to another against thier will is theft. Eminent domain has been perverted to included transfer of property from one individual to another. Charity is volunary donation on the part of the giver- quite a difference from involuntary confiscation by the government to dispense at thier discretion, not the owner of the origianl property. In fact, most of the time such funds are given to groups that would never have recieved the money in the first place, had the "charity" been voluntary.
Liberalism is basically taking the ten commandments and reversing them. that is why many conservatives consider liberalism to be the language of evil, as it is the antithesis of what we consider to the positive and virtuous, therefore essentially evil.
The difference between republicans and democrats is which party is receiving the most money from lobbyist. Since democrats control all of congress they are getting more money (not an absolute but true in many cases). Government never works well when one party controls everything.
Continue on political sheep with your 2 bit political hackery and utter nonsense that show's your complete lack of understanding when it comes to politics and government. It is great entertainment that's for sure.
The difference between republicans and democrats is which party is receiving the most money from lobbyist. Since democrats control all of congress they are getting more money (not an absolute but true in many cases). Government never works well when one party controls everything.
Continue on political sheep with your 2 bit political hackery and utter nonsense that show's your complete lack of understanding when it comes to politics and government. It is great entertainment that's for sure.
Great point. The lobbyists and people who really control things do not care about politics. They support whoever is in power to buy favors.
Yeah, like they help take care of the neurologically/psychologically impaired who make up much of the homeless population.
How elitist of you. You are mistaken if you believe that all old people have children and family. Many don't. If they've worked minimum wage jobs all their lives or were disabled at some point, preparing for the future wasn't an option -- surviving the present was. And if they do have children and family, they may be trying to survive on minimum wage jobs.
Yes, you are advocating people dying in the streets.
ever get the feeling that you are responding to a 5th grader? I think that you just did.
How do you simply overlook the rich and accomplished liberals that exist everywhere? Liberalism appeals to the intelligent, educated and compassionate. The higher the education, the more likely it is that someone will be a liberal.
I disagree. I think anyone who thinks they fall under any certain -ism is decidedly under educated, especially when talking about politics. A truly enlightened mind would realize they don't fall under any particular label, they simply are who they are and their views are their own. And most of the time, all of your views do not fall under one affiliation. That is, if one truly thinks and feels for themselves. There are some instances in this world when being conservative is the right thing to be. And then, there are times when taking a more liberal stance is the right thing to do. I thoroughly believe anyone who will simply take a label and follow a party line, no matter how high their education may be, is simply a mindless fool lacking the ability to think for themselves. A truly intelligent person will disregard all political labels, and simply be who they are. They will vote according to who they think is right for the job, even if it isn't one of the two mainstream party members. Higher education is certainly no real measure of intelligence. And to claim more people of higher education lean towards liberalism is simply that, a personal claim.
Not my words, just passing it along. Somehow makes me laugh and cry at the same time:
Things Only a Republican Could Believe (http://www.pop.ly/2t6l - broken link)
I make no apologies if you consider yourself a Republican. I am a registered Independent and have voted Republican at various levels of government, but the current crop of Republicans at the national level are off the reservation. To call them bat sh*t crazy would be an insult to bat sh*t.
Things Only a Republican Could Believe:
*Parents who don't want their children to pray in school are Anti-American zealots -- parents who don't want their children to listen to a speech by the President of the United States telling them to....Mod cut-copyright issues-click link for rest of article
There you go.
Have fun.
Translation = Republicans are bigoted, small-minded partisan hacks, democrats are the virtuous and innocent among us.
I disagree. I think anyone who thinks they fall under any certain -ism is decidedly under educated, especially when talking about politics. A truly enlightened mind would realize they don't fall under any particular label, they simply are who they are and their views are their own. And most of the time, all of your views do not fall under one affiliation. That is, if one truly thinks and feels for themselves. There are some instances in this world when being conservative is the right thing to be. And then, there are times when taking a more liberal stance is the right thing to do. I thoroughly believe anyone who will simply take a label and follow a party line, no matter how high their education may be, is simply a mindless fool lacking the ability to think for themselves. A truly intelligent person will disregard all political labels, and simply be who they are. They will vote according to who they think is right for the job, even if it isn't one of the two mainstream party members. Higher education is certainly no real measure of intelligence. And to claim more people of higher education lean towards liberalism is simply that, a personal claim.
I am absolutely stunned at the idea that people who support any "-ism" can't think for themselves. You have the horse before the cart. One develops a philosophy based on what s/he knows and believes, then looks for a political party that best fits those personal beliefs. The chances of my finding a Republican candidate -- candidates do follow party philosophy or they wouldn't belong to the party -- who ascribes to the same values and beliefs that I do are slim....and then s/he would likely be running against someone who believes more like I do.
I am truly intelligent and I would never vote for a member of a party whose philosophy is not in line with mine. I'm not that stupid. I know the value of party affiliation for the politicians and the ramifications of one or the other party control a branch of government. To ignore that is to be stupid. And a lot of people are.
And, BTW, I never equated education with intelligence nor will I ever.
What is your point? Bad things happen to good people. Too bad that nobody bothered to purchase insurance that covered the scenario you mentioned. That still has nothing to do with widespread confiscation of funds through theft and extortion that godvernment programs need to run.
You are saying that it is somehow worse for the above scenario to occur than widespread theft of your fellow citizens to insure that it wouldn't occur. It isn't like the people who are having their money stolen to pay for some theoretical cure-all program proposed by the omniscient have actually been proven to be liable for whatever "injustice" you are trying to fix.
Where is the criminal act of some citizens that make them personally liable for the calamity of another? There is no crime, that is why such "benevolent" programs are theft and extortion rather than the "charity" which some would have you believe.
It is not "just" to commit crime to correct "injustice". That is not now, nor will it ever, have any basis in reason.
My point is that it is totally unrealistic to,
Quote:
"advocate children, family, and community helping out the elderly if they were not wise enough to prepare for the future."
This is your comment in the post I replied to.
Again check out the cost of medical care and compare that with how much a community can raise by having a chicken Q!
Your comment:
Quote:
"Too bad that nobody bothered to purchase insurance that covered the scenario you mentioned."
, Demonstrates that you have no comprehension of the problems with healthcare and health insurance!
Your so called "crime to correct injustice" (Medicare) happened when insurance companies refused to insure the elderly after they retired and subsequently lost their group health insurance through their employment. This is happening now with young people who, for whatever reason, lost their health insurance and happen to have a pre-existing condition. This could happen to you also. Then, I bet, you will be singing a different song!
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.
