PDA

View Full Version : Republican Convention - Funny Part


Athos
Aug 29, 2012, 08:26 PM
Ann Romney spends 20 minutes on the theme of "love".

The next speaker, Chris Christie, says, (I'm not making this up), "Love is not the most important thing, it's respect". Do these people ever compare their speeches so as to avoid such a faux pax as this?

I admit, tho', that the image of a morbidly obese Mafia-looking thug would have a hard time promoting love. Better for Chris to keep his face stuffed with the meatballs and the macaroni, and leave the rest of us alone.

As the keynote speaker, Christie bombed - big time. What does this do for his 2016 chances?

talaniman
Aug 29, 2012, 11:02 PM
What do you expect from a party that advertises lies, obstructs legislation and blame it on the guy who who they have plotted against since he was sworn in.

Christie better clean up his own mess in New Jersey before he thinks about a promotion.

The tough truths about Chris Christie's New Jersey - CNN.com (http://us.cnn.com/2012/08/29/opinion/louis-christie-tough-truths/index.html?iid=article_sidebar)


If the tough-talk message helps Romney win the White House in November, Christie is assured a bright future on the national stage. But if he hopes to repeat any version of Obama's astounding leap from keynote to candidate, he'll have to get New Jersey's fiscal house in order pronto.

Athos
Aug 30, 2012, 12:23 AM
What do you expect from a party that advertises lies, obstructs legislation and blame it on the guy who who they have plotted against since he was sworn in.

Christie better clean up his own mess in New Jersey before he thinks about a promotion.

The tough truths about Chris Christie's New Jersey - CNN.com (http://us.cnn.com/2012/08/29/opinion/louis-christie-tough-truths/index.html?iid=article_sidebar)

Excellent link exposing this fraud. Thanks for posting it.

talaniman
Aug 30, 2012, 07:44 AM
Fortunately we only have one more day of this red meat ego show, though I did enjoy Condi's speech, even if its wasted on at a loony parade. Seems everyone touted their immigrant roots, and accomplishments but nobody talked about solutions.

Maybe they have none, or are doing just great with things the way they are. Have you heard middle class by any one yet? I doubt you do.

speechlesstx
Aug 30, 2012, 09:09 AM
I don't see any problem here and no Christie didn't bomb. If he had come out with his usual tough guy talk the compliant media and Democrats would have come out full guns blazing about how Republicans being mean and nasty while black people drown. In fact, one did say it anyway (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/lets-talk-racism-697931-2.html#post3253426).

And since the lefties here are so suddenly interested in context, here it is (http://www.npr.org/2012/08/28/160213518/transcript-gov-chris-christies-convention-speech):


My Mom, who I lost eight years ago, was the enforcer. She made sure we all knew who set the rules.

In the automobile of life, Dad was just a passenger. Mom was the driver.

They both lived hard lives. Dad grew up in poverty. After returning from Army service, he worked at the Breyers Ice Cream plant in the 1950s. With that job and the G.I. bill he put himself through Rutgers University at night to become the first in his family to earn a college degree. Our first family picture was on his graduation day, with Mom beaming next to him, six months pregnant with me.

Mom also came from nothing. She was raised by a single mother who took three buses to get to work every day. And mom spent the time she was supposed to be a kid actually raising children – her two younger siblings. She was tough as nails and didn't suffer fools at all. The truth was she couldn't afford to. She spoke the truth – bluntly, directly and without much varnish.

I am her son.

I was her son as I listened to "Darkness on the Edge of Town" with my high school friends on the Jersey Shore.

I was her son as I moved into a studio apartment with Mary Pat to start a marriage that is now 26 years old.

I was her son as I coached our sons Andrew and Patrick on the fields of Mendham, and as I watched with pride as our daughters Sarah and Bridget marched with their soccer teams in the Labor Day parade.
PBS NewsHour/YouTube

And I am still her son today, as governor, following the rules she taught me: to speak from the heart and to fight for your principles. She never thought you get extra credit for just speaking the truth.

The greatest lesson Mom ever taught me, though, was this one: she told me there would be times in your life when you have to choose between being loved and being respected. She said to always pick being respected, that love without respect was always fleeting — but that respect could grow into real, lasting love.

Now, of course, she was talking about women.

But I have learned over time that it applies just as much to leadership. In fact, I think that advice applies to America today more than ever.

Totally complementary speeches and Christie is 100 percent right.

NeedKarma
Aug 30, 2012, 09:41 AM
Remember, Ann is just one of us.

talaniman
Aug 30, 2012, 09:43 AM
His family life wasn't questioned, just his leadership in New Jersey.

NeedKarma
Aug 30, 2012, 09:54 AM
His family life wasn't questioned, just his leadership in New Jersey.
Like the boondoggle which is the may-not-happen Formula 1 track in a gangsta-ridden neighborhood of NJ.

talaniman
Aug 30, 2012, 10:09 AM
Please elaborate.

speechlesstx
Aug 30, 2012, 10:25 AM
His family life wasn't questioned, just his leadership in New Jersey.

Who said his family life was questioned? Athos said it was a "faux pas" for Ann to speak on love and Christie to say respect was more important. No, it wasn't a "faux pas."

NeedKarma
Aug 30, 2012, 10:25 AM
BBC Sport - Bernie Ecclestone casts fresh doubt over New Jersey F1 race (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18569473)

Cotter quits New Jersey GP team | Formula 1 Blog (http://www.formula1blog.com/2012/08/21/cotter-quits-new-jersey-gp-team/)

The F1 race that's supposed to happen in Austin TX a bit of a mess too.

speechlesstx
Aug 30, 2012, 10:39 AM
I thought you didn't like turning the conversation to sports.

NeedKarma
Aug 30, 2012, 10:43 AM
Never said that.
Anyway it relates to Christie's home state.

Do you follow F1?

I'm going for a 50km cycle tonight with a group, ever done that? We should have a good paceline so the average speed should be good, we'll likely throw a few hill climbs in there too.

tomder55
Aug 30, 2012, 10:50 AM
He didn't bomb at all . But Ryan's and Condi's was the better speech (although I caution her in praising the phony free trade deals the PRC has made) . Come 2016 if God forbid Romney loses... Ryan and Rubio will be better options than Christie.
Yeah ,from blue NJ Christie looks like a conservative Tea Party type of guy... but in reality, he is very much a Republic who the establishment beltway types can easily love.

talaniman
Aug 30, 2012, 04:54 PM
Yeah sure, he said you had to tell the truth, yet he didn't say his states unemployment was the worst in the country.

tomder55
Aug 30, 2012, 07:30 PM
If the labor force participation rate across the country was as high as it is in NJ then perhaps the national rate would more closely mirror the NJ unemployment rate. But the national participation rate masks the true but hidden national unemployment rate . And if it wasn't being masked with statistical smoke and mirrors ,the President would not stand a chance. I don't think the President wants to go there. He can't run on his dismal performance managing the economy . That is why he tries to change the narrative of the election to cr@p like phoney war on women .

talaniman
Aug 30, 2012, 08:18 PM
You mean Ryan Romney won't repeal

Obamacare
Roe v Wade

And make rich guys richer and poor guys poorer, and build more jails and start more wars? I mean real ones?

And appoint a supreme court judge to allow repub elite to keep power, and control the money to keep the masses in line, and subject to their rules.

There is no WAR on women minorities poor and old, its only a power grab by phony politician, who lie cheat and steal. But they want us to hold the door while they do. You righties have learned nothing from the great robbery of '08. No wonder you want to repeat that mistake.

Ask Mitt, this is a normal business cycle for him and his boys, he has done this all before, and repubs hope he pees on their heads yet again.

The "We Can Change It" theme was appropriate when you consider you guys changed all the facts.

How about this Tom,since your fellow winger refuses, have you read the MITT budget? Whats so good about it, and who pays for it?

speechlesstx
Aug 31, 2012, 07:21 AM
You mean Ryan Romney wont repeal

Obamacare
Roe v Wade

And make rich guys richer and poor guys poorer, and build more jails and start more wars? I mean real ones?

And appoint a supreme court judge to allow repub elite to keep power, and control the money to keep the masses in line, and subject to their rules.

There is no WAR on women minorities poor and old, its only a power grab by phony politician, who lie cheat and steal. But they want us to hold the door while they do. You righties have learned nothing from the great robbery of '08. No wonder you want to repeat that mistake.

Ask Mitt, this is a normal business cycle for him and his boys, he has done this all before, and repubs hope he pees on their heads yet again.

The "We Can Change It" theme was appropriate when you consider you guys changed all the facts.

How about this Tom,since your fellow winger refuses, have you read the MITT budget? Whats so good about it, and who pays for it?

Aren't you tired of that baseless rich get richer making poor people poorer cliché yet? I commented on Mitt's plan two days ago (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/voter-id-suppression-678733-40.html#post3253234) you can drop that line, too.

speechlesstx
Aug 31, 2012, 08:32 AM
And by the way, Romney was great and Rubio KILLED it last night. I imagine some Dems are a little nervous this morning.

16VbryCejyA


My Dad used to tell us: “En este pais, ustedes van a poder lograr todas las cosas que nosotros no pudimos” “In this country, you will be able to accomplish all the things we never could.”

A few years ago during a speech, I noticed a bartender behind a portable bar at the back of the ballroom. I remembered my father who had worked for many years as a banquet bartender.

He was grateful for the work he had, but that’s not the life he wanted for us.

He stood behind a bar in the back of the room all those years, so one day I could stand behind a podium in the front of a room.

That journey, from behind that bar to behind this podium, goes to the essence of the American miracle — that we’re exceptional not because we have more rich people here.

We’re special because dreams that are impossible anywhere else, come true here.

That’s not just my story. That’s your story. That’s our story.

It’s the story of your mother who struggled to give you what she never had.

It’s the story of your father who worked two jobs so doors closed for him would open for you.
The story of that teacher or that coach who taught you the lessons that shaped who you are today.

And it’s the story of a man who was born into an uncertain future in a foreign country. His family came to America to escape revolution.

They struggled through poverty and the great depression. And yet he rose to be an admired businessman, and public servant.

And in November, his son, Mitt Romney, will be elected President of the United States.

talaniman
Aug 31, 2012, 08:37 AM
More? No, the same facts backed up. So what is it about the Mitt plan that takes from the poor, who have nothing to take, and gives to the rich. The 20 percent across the board tax cut? Eliminating the tax penalty on investments for those making less than $200k? I hardly see how letting you keep more of your money is stealing from the poor.

Where does the money come and how does that 20% across the board affect tax payers who pay a payroll tax?

How does this plan affect the deficit you guys have so hollered about? How does that relate to the military spending he has proposed, and what and by how much must he cut to achieve these numbers?

You are not getting away with ignoring the whole proposal with one sentence, and picking out ONE thing that SOUNDS good to you. Maybe I ask too much for you to look deeper, and do the math. By my figures people making less than $50,000 dollars wills see less than a grand of their money, depending on whether the existing tax cuts expire or are not, or the current deductions are kept in his plan. He doesn't address that issue, only that he will close loopholes.

Just to compare Obama has already proposed to keep the deductions and tax cut for all Americans up to $250,000 and so Romney's plan actually is a tax hike for anyone making poverty level wages. If as you say the poor have nothing to give, why is your guy expecting them to give more?

It's a fact that if the Bush tax cuts and Romneys are added together we are talking another 10trillion over 10 years added to the deficit.

Rebuttal any one??

speechlesstx
Aug 31, 2012, 09:25 AM
Where does the money come and how does that 20% across the board affect tax payers who pay a payroll tax?

How does this plan affect the deficit you guys have so hollered about? How does that relate to the military spending he has proposed, and what and by how much must he cut to achieve these numbers?

I don't know of any candidates numbers that add up ever, but I can promise you raising taxes, creating more regulations, giving states waivers so people can skip work requirements and investing in more Solyndra's is not going to put people to work. If people aren't working, you aren't going to get revenue. Pretty simple really.

paraclete
Aug 31, 2012, 04:50 PM
Speech you are trying to close the stable door after the horse is bolted, you can't export jobs in exchange for cheap goods and then lament the lack of employment. People aren't working because there are no jobs, you have an over-population problem, you down sized your industries but not your population. This is what capitalism has done for you, put you on the poverty line so they could pay you minimum wage, but even minimum wage is too high.

Industries like Solandra are the new employers but they have to have support and there is no support for these new industries, so they fail. Have you tried subsistence farming, with the price of food rising you might employ many this way

tomder55
Aug 31, 2012, 04:52 PM
Industries like Solandra are the new employers
You sound like Red Julia .

paraclete
Aug 31, 2012, 06:35 PM
You sound like Red Julia .

Never Tom, I don't tell lies. However I am realistic about the future. I have had an interest in renewable energy for twenty years, The progress has been much slower than anticipated, in my own nation I have seen two false starts but never the less a great deal of renewable generation capacity has been added with attendant increase in power charges.

We have yet to make the great breakthroughs, but they will not be made unless there is initial government support for the research, a pure profit motive will not drive innovation quickly enough or cause the markets to develop quickly enough. In the currently depressed climate a little push is needed, ie; auto makers won't convert to electric vehicles unless they are pushed one way or another

One thing for sure the traditional industries are not going to pull any of us out of the recession because the demand just isn't there

talaniman
Aug 31, 2012, 08:52 PM
I don't know of any candidates numbers that add up ever, but I can promise you raising taxes, creating more regulations, giving states waivers so people can skip work requirements and investing in more Solyndra's is not going to put people to work. If people aren't working, you aren't going to get revenue. Pretty simple really.

That's a promise you have no hope of keeping since you can't do the math, or name a regulation that's stop companies from hiring, or making money. Further if you can't read what the waiver is about and understand it then Mitt can spin you a bogus argument and you believe it. Hell Mitt asked for the same waiver when he was Govenor of Mass. But had no plan to implement it, which is a requirement to get the waiver.

Of course how can we expect you to know that since you rather believe someone that counts on you believing his BS since he thinks you are a dumb country boy and he is a CEO. You probably don't know how he started his company, or how he made his loot, or how he is going to create all those jobs to help the economy while he shift money through tax cuts to his own pockets.

Dude it's the business cycle on steroids because when business takes the place of government, they put profits before people, and that means you and yours, OURS, works until we drop to be poor a church mice.

Okay explain how 5 trillion in new debt to pay for more tax cuts helps this country?

tomder55
Sep 1, 2012, 02:55 AM
a pure profit motive will not drive innovation quickly enough or cause the markets to develop quickly enough
Evidently not quick enough for your investment. I'm beginning to get it... invest in a concept and let the government do the heavy lifting if there is no market to drive your investment to fruition. That is also the Al Gore carbon trade scheme. Invest at the ground level... do a chicken little dance and demand government action to kick start the investment . That my friend is bad public policy and cronyism at it's worse. But command and control economies usually act that way.

paraclete
Sep 1, 2012, 04:38 AM
Okay explain how 5 trillion in new debt to pay for more tax cuts helps this country?

He can't explain that it's against his religion. What you have just said is blasphemy to the Republican lunatic fringe. They just don't want to pay not tax, they want the poor people to pay the tax. Why? Because they are sheep to be shorn. You don't understand sheep in that country because you are neck deep in B/S

I heard Romney say he would make the US so militarily strong no nation would challenge you. Who is going to pay for that? He is a meglomaniac, the US is already so powerful only a lunatic would challenge you, you already account for 50% of military expenditure and 95% of arms sales. $66 Billion last year. He is going to start an arms race, this will be the arms led recovery, the only industries you can't export

tomder55
Sep 1, 2012, 07:36 AM
Don't know what y'all worried about.. I listened to the speeches of all the major players and if tax cuts and tax reforms were mentioned at all... it was in passing . I think Mittens mentioned it once in a throw away line. I of course was looking for that to be a central part of their economic policy because I think it is important for growth
.
I'm not going to read and dissect a policy paper . Mitt laid out a 5 point plan in his address :

(1) Aggressively promote domestic energy development, especially fossil fuels.
(2) Expand the market for U.S. goods overseas by negotiating new trade agreements and standing up to China on intellectual-property and currency issues.
(3) Improve workforce skills by transferring job-training programs to the states and going after teachers' unions, which, he says, stand in the way of school choice and better instruction.
(4) Attack the deficit through budget cuts, not tax increases.
(5), reshape the regulatory climate to "encourage and promote small business" rather than swamp it.

I like it ;but he should've added a tax reform position also .

talaniman
Sep 1, 2012, 08:44 AM
Here we go again huh?

(1) Aggressively promote domestic energy development, especially fossil fuels.

Thats already being done, and the US already has a surplus of oilas it develops alternatives. Further Tom the energy companies are still subsidezed by US the taxpayer, while their profits are soaring, and a commodity on the world market.

(2) Expand the market for U.S. goods overseas by negotiating new trade agreements and standing up to China on intellectual-property and currency issues.

Thats gonna take a few years and standing up to China takes finese, not a bat. So the how becomes the important part since they have a bat too!

(3) Improve workforce skills by transferring job-training programs to the states and going after teachers' unions, which, he says, stand in the way of school choice and better instruction.

Despite the lie that you guys keeps repeating about dropping the work requirement for welfare, thats exactly what the waiver is about, recognizing you just can't require someone to work without preparation to work.

(4) Attack the deficit through budget cuts, not tax increases.

And how do futher cut taxes and attack the deficit? What do you cut? Why hasn't Mittens said what he would cut? Why haven't you? Oh thats right, they pay for themselves! yeah right!

(5), reshape the regulatory climate to "encourage and promote small business" rather than swamp it.

Site the regulations has been my question forever, and technology for smallbusiness owners to navigate the system is out their and its cheapif you cannot afford a team of lawyers and have tax havenns thruout the world.

Most of this ground we have been over many times, and while your concerns and ideas have much merit Tom I still have to point out the implementation sucks, and is a return to Bush era thinking and Reagan economics that allow the few to extract from the overall economy,at no riskor burden. I can get with capitalism when its not making the rules and calling the shots.

I dug this up just for you Tom

The World?s Most Corrupt(ed) Republic | NationofChange (http://www.nationofchange.org/world-s-most-corrupted-republic-1346419376)


In fact, most countries in today's world call themselves “republics” but only a few dozen meet the most basic criterion, the acid test.

What's the acid test? Free and fair elections.


So on the eve of another presidential election let's be crystal clear about what's happened to the republic it took us so long to build. It is being utterly corrupted and debilitated by massive injections of big-money “heroine” directly into the veins of the body politic. So long as millionaire politicians can turn to billionaire bankers and oil barons for carloads of cash they need to stay in office, so long as the dirty dance of collusion, bribery, and legalized corruption continues to decide the fate of the nation, elections will be meaningless. And this republic cannot stand against the most basic test of legitimacy.

speechlesstx
Sep 1, 2012, 09:27 AM
Tal, it doesn't what we cite, you disregard it all and repeat the same, obviously well rehearsed clichés.

tomder55
Sep 1, 2012, 01:16 PM
1. Let's start with the canard about "oil" companies being subsidized . First .I oppose all subsidies . Next ,oil is but a part of the energy companies interests and yes they do take advantage of exploration subsidies that are available to the alternate renewable industry because they are leaders in that effort. But the biggest canard is that the subsidies that big oil takes is exclusive to them.. Not so . The "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general , and available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit) .
Now the Obots continue to claim that they have expanded the supply . Nonsense. The current energy boom is happening on private lands where the government has no say ;or on leases approved before they took over . The Obots have blocked any efforts to both expand the oil supply and to bring it to market. (except the promotion of Brazil's reserves ) .

2. The Chinese "bat " is their holdings on US debt . What do you think they can do with it ? Also their Potamkin economy is on the ropes a lot more than is being reported . The sooner someone holds them accountable for trade violations the sooner the playing field will level. We know Romney got under their skin because they condemned his candidacy. To me that is the eqivalent of an endorsement of the Obama candidacy by the PRC... well done Obama!!

3. confirmed my opinion that the left hates the work requirement but doesn't have the guts to say so because it is a hugely popular provision. Also confirms that the only choice you really like is the choice to kill babies in the womb.
4. Don't know what Mittens would cut but I'd cut across the board to 2008 spending levels in the 1st year . You guys tout the Clintoon era being the good old days... So why not reduce spending to 2000 levels ? Truth be told is that your side bristles when the rate of government spending increase is reduced or that we dare suggest it shouldn't exceed the rate of inflation . You call both of those situations budget cuts . The left has never demonstrated that they can control run away spending .

5. As has been pointed out to me many times.. I am not a businessman, I work for them and one of my responsibilities is to staff the operation. I have at times recommended taking on new staff and most times in recent years have been told no. I have given testimonial to the increased regulatory envirnoment my company is under. The only hiring that is being done is in the regulatory and quality control areas . My company has spent a fortune on compliance issues.
We have the resources for that of which I am thankful because many of our competitors have shut down due to the cost of compliance. We of course are happy to take on the extra business they abandon.
That is true for the whole industry .What the government is accomplishing is to consolidate the industry into the hands of the few . Soon they will be too big to fail . I thought you guys opposed the creation of businesses too big to fail.
The regulations churned out by our government is massive so it is hard to pin point one specific . It's the hostility to business by the current adm that is souring the business enviromment. Thousands of business owners more qualified than I to discuss it have echoed the frustration. Enough to make me believe that a change of regime will jump start a legitimate recovery.

talaniman
Sep 1, 2012, 03:31 PM
Tal, it doesn't what we cite, you disregard it all and repeat the same, obviously well rehearsed clichés.

That's how debates and discussions work my friend, and I would have to dismiss a lot of stuff if a lot of my stuff wasn't dismissed.

You know I love to check facts.


QUOTE by tomder,
1. let's start with the canard about "oil" companies being subsidized . First .I oppose all subsidies . Next ,oil is but a part of the energy companies interests and yes they do take advantage of exploration subsidies that are available to the alternate renewable industry because they are leaders in that effort. But the biggest canard is that the subsidies that big oil takes is exclusive to them.. Not so . The "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general , and available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit) .
Now the Obots continue to claim that they have expanded the supply . Nonsense. The current energy boom is happening on private lands where the government has no say ;or on leases approved before they took over . The Obots have blocked any efforts to both expand the oil supply and to bring it to market. (except the promotion of Brazil's reserves ) .

Then let them exploit the oil they have found and lets do away with the subsidies. We can agree on that as we develop natural gas. But that's a few years off and the thing here is not to be the last one to break the oil dependency.


2. The Chinese "bat " is their holdings on US debt . What do you think they can do with it ? Also their Potamkin economy is on the ropes a lot more than is being reported . The sooner someone holds them accountable for trade violations the sooner the playing field will level. We know Romney got under their skin because they condemned his candidacy. To me that is the equivalent of an endorsement of the Obama candidacy by the PRC... well done Obama!!

Now we are in agreement as the artificial propping up of their economy is slowly coming to an end, but lets be clear though, diplomacy gains a lot more than a trade war, and they do have other partners even though some are more willing than others. Behind the scenes this president has made a lot of strides in the world court forcing changes in Chinese business practices, just ask South Carolina that has just become a world tire manufacturer as the Chinese dominance in that industry through dumping comes to an end.


3. confirmed my opinion that the left hates the work requirement but doesn't have the guts to say so because it is a hugely popular provision. Also confirms that the only choice you really like is the choice to kill babies in the womb.

Way off on this one Tom, as its republican governors who have asked for flexibility to effectively be allowed to apply special programs to address special needs as we all recognize the need for training to be a key to long term employment. Some need the additional time as studies going back decades have pointed out training is the key to sustained employment, when jobs are available.

The first thing a single mom has to consider just to work if a job is available is baby sitters, and transportation, as these are hidden costs to employment that have to be taken into account.

But you guys obviously don't care about any of those things as NO ABORTIONS also means NO contraceptives or any other kinds of female health access. As I tell Speech all the time as he believes in no abortions to save the unborn child but has no answers when it comes to raising and providing for that child through its life.

Like the ladies have pointed out,many men just can leave after the child is born, and you guys effectively have proven that to be the case. Woman are on there own after a child is born.


4. Don't know what Mittens would cut but I'd cut across the board to 2008 spending levels in the 1st year . You guys tout the Clintoon era being the good old days... So why not reduce spending to 2000 levels ? Truth be told is that your side bristles when the rate of government spending increase is reduced or that we dare suggest it shouldn't exceed the rate of inflation . You call both of those situations budget cuts . The left has never demonstrated that they can control run away spending .

Do the Math! Geez, great reduce spending to 2000 levels, but you also have to return to 2000 debt levels for that to work and that would be hard to balance after two wars and a failed drug policy to pay for, not to mention those pesky tax cuts and the financial collapse. All of those things are in account in Obamas budget. Not off the books any more.

But you can never tell the righties that. You guys have short selective memories when ever you see cash to be had. That's the weakness of capitalism,and the free market,its rigged to the rich,and the rest of us pay for it.

How about some profit sharing for the workers who helped get you fat? Oh that's right, FORD built all those cars himself. Even the ones in Germany before WWII. Ever wonder how Hitler got rich? How Bain was started? Another debate?


5. As has been pointed out to me many times.. I am not a businessman, I work for them and one of my responsibilities is to staff the operation. I have at times recommended taking on new staff and most times in recent years have been told no. I have given testimonial to the increased regulatory environment my company is under. The only hiring that is being done is in the regulatory and quality control areas . My company has spent a fortune on compliance issues.
We have the resources for that of which I am thankful because many of our competitors have shut down due to the cost of compliance. We of course are happy to take on the extra business they abandon.
That is true for the whole industry .What the government is accomplishing is to consolidate the industry into the hands of the few. Soon they will be too big to fail . I thought you guys opposed the creation of businesses too big to fail.
The regulations churned out by our government is massive so it is hard to pin point one specific . It's the hostility to business by the current adm that is souring the business environment. Thousands of business owners more qualified than I to discuss it have echoed the frustration. Enough to make me believe that a change of regime will jump start a legitimate recovery.

I'll make it easy for you Tom, just name one or two regulations you have an issue with. Or tell me what's wrong with clean air and water? Or if you even know why regional and local aquifers are important to humans.

Can you guys even use the computer?

paraclete
Sep 1, 2012, 04:48 PM
1. let's start with the canard about "oil" companies being subsidized . First .I oppose all subsidies .

Yes Tom one way of reigning in the deficit is to cut all subsidies, this means removing support from inefficient agricultural industries and removing support for the ethenol program, removing support for banks and while we are at it removing support for millionaires


2. The Chinese "bat " is their holdings on US debt .


What's this Tom you don't like foreign investment when it reverses? It is a fact of life that when a country develops economic resources it invests in other economies. This is called Xenophobia, this idea that you can invest in China but they can't invest in the US. Without the investment by the Chinese you would have defaulted and gone the way of history by now, no Tom what is needed is you reign in the bloated US economy through investment in your own production resources, setting proper levels of taxation to reduce the deficit, cutting your bloated military budget
.

3. confirmed my opinion that the left hates the work requirement but doesn't have the guts to say so because it is a hugely popular provision. Also confirms that the only choice you really like is the choice to kill babies in the womb.

Hitting below the belt there Tom


4. Don't know what Mittens would cut but I'd cut across the board to 2008 spending levels in the 1st year .

Well there are things we know he is not goint to cut. Military expenditure is one, he signalled an expansion in military expenditure, perhaps this is part of his jobs program increase the size of the military. He will put those dole bludgers back to work on the front line


5. As has been pointed out to me many times.. I am not a businessman,

Yes Tom we know and what is you complaint? Too much regulation of the environment and quality, We need regulation Tom to stop the exploiters because self regulation doesn't work

tomder55
Sep 2, 2012, 02:21 AM
diplomacy gains a lot more than a trade war, Mittens is not proposing a trade war. I do expect that he will hire a Trade representative that actually does something ;and will take advantage of the world commissions that are supposed to monitor trade ;and yes will use our own "bat " if needed.

All of those things are in account in Obamas budget.
What budget ? The one Harry Reid's Senate votes down unanimously in a bi-partisan rejection ? Everyone knows his tax increases would be an economy killer and yet they still run on it .

Or tell me what's wrong with clean air and water? Or if you even know why regional and local aquifers are important to humans.
You have never seen me object to reasonable environmental regulations and yet you continuously bring that up . I'll give you one bill that has thousands of regulations and pending regulations that business owner after business owner claims leads to the very uncertainty that delays hiring and business activity... Dodd -Frank . Barney Frank himself admits his law has cost jobs. But he says it's a "reasonable price" to pay to bring "greedy" bankers to heel.Stephen Wilson, former chairman of the American Bankers Association.says that Dodd-rank " could result in 2.9 million fewer jobs being created." But I guess the good news is that the Federal payroll will increase .

A Government Accountability Office study this summer concluded that implementing Dodd-Frank rules would require 2,850 additional federal employees just through fiscal 2012 (which ends Sept. 30) — at a cost to taxpayers of $1.3 billion.
Dodd-Frank Could Chill Hiring - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Dodd-Frank-Could-Chill-Hiring-ibd-2002863062.html)
So for both economic recovery and for budget cutting ,I think Dodd-Frank should be repealed immediately .

"I'll give you another one that many say have had a negative impact... Obamacare .I bet that more than one small business employer is keeping their payroll below that 50 employee threshold.

During the 1980s recession , President Reagan slashed red tape. His regulatory reforms,encouraged competition which helped trigger a hiring boom.Economic growth was around 7% during the recoveryand employers hired 350,000 new jobs a month. So there is your template .

tomder55
Sep 2, 2012, 02:53 AM
this means removing support from inefficient agricultural industries and removing support for the ethenol program, removing support for banks of course ! You have never seen me defend them.

This is called Xenophobia No sir ! Not when they are serial trade agreement violators .

hitting below the belt there Tom

Perhaps ,but the truth is that besides these boards and other lefty forums ,the Dems tip toe around the fact that they NEVER liked the work requirements . Clintoon was dragged kicking and screaming to the signing table and only reluctantly signed workfare when he was told by his own advisors that he would lose reelection if he didn't .He had coopted the issue in 1992 by promising to 'end welfare as we know it' . If it wasn't for the threat of electoral defeat ,Clintoon would have vetoed it like he had done twice before.

Well there are things we know he is not goint to cut. Military expenditure is one, he signalled an expansion in military expenditure, perhaps this is part of his jobs program increase the size of the military. He will put those dole bludgers back to work on the front line

Yes he has said that ;and it's an issue I disagree with him about. Like every Federal Agency there is easily enough bloat in it to slash it's budget without affecting force levels and equipment, or ability to do it's job. . What it takes is ordering the Pentagon to sharpen it's pencils and make decisions on necessary administrative reforms . Consolidation should be easy .We fought WWII with 2 areas of operation that covered the world . WE don't need Centcom ,PacCom AfricaCom and "coms" spreading all the way to Munich beer halls . There is way too much duplication of responsibilities and functions . So yes ,the Defense Dept should not be immune.

Yes Tom we know and what is you complaint? Too much regulation of the environment and quality, We need regulation Tom to stop the exploiters because self regulation doesn't work See my comments to Tal's strawman argument about environmental regulations .

paraclete
Sep 2, 2012, 06:56 AM
I don't look back Tom, fact is after this little expose' it is hard to see you voting Republican, after all you don't agree with the man's policies. It's not good enough Tom to say you don't agree and still vote along party lines. Who is the strawman here Tom, it is you? Way I hear it straw burns well, a bit flashy, but then you can't have everything

talaniman
Sep 2, 2012, 07:44 AM
You know as well as I do Tom the official budget will never happen with republicans blocking everything. You guys made a big deal of it being unanimous but democrats voted it down with hopes of a grand plan that you guys backed out of.

You seem to forget that the looming fiscal cliff was caused by CONGRESS not reaching a deal of any kind after having our ratings downgraded last summer. How quickly you place blame on the executive office and not the congress for not doing its job. Specifically the republican house leadership. You know Eric and Paul, who refused to negotiate in good faith.

Gridlock. But its quite clear you guys will extract more money to the few, and let the many wallow in their own sweat as they hustle to navigate through the gloom and doom, fire and brimstone you guys have created. Its really simple Tom, as if you didn't like 8 years of Bush, what makes you think Romney will be different? He won't, and the bigger issue here is will the tea party take the senate and keep the house?

tomder55
Sep 2, 2012, 10:21 AM
I don't look back Tom, fact is after this little expose' it is hard to see you voting Republican, afterall you don't agree with the man's policies. It's not good enough Tom to say you don't agree and still vote along party lines. Who is the strawman here Tom, it is you? Way I hear it straw burns well, a bit flashy, but then you can't have everything

It's a lesser of two evils deal. Like Tal said ,I got to hope for a House takeover by the Repubics and as many conservative candidates elected across the country as possible .

tomder55
Sep 2, 2012, 10:23 AM
You know as well as I do Tom the official budget will never happen with republicans blocking everything. You guys made a big deal of it being unanimous but democrats voted it down with hopes of a grand plan that you guys backed out of.

You seem to forget that the looming fiscal cliff was caused by CONGRESS not reaching a deal of any kind after having our ratings downgraded last summer. How quickly you place blame on the executive office and not the congress for not doing its job. Specifically the republican house leadership. You know Eric and Paul, who refused to negotiate in good faith.

Gridlock. But its quite clear you guys will extract more money to the few, and let the many wallow in their own sweat as they hustle to navigate thru the gloom and doom, fire and brimstone you guys have created. Its really simple Tom, as if you didn't like 8 years of Bush, what makes you think Romney will be different? He won't, and the bigger issue here is will the tea party take the senate and keep the house?

The Dems never tire of blaming others for their poor job performance.

paraclete
Sep 2, 2012, 04:03 PM
An the Republicans will never tire of blaming someoneelse for their lack of performance

tomder55
Sep 3, 2012, 05:04 AM
an the Republicans will never tire of blaming someoneelse for their lack of performance


What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust. The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect. The fantasy may be sustained for a while by the relentless production of phoney money to fund benefits and job-creation projects, until the economy is turned into a meaningless internal recycling mechanism in the style of the old Soviet Union. ...

Contrary to what many know-nothing British observers seem to think, the message coming out of Tampa was not Tea Party extremism. It was just a reassertion of the basic values of American political culture: self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community, as opposed to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue. Romney caught this rather nicely in his acceptance speech, with the comment that the US was built on the idea of “a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow’s prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today’s.” Or as Marco Rubio put it in his speech, Obama is “trying ideas that people came to America to get away from”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9513687/We-should-tune-in-to-the-Romney-and-Ryan-show.html

paraclete
Sep 3, 2012, 07:01 AM
Tom My nation gives the lie to your error, while you languish we prosper, because we don't ignore age old premises, to look after the poor, to treat people fairly and pay a fair wage. We don't harbour the values of the Soviet Union but something far older than that. You would do well to learn from us, capitalism must be bridled. The american values you aspire are those of treading down the poor, reinstituting the very slavery you claim you did away with. Slavery has never left america Tom, only my nation is a nation instituted without slavery, carrying the values of a population that has never known the taint of slavery.

So yes I see a Congress that has been emasculated by the values you hold true

TUT317
Sep 3, 2012, 07:36 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9513687/We-should-tune-in-to-the-Romney-and-Ryan-show.html

Does this statement include ALL the unproductive labour that has given rise to these problems?

The equally real uses of entitlement found at the top end of the socio-economic spectrum.

tomder55
Sep 3, 2012, 08:36 AM
People keep asking me that and I keep repeating the same answer that no one wants to hear because it doesn't comport to their predisposition of my view .

NeedKarma
Sep 3, 2012, 09:08 AM
People keep asking me that and I keep repeating the same answer that no one wants to hear because it doesn't comport to their predisposition of my view .
That's true for pretty much anyone that posts political stuff in Current Events - no one has ever changed their views.

tomder55
Sep 3, 2012, 10:21 AM
Yes ,so when people keep on bringing up 'welfare for the rich ',special favors for the rich ,special deductions in the tax code for the rich ,subsidies for business ,or any other manifestation of that concept ,they continue to assume it is something I favor even though I have written against it a number of times

TUT317
Sep 3, 2012, 02:41 PM
People keep asking me that and I keep repeating the same answer that no one wants to hear because it doesn't comport to their predisposition of my view .


I do keep mental notes of what other people have said in the past. I was addressing the quote provided.

I wonder if the person/people who came up with this quote understand the difference; or even understand there is a difference? I know you do.

paraclete
Sep 3, 2012, 03:51 PM
People keep asking me that and I keep repeating the same answer that no one wants to hear because it doesn't comport to their predisposition of my view .


The reason I talk to myself is because I’m the only one whose answers I accept.”...

talaniman
Sep 3, 2012, 09:00 PM
yes ,so when people keep on bringing up 'welfare for the rich ',special favors for the rich ,special deductions in the tax code for the rich ,subsidies for business ,or any other manifestation of that concept ,they continue to assume it is something I favor even though I have written against it a number of times

So why vote for those that seek to sustain those very things you are against? I don't get it.

paraclete
Sep 3, 2012, 09:21 PM
You are not supposed to Get It! Tal, Tom talks out of both sides of his mouth and votes accordingly. Tom wants his ilk to rule, he thinks he can reform their nasty ways once they are in power. Tom thinks democrats are for subsidies so he won't vote democrat, this leaves him with two choices, vote republican or don't vote at all. Will you be attending the polling booth on poling day Tom or will you put your money where your mouth is?

tomder55
Sep 4, 2012, 02:27 AM
So why vote for those that seek to sustain those very things you are against? I don't get it.

The Dems have embraced crony socialism for a century, and are active participants despite their rhetoric.Woodrow Wilson was a corporatist .The central plank of FDR's NRA was creating corporate cartels . General Hugh Johnson ,Roosevelt's point man for the New Deal copied Italian Fascism ,and carried a copy of Raffaello Viglione's'The Corporate State' with him. And it goes on today in the current administration .

As for the rest... at least the Repubics have an active movement in their party looking for true reform of the nanny-state .

paraclete
Sep 4, 2012, 03:28 AM
Tom you don't need to fear the nanny state, america will never be like the UK or Russia, too much history, but you need to realise there are people who need a helping hand and the only people who have the resources is the state. Your Lassee Faire operations has left these people at a severe disadvantage and capitalism isn't there for them. You don't actually have a nanny state, no matter how much you tell yourself you do. What you actually need is more taxation, more social welfare and a whole lot more job creation, even if it is painting rocks white. When you give people a job you empower them. It might take a generation but you lift them out of poverty. You think you have some sort of economic engine over there but there is no gas in the tank, and whatever gas you do have is going overseas. It is time for america to get its head out of its arse, stop whinning and lead, otherwise go the way of other civilisations in history and become backwaters. The Corporations you love are selling off the farm

tomder55
Sep 4, 2012, 04:08 AM
but you need to realise there are people who need a helping hand and the only people who have the resources is the state.
Never denied that... you think that is all that is being covered by a social state that eats up close to 20% of the GDP ? The nanny state has created a generation of a dependency "class" . We need to break out of that cycle because it is not sustainable.

Your Lassee Faire operations
Have never advocated that... you just love projecting these strawmen to my beliefs .

and a whole lot more job creation, even if it is painting rocks white. lol the progressive mind in a nutshell... maybe we can paint roses red too.

TUT317
Sep 4, 2012, 04:13 AM
The Dems have embraced crony socialism for a century, and are active participants despite their rhetoric.Woodrow Wilson was a corporatist .The central plank of FDR's NRA was creating corporate cartels . General Hugh Johnson ,Roosevelt's point man for the New Deal copied Italian Fascism ,and carried a copy of Raffaello Viglione's'The Corporate State' with him. And it goes on today in the current administration .

As for the rest ...at least the Repubics have an active movement in their party looking for true reform of the nanny-state .


So it's distinctions without a difference again. Except when it comes to cronyism then apparently there is a distinction.

Corporatism is really socialism, depending on who is in power?

Fascism is really socialism?

Cronyism is really socialism, depending on who is in power?

Conservatism occupies its own unique spot on the political spectrum?

As far as reform of the nanny-state is concerned I will restate my previous question in a different way.

Is this movement within the party aware; or even acknowledges that a reduction in 'welfare' for the middle classes, working classes and unemployed needs to be followed by an equal reduction in spending of public money to favour rent-seekers who are neither 'doing' or 'making' when it comes to the obvious need for more productive labour.

It would seem to me that if we reduce spending at the bottom end then then there will be more money to furnish the equally unproductive top end of the market. That would be a good plan for anyone who is prepared to fall for it.

Tut

paraclete
Sep 4, 2012, 04:36 AM
never denied that ... you think that is all that is being covered by a social state that eats up close to 20% of the GDP ? The nanny state has created a generation of a dependency "class" . We need to break out of that cycle because it is not sustainable.

Have never advocated that ... you just love projecting these strawmen to my beliefs .
lol the progressive mind in a nutshell ... maybe we can paint roses red too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again get your head out of your arse.

You say providing for your poor eats up too much of your budget, what eats up too much of your budget is the military, you invited those people there so look after them. Land of opportunity, B/S, land of the free, yes free to starve, land of the brave yes you have to be brave to live there. You are so far into your own B/S you can't even smell it

tomder55
Sep 4, 2012, 05:06 AM
Is this movement within the party aware; or even acknowledges that a reduction in 'welfare' for the middle classes, working classes and unemployed needs to be followed by an equal reduction in spending of public money to favour rent-seekers who are neither 'doing' or 'making' when it comes to the obvious need for more productive labour.

It would seem to me that if we reduce spending at the bottom end then then there will be more money to furnish the equally unproductive top end of the market. That would be a good plan for anyone who is prepared to fall for it.


Yes ,they have been fairely consistent on that message .
Tell Republicans to end Ex-Im's corrupt corporate welfare! | Tea Party Patriots (http://www.teapartypatriots.org/2012/05/ex-im-vote-will-put-house-gop-to-the-test/)

Nineteen GOPers (and Bernie Sanders) oppose Ex-Im | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/nineteen-gopers-and-bernie-sanders-oppose-ex-im/article/1296771)
Dems push corporate welfare to sink JOBS Act | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/dems-push-corporate-welfare-to-sink-jobs-act/article/1175051)
The Tea Party Coalition?s War Against Corporate Welfare | Naples TEA Party Patriots (http://naplesteapartypatriots.org/2011/10/19/the-tea-party-coalition%E2%80%99s-war-against-corporate-welfare/)

"How can we save billions of dollars from unjustified subsidy and entitlement programs, if we can't get corporate America off the dole?" Paul Ryan
“I want all of our GOP candidates to take the opportunity to kill corporate capitalism that is leading to this cronyism, which is ruining our economy.”Sarah Palin

NeedKarma
Sep 4, 2012, 05:15 AM
How about that bloated military/defense budget?

tomder55
Sep 4, 2012, 05:16 AM
you invited those people there so look after them.??

“The new slogan for the president's campaign is “Forward.” A government that spends $1 trillion more than it takes in? An $800 billion stimulus that created more debt than jobs? A government intervention into health care paid for with higher taxes and cuts to Medicare? Scores of new rules and regulations? These ideas don't move us forward, they take us backwards. These are tired and old big government ideas. Ideas that people come to America to get away from.” Marco Rubio

tomder55
Sep 4, 2012, 05:22 AM
Corporatism is really socialism, depending on who is in power?

Fascism is really socialism?

Cronyism is really socialism, depending on who is in power?

Corporatism,Cronyism and Fascism is really socialism regardless of who is in power.

TUT317
Sep 4, 2012, 05:28 AM
Yes ,they have been fairely consistent on that message .
Tell Republicans to end Ex-Im's corrupt corporate welfare! | Tea Party Patriots (http://www.teapartypatriots.org/2012/05/ex-im-vote-will-put-house-gop-to-the-test/)

Nineteen GOPers (and Bernie Sanders) oppose Ex-Im | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/nineteen-gopers-and-bernie-sanders-oppose-ex-im/article/1296771)
Dems push corporate welfare to sink JOBS Act | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/dems-push-corporate-welfare-to-sink-jobs-act/article/1175051)
The Tea Party Coalition?s War Against Corporate Welfare | Naples TEA Party Patriots (http://naplesteapartypatriots.org/2011/10/19/the-tea-party-coalition%E2%80%99s-war-against-corporate-welfare/)

"How can we save billions of dollars from unjustified subsidy and entitlement programs, if we can't get corporate America off the dole?" Paul Ryan
“I want all of our GOP candidates to take the opportunity to kill corporate capitalism that is leading to this cronyism, which is ruining our economy.”Sarah Palin

Hi Tom,

I will be interested in reading the links you provide.

But, yes- Prima facie it does seems to address my concerns.


Tut

NeedKarma
Sep 4, 2012, 05:30 AM
Corporatism,Cronyism and Fascism is really socialism regardless of who is in power.
I guess the question becomes: what is NOT socialism in a conservative's eye?
Also - there's nothing inherently wrong with socialism, not sure why you want to make it a pejorative.

TUT317
Sep 4, 2012, 05:34 AM
Corporatism,Cronyism and Fascism is really socialism regardless of who is in power.


Hi again Tom,

No. It is a gross over simplification to lump them all together. There is no empirical reason to think we can.

I think we have already been through this with the discussion on political spectrum.

Tut

tomder55
Sep 4, 2012, 05:49 AM
Back to my point. The Dems have embraced corportate welfare ,and a state-corporate relationship since at least the New Deal . Roosevelt simultaneously spoke against greed and the evils of the corporations while secretly admiring the Mussolini model . Mussolini himself praised the New Deal as following his model.
Roosevelt's National Recovery Act (NRA) attempted to cartelize the American economy just as Mussolini had cartelized Italy's. Under the NRA Roosevelt established industry-wide boards with the power to set and enforce prices, wages, and other terms of employment, production, and distribution for all companies in an industry. Through the Agricultural Adjustment Act the government exercised similar control over farmers. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.
Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html)

TUT317
Sep 4, 2012, 06:32 AM
Back to my point. The Dems have embraced corportate welfare ,and a state-corporate relationship since at least the New Deal . Roosevelt simultaneously spoke against greed and the evils of the corporations while secretly admiring the Mussolini model . Mussolini himself praised the New Deal as following his model.
Roosevelt's National Recovery Act (NRA) attempted to cartelize the American economy just as Mussolini had cartelized Italy's. Under the NRA Roosevelt established industry-wide boards with the power to set and enforce prices, wages, and other terms of employment, production, and distribution for all companies in an industry. Through the Agricultural Adjustment Act the government exercised similar control over farmers. The object was to reduce competition and output in order to keep prices and incomes of particular groups from falling during the Great Depression.
Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html)


I see, Roosevelt used violence, secret police and prison camps when implementing his economic plan. Mussolini was happy to include labor unions in his state controlled economy. Socialism is just an economic theory.

As I said before similarities without a distinction.

Tut

tomder55
Sep 4, 2012, 06:48 AM
I see, Roosevelt used violence, secret police and prison camps when implementing his economic plan. Mussolini was happy to include labor unions in his state controlled economy. Socialism is just an economic theory.

As I said before similarities without a distinction.

Tut

You mention methods of enforcement ;not differences in policies. Roosevelt made accommodations for private sector unions because he thought his cartels would stifle the power of labor without government intervention.. However ,he realized that there was no place for public sector unionization.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.(FDR)

talaniman
Sep 4, 2012, 10:24 AM
Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower)


Throughout his presidency, Eisenhower adhered to a political philosophy of dynamic conservatism.[103] He continued all the major New Deal programs still in operation, especially Social Security. He expanded its programs and rolled them into a new cabinet-level agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, while extending benefits to an additional ten million workers. He implemented integration in the Armed Services in two years, which had not been completed under Truman.[104]


As the 1954 congressional elections approached, and it became evident that the Republicans were in danger of losing their thin majority in both houses, Eisenhower was among those blaming the Old Guard for the losses, and took up the charge to stop suspected efforts by the right wing to take control of the GOP. Ike then articulated his position as a moderate, progressive Republican: "I have just one purpose...and that is to build up a strong progressive Republican Party in this country. If the right wing wants a fight, they are going to get it...before I end up, either this Republican Party will reflect progressivism or I won't be with them anymore."[105]

Just pointing out we have been down this road before,and Eisenhowers worst nightmare has come true. The far right conservatives are loose upon society again.

And while all this right wing rhetoric is nice spin, its apparent that such a group cannot set policy for everyone in the country and without compromise through consensus. It's the obstruction that creates the gridlock, in an effort to promote the new conservative agenda, that not only is a narrow view of the world, but a very constrictive force on the nation as a whole. No broad brushing or ignoring the facts can change the FACT that wordsmithing, or marketing and spin can hide the fact that a party of white guys has no relevance to the well being of anyone but their own, and no matter how many minority faces they trot out for display will hide the fact that they are the party of rich white guys and lowly informed racists who long for the good old days instead of dealing with the real world.

How else can you explain every progressive fact as a straw argument, and every conservative rant as a fact? They expect the very people they target for scorn to cut their own throats, and go along with that kind of BS?

I don't think so!

tomder55
Sep 4, 2012, 11:15 AM
So it is in fact the Dems that want to take us back to the days of rabbit ear antennas!
You of course are also speaking of a Democrat party that is completely unrecognizable from it's Truman /JFK days . Heck ,George McGovern would be too conservative for the "progressives " today.

paraclete
Sep 4, 2012, 04:18 PM
It is interesting to note that the Democratic party was once known as the Republican party and that various party splits created the Republican Party back in the dawn of time, 150 years ago it wasn't good policy that ensured a Republican victory but democratic indecisiveness regarding their position. Could history repeat itself, the Republicans have fielded a man who is truly a compromise candidate

talaniman
Sep 4, 2012, 05:35 PM
so it is in fact the Dems that want to take us back to the days of rabbit ear antennas !!
You of course are also speaking of a Democrat party that is completely unrecognizable from it's Truman /JFK days . Heck ,George McGovern would be too conservative for the "progressives " today.

There you go with those crazy FACTS again.You do well know that's not what the presidents intent was, he was knocking YOU guys. Ane we don't care about the issues and actions of 20,or 30, 40,or fifty years ago.

All we have to do is remember Ted Kennedy, or Bill Clinton to have our example of OUTSTANDING DEEDS!! Flawed humans that they were, they still accomplished much.


It is interesting to note that the Democratic party was once known as the Republican party and that various party splits created the Republican Party back in the dawn of time, 150 years ago it wasn't good policy that ensured a Republican victory but democratic indecisiveness regarding their position. Could history repeat itself, the Republicans have fielded a man who is truly a compromise candidate

LOL, the difference now than ever before is the loony right actually has money behind it!! They can holler and scream and sling mud, and republican have no choice but to go along because they NEED every loony vote they can get, and it still may not be enough.

All republicans have is their crazy base that they have to lie to, but governing from that position?

I don't think so!

TUT317
Sep 5, 2012, 01:43 AM
You mention methods of enforcement ;not differences in policies. Roosevelt made accomodations for private sector unions because he thought his cartels would stifle the power of labor without government intervention.. However ,he realized that there was no place for public sector unionization.



Well, yes I would mention differences in enforcement. I would also mention differences in policy. In exactly the same way I would mention similarities in policy.

But, that's my point. For all the similarities they are as many differences. It is too convenient to just pick the similarities and then want to claim they are identical. You can do this if you want to take complex concepts and put them into neat categories. This is just a re visit to the defunct linear political spectrum. One dimensional analysis gives rise to simplistic solutions.

Tut

tomder55
Sep 5, 2012, 02:11 AM
There you go with those crazy FACTS again.You do well know that's not what the presidents intent was, he was knocking YOU guys. Ane we don't care about the issues and actions of 20,or 30, 40,or fifty years ago.
Then why do you bring up Ike ? He was from an era when the Repubics had been out of power for 20 years and had surrendered to big government .

tomder55
Sep 5, 2012, 04:50 PM
Well, yes I would mention differences in enforcement. I would also mention differences in policy. In exactly the same way I would mention similarities in policy.

But, that's my point. For all the similarities they are as many differences. It is too convenient to just pick the similarities and then want to claim they are identical. You can do this if you want to take complex concepts and put them into neat categories. This is just a re visit to the defunct linear political spectrum. One dimensional analysis gives rise to simplistic solutions.

Tut

It's the difference between tyranny and soft tyranny .

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
C.S. Lewis

Ask farmer Roscoe Filburn who was fined and threatened with penalty because his personal wheat crop affected the master planners notion of how much he should grow, about Roosevelt's tyranny .

The result is the very thing Alexis de Tocqueville feared for France :


I would like to imagine with what new traits despotism could be produced in the world. I see an innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, who turn about without repose in order to procure for themselves petty and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. …
Over these is elevated an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle. It would resemble the paternal power if, like that power, it had as its object to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks, to the contrary, to keep them irrevocably fixed in childhood; it loves the fact that the citizens enjoy themselves provided that they dream solely of their own enjoyment. It works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in the principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances. Can it not relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living?

In this fashion, every day, it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare; it confines the action of the will within a smaller space, and bit by bit it steals from each citizen the use of that which is his own. Equality has prepared men for all of these things: it has disposed them to put up with them and often even to regard them as a benefit.

After having taken each individual in this fashion by turns into its powerful hands, and after having kneaded him in accord with its desires, the sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations – complicated, minute, and uniform – through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way past the crowd and emerge into the light of day. It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one's acting on one's own; it does not destroy; it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way, it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally it reduces each nation to nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/ch4_06.htm

paraclete
Sep 5, 2012, 05:15 PM
What Alexis de Tocqueville feared for France we also fear for the US, in fact for any country that doesn't hold its politicians to account.

talaniman
Sep 5, 2012, 05:58 PM
Dead on Clete

Democracy in America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America)



[I]nstruct democracy, if possible to reanimate its beliefs, to purify its mores, to regulate its movements, to substitute little by little the science of affairs for its inexperience, and knowledge of its true instincts for its blind instincts; to adapt its government to time and place; to modify it according to circumstances and men: such is the first duty imposed on those who direct society in our day.[5]

The remainder of the book can be interpreted as an attempt to accomplish this goal thereby giving advice to those people who would experience this change in social states.


While Tocqueville speaks highly of the America's Constitution, he believes that the mores, or "habits of mind" of the American people play a more prominent role in the protection of freedom.


According to Tocqueville, democracy had some unfavorable consequences: the tyranny of the majority over thought, a preoccupation with material goods, and isolated individuals. Democracy in America predicted the violence of party spirit and the judgment of the wise subordinated to the prejudices of the ignorant.

And Filburn I must point out, spent several years in litigations before he lost.


Acting under the 1938 Act, the agricultural conservation committee for Montgomery County assessed a penalty of $0.49 against each of Mr. Filburn's 239 excess bushels. Mr. Filburn challenged the penalty, and the entire Agricultural Adjustment Act, as a violation of the constitutional limits on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

$117 dollars to keep growing his wheat. Hardly a punishment for breaking the law.

tomder55
Sep 5, 2012, 06:16 PM
Filburn was right ;and the SCOTUS decision put a rubber stamp on the government's massive power grab ever since.

paraclete
Sep 5, 2012, 06:21 PM
Dead on Clete

$117 dollars to keep growing his wheat. Hardly a a punishment for breaking the law.

In those days equivalent to several thousand dollars today and probably severe for a farmer coming out of the depression

We are all subject to the tyranny of the majority, but sadly also to the tyranny of the minority. We cannot speak our minds regarding the behaviour of any particular minority otherwise we will charged with racism, with discrimination. I am unable to say that something offends me less I be vilifying a minority, not because my words are wrong, but because they present an opposing view. Where did this nonsense come from? From the political arena because politicians wanted to curry favour and used the power of a majority to silence a minority, me.

This is not democracy, because true democracy allows every person to put their view.
Know well, you do not live in a democracy, you live in a tyranny.

talaniman
Sep 5, 2012, 06:38 PM
Not as long as we have a fair court system. That could take some work, but its better than a tyranny of the rich. That takes some work too!

It's a never ending battle.

paraclete
Sep 5, 2012, 07:15 PM
You already suffer the tyranny of the rich, can any ordinary person become your president? not without the backing of the rich

TUT317
Sep 6, 2012, 01:06 AM
It's the difference between tyranny and soft tyranny .




Ok then, I'll go along with soft tyranny being socialism.

Conversely 'isms' like fascism are tyrannical.

Hence you have exposed one feature that distinguishes socialism from fascism.

Fascism cannot be socialism because they exhibit at least one distinguishing feature.

Tut

tomder55
Sep 6, 2012, 05:10 AM
Yeah a field mouse is different from a house mouse .

paraclete
Sep 6, 2012, 06:13 AM
yeah a field mouse is different from a house mouse .

Yes Tom but a rat is always recognisable

TUT317
Sep 6, 2012, 06:19 AM
yeah a field mouse is different from a house mouse .

I don't mind analogies, but in the end you can never prove anything by analogy.

Of course you can argue that field mice are house mice. It just a case of the environment determining the name.

However, I don't know any mice; field or other wise that manufactures a tyranny.

In the end you are saying that despite the difference you have pointed out there is no difference.

Tut

tomder55
Sep 6, 2012, 06:36 AM
It's the difference between being dropped into boiling water or being dropped into tepid water that has a burner bringing it up to boiling temp.
In Tocqueville's thinking ;once the hope is removed by the soft tyranny, then the democratic institution collapses,to be replaced by the fascist state . Dictators are usually installed by a willing populace .
Citizens vote for those politicians who promise to use the state to give them whatever they want. The political-class delivers, so long as citizens do whatever it says is necessary to provide for everyone's desires. The “softness” of this despotism consists of people's voluntary surrender of their liberty and their tendency to look habitually to the state for their needs
Old Europe's New Despotism | Acton Institute (http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2005/05/11/old-europes-new-despotism)

TUT317
Sep 6, 2012, 06:54 AM
It's the difference between being dropped into boiling water or being dropped into tepid water that has a burner bringing it up to boiling temp.
In Tocqueville's thinking ;once the hope is removed by the soft tyranny, then the democratic institution collapses,to be replaced by the fascist state . Dictators are usually installed by a willing populace .
Citizens vote for those politicians who promise to use the state to give them whatever they want. The political-class delivers, so long as citizens do whatever it says is necessary to provide for everyone's desires. The “softness” of this despotism consists of people's voluntary surrender of their liberty and their tendency to look habitually to the state for their needs
Old Europe's New Despotism | Acton Institute (http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2005/05/11/old-europes-new-despotism)


For the purposes of this exercise I have already stated that I don't necessarily disagree with the claim that socialism is soft tyranny.

Dictatorships have been in the past, more often than not, been installed by a willing population. This may well be true in the future, but that isn't addressing my key point.

That point being that fascism is really socialism despite the differences.

You would need to address this claim before you can use the words, 'fascist state' in any meaningful way. You would also need to address this point before we can discuss the above.

Tut

tomder55
Sep 6, 2012, 10:33 AM
That point being that fascism is really socialism despite the differences.


There is no significant difference in anything but method of enforcement . I'm willing to accept Marx's definition that socialism is a transition step toward his utopian vision. The only significant difference is that communist /socialism moves for complete public ownership of the economy where fascist/socialism leaves a veneer of private ownership over total state control. What socialism, fascism have in common is an assumption that central planners need to take decisions out of the hands of the people, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

I really don't understand the problem understanding this . In the 1920s when fascism was a new model it was embraced by the socialists . It was only after it fell out of favor that it was rebranded as a right wing model.

paraclete
Sep 6, 2012, 08:17 PM
You know Tom I wonder what label you would stick on our economy and government structure

Would you see it as socialist? Democratic? Fascist?

We have publicly owned enterprises, utilities coexisting with privately owned enterprise, is this a veneer hiding state control? We have states delivering hospitals, education along side private institutions, is this a veneer hiding state control? We have state police forces, gun control, are we a fascist state? National military, are we a fascist state?

TUT317
Sep 6, 2012, 09:42 PM
There is no significant difference in anything but method of enforcement . I'm willing to accept Marx's definition that socialism is a transition step toward his utopian vision. The only significant difference is that communist /socialism moves for complete public ownership of the economy where fascist/socialism leaves a veneer of private ownership over total state control. What socialism, fascism have in common is an assumption that central planners need to take decisions out of the hands of the people, and impose those decisions by government fiat.



Just a list of a few differences off the top of my head

Fascism rejects a dialectical model of how history will unfold. In other words, it rejects Marx and his materialistic conception of history.

Fascism rejects the alienation explanation for the rise of religion.

Fascism rejects the idea that there is any sort of class struggle.

Fascism rejects any idea of replacing capitalism with a working class dictatorship.

Fascism stresses the need for the private ownership of the means of production.

Fascism enacted anti-Semitic legislation.

Other than those important differences they are pretty much the same.




I really don't understand the problem understanding this . In the 1920s when fascism was a new model it was embraced by the socialists . It was only after it fell out of favor that it was rebranded as a right wing model.


Tom, you just provided the basis for rejecting your hypothesis.

Fascism did embrace socialism early on but quickly rejected it for the reason I have outlined above. Fascism became very much opposed to the ideas of Marx.

Tut

paraclete
Sep 6, 2012, 10:06 PM
Fascism stresses the need for the private ownership of the means of production.


Tom, you just provided the basis for rejecting your hypothesis.

Fascism became very much opposed to the ideas of Marx.


What does this say about american capitalism is it the same as fascism?

I have seen documentaries of americans dealing with strikes and civil rights, difficult to tell the difference between their response and fascism

TUT317
Sep 7, 2012, 02:17 AM
Glad you pointed this out because I need to clarify that point. By " ..stressing the private ownership of the means of production" I should have pointed out that Mussolini's policy was to reject any role of the bourgeoisie had in the formation of the state.

When it came to actual practice, ideology was put aside for the financial and political benefits this class afford Mussolini. It would be an example of the difference between policy and how a policy is actually carried out. There is a similarity in the rejection of the middle class, but that is where the similarity ends.

So, yes- I should have stated that a lot better than I did.

Tut

speechlesstx
Sep 7, 2012, 05:27 AM
The Daily Show visited the Dems party to see how inclusive they are (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-5-2012/hope-and-change-2---the-party-of-inclusion). Must see TV.

paraclete
Sep 7, 2012, 05:32 AM
The Daily Show visited the Dems party to see how inclusive they are (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-5-2012/hope-and-change-2---the-party-of-inclusion). Must see tv.

Can't see this Speech your censors don't want the news getting out

TUT317
Sep 7, 2012, 05:54 AM
Can't see this Speech your censors don't want the news getting out

Probably best we don't see it.

speechlesstx
Sep 7, 2012, 06:55 AM
Can't see this Speech your censors don't want the news getting out

I don't have censors.

NeedKarma
Sep 7, 2012, 06:58 AM
I don't have censors.In this case it's the US media company that does. They have geo-restricted the content.

speechlesstx
Sep 7, 2012, 06:59 AM
Probably best we don't see it.

And why would that be?

talaniman
Sep 7, 2012, 10:50 AM
Because its about lefties talking about right wing tea party types who they blame for the problems in the country.You know like you righties blame liberals, but in reverse.

speechlesstx
Sep 7, 2012, 03:57 PM
Because its about lefties talking about right wing tea party types who they blame for the problems in the country.You know like you righties blame liberals, but in reverse.

So you didn't watch it either.

talaniman
Sep 7, 2012, 04:28 PM
Yeah I did. What's your point? Should I denounce their intolerance for yours? Or excuse yours? Which is it?

speechlesstx
Sep 7, 2012, 08:30 PM
I'm not the hypocrite. If I practiced tolerance the way Democrat convention attendees did we wouldn't be in the same fantasy leagues. Unlike libs I welcome differences, encourage debate, fight FOR your first amendment rights instead of against them and can make the distinction between hating a policy and hating a person.

talaniman
Sep 7, 2012, 09:51 PM
So this sampling is what all libs are like?

speechlesstx
Sep 8, 2012, 07:27 AM
So this sampling is what all libs are like?

I have always said there are and bad everywhere, but that sampling is is rather common. Stewart wouldn't have done that had he not seen the contradiction.

talaniman
Sep 8, 2012, 10:54 AM
Oh come on, you can't say its common with one sampling taken by a comedian. Your side is no better than mine.

speechlesstx
Sep 12, 2012, 08:20 AM
Oh come on, you can't say its common with one sampling taken by a comedian. Your side is no better than mine.

That's not what I said, I said if it weren't common, if it was only a figment of our imagination, Stewart wouldn't have done that. He was holding a mirror up to the many liberals who claim tolerance but don't practice it and I applaud him for it.

speechlesstx
Sep 12, 2012, 08:30 AM
Democrat Convention - Funny Part... or more like an embarrassment and insult.


Russian ships displayed at DNC tribute to vets
(http://www.navytimes.com/mobile/news/2012/09/navy-russian-warships-displayed-dnc-veterans-tribute-091112)
By Sam Fellman - Staff writer
Posted: Tuesday Sep 11, 2012 17:16:10 EDT

On the last night of the Democratic National Convention, a retired Navy four-star took the stage to pay tribute to veterans. Behind him, on a giant screen, the image of four hulking warships reinforced his patriotic message.

But there was a big mistake in the stirring backdrop: those are Russian warships.

While retired Adm. John Nathman, a former commander of Fleet Forces Command, honored vets as America’s best, the ships from the Russian Federation Navy were arrayed like sentinels on the big screen above.

These were the very Soviet-era combatants that Nathman and Cold Warriors like him had once squared off against.

“The ships are definitely Russian,” said noted naval author Norman Polmar after reviewing hi-resolution photos from the event. “There’s no question of that in my mind.”

Naval experts concluded the background was a photo composite of Russian ships that were overflown by what appear to be U.S. trainer jets. It remains unclear how or why the Democratic Party used what’s believed to be images of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at their convention.

A spokesman for the Democratic National Convention Committee was not able to immediately comment Tuesday, saying he had to track down personnel to find out what had happened.

The veteran who spotted the error and notified Navy Times said he was immediately taken aback.

“I was kind of in shock,” said Rob Barker, 38, a former electronics warfare technician who left the Navy in 2006. Having learned to visually identify foreign ships by their radars, Barker recognized the closest ship as the Kara-class cruiser Kerch.

You'd think all those tech-savvy Obots would know anyone can get free images from the Navy (http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/sets/72157625799410352/) but no, they had to honor them with Russian ships.

talaniman
Sep 12, 2012, 12:07 PM
So I can assume by your logic that you support Rev.Jones??

This guy again? Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones backs anti-Muhammad movie - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/guy-koran-burning-pastor-terry-jones-backs-anti-muhammad-movie-article-1.1157522)

speechlesstx
Sep 12, 2012, 01:55 PM
So I can assume by your logic that you support Rev.Jones????

This guy again? Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones backs anti-Muhammad movie - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/guy-koran-burning-pastor-terry-jones-backs-anti-muhammad-movie-article-1.1157522)

That's completely off topic and not only have I not given any indication that I would ever support anything that idiot does, I've explicitly condemned the "Christian" religious fringe like Jones on numerous occasions such as this one (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/if-burning-quoran-endangers-troops-506770-6.html#post2523006).

Should I use your logic and assume you support those who want to hold Jones as an accessory to the ambassador's murder (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/12/msnbc-host-hey-lets-prosecute-jones-as-accessory-to-ambassadors-murder/), ban the movie as a hate crime (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2012/sep/12/libya-anti-muhammad-youtube-clips), or put the produce in jail (http://twitchy.com/2012/09/12/upenn-professor-calls-for-imprisonment-of-filmmaker-sam-bacile/) instead condemning the insane, inexcusable, indefensible violence by these Islamists?

talaniman
Sep 12, 2012, 05:06 PM
I see no difference between the loony tune right wing christians and the loony tune right wing Islamist. They are both crazy destuctive and counter productive driven by hate, fear, and ideology. To the point of this thread, Mitt is as stupid as those groups I just named.

I condone neither Mitts reaction, the movies producers, or the criminals who killed. My point is when you broadly judge the many by the actions of the few, you make a pretty big mistake. Not all Islamists are criminals, no more than the Christians, but a loony is a loony!

excon
Sep 13, 2012, 06:07 AM
Hello again,

These guys were at the RNC, weren't they?

speechlesstx
Sep 13, 2012, 06:14 AM
I see no difference between the loony tune right wing christians and the loony tune right wing Islamist. They are both crazy destuctive and counter productive driven by hate, fear, and ideology. To the point of this thread, Mitt is as stupid as those groups I just named.

You omitted the huge difference, the loony "Christians" don't strap bombs on 14-year-old girls and send them off as martyrs for their god.


I condone neither Mitts reaction, the movies producers, or the criminals who killed. My point is when you broadly judge the many by the actions of the few, you make a pretty big mistake. Not all Islamists are criminals, no more than the Christians, but a loony is a loony!


Wrong, some loonies are terrorists, others just fools. And again, this is irrelevant to the topic. I haven't said anything about Islamists here at all. Try to keep up, Tal.

speechlesstx
Sep 13, 2012, 06:24 AM
Hello again,

These guys were at the RNC, weren't they?

I don't know, I wasn't there. These loons were at the DNC:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2012/08/code_pink_national_convention.jpg

http://moonbattery.com/sluts-vote.jpg

excon
Sep 13, 2012, 06:31 AM
Hello again, Steve:

I like the slut's vote one. You got your sluts too, but you pretend you don't.

excon

paraclete
Sep 13, 2012, 06:40 AM
Getting down and dirty, ex?

NeedKarma
Sep 13, 2012, 06:45 AM
You got your sluts too, but you pretend you don't.They're senators... in bathroom stalls... with wide stances.

excon
Sep 13, 2012, 06:48 AM
getting down and dirty, ex?Hello clete:

I don't know what it's like over there, but over here we can say "slut".

excon

paraclete
Sep 13, 2012, 06:56 AM
No here ex we call a b@stard a B@stard and a c@nt a C@nt, no nice words like slut, we take it for granted our politicians roll over like our opposition leader is being questioned about being a bully in uni, can't see any of your politicians getting questions like that, you are too Pu@sy for that

talaniman
Sep 13, 2012, 08:29 AM
instead condemning the insane, inexcusable, indefensible violence by these Islamists?

speechlesstx
Sep 13, 2012, 08:35 AM
Hello again, Steve:

I like the slut's vote one. You got your sluts too, but you pretend you don't.

excon

Whatever would have given you that impression? We don't parade ours around in vagina costumes.

NeedKarma
Sep 13, 2012, 08:37 AM
We don't parade ours around in vagina costumes.What do you parade your sluts around in?

speechlesstx
Sep 13, 2012, 08:39 AM
instead condemning the insane, inexcusable, indefensible violence by these Islamists?

Only in response to you, you raised the topic out of the blue on this thread after I showed the DNC honoring vets with Russian ships was my point.

speechlesstx
Sep 13, 2012, 08:42 AM
What do you parade your sluts around in?

We don't. We don't feature sluts and giant vaginas like the Dems.

NeedKarma
Sep 13, 2012, 08:43 AM
Too bad. It'd be more entertaining.

speechlesstx
Sep 13, 2012, 09:57 AM
May be, I know conservatives can be dull... just like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and John Kerry.

speechlesstx
Sep 13, 2012, 10:25 AM
This guy was at the DNC wasn't he?

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ramirez-apologies.jpg

talaniman
Sep 13, 2012, 10:43 AM
Democrats don't kick people out like you guys have done Bush, and many of your more moderate politicians.

speechlesstx
Sep 13, 2012, 11:01 AM
I don't remember kicking Bush out. In fact, he and his dad appeared via video at the RNC (http://www.c-span.org/RNC/Events/Bush-Video-at-the-2012-Republican-National-Convention/C3830815/). It was nice.

tomder55
Sep 13, 2012, 11:52 AM
Rumors are that he slept through the 3AM phone call during the crisis too.