Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Why are you voting for whoever for President?

  1. #276
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    You two will like this article. It perfectly describes what the GOP (not to be confused with conservatism) has become.

    GOP: Scientology for Rednecks
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  2. #277
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Hypothetical. That's your logic, not mine. Besides, I'd be over 110. I doubt I'll be around to blame anyone, and if by the rare chance I am, I probably won't care.
    I am in the same boat age-wise, but my point was that you stated you would not condemn the policies of today until the economy is as strong as it was before Bush. If it took 50 years for those policies to work, would you still feel the same?

    Wow!! That's an amazing remark given that conservatives constantly claim the Stimulus was a complete failure.
    Stimulus is needed in the short term to prevent a recession from becoming a depression. Even Hayek states such. That doesnt mean you keep stimulating.

    WRONG!!! Bush handed off a $1.2T deficit his last year. The deficit has been trending down ever since. With future projections showing further reductions.
    Agreed. As I stated, the current deficit is 70% of 2008, but the current deficit is 170% of the other years under Bush.

    FDR and Ronald Reagan would disagree with you. Both presidents used spending (incurring deficits) to end the recessionary economies they inherited. Your remark of stifling growth is laughable given the economy has expanded every year he's been in office by any standard measure.
    I stated that growth is the true measure of recovery. Why would FDR and Reagan disagree?

    He has asked for returning to Clinton era tax levels during several of the debt limit negotiations. The GOP has immediately rejected them.
    Not true. Not once has Obama called for the tax policy of Clinton. Clinton raised the taxes of everyone, not just the rich. Obama has never called for this. Clinton decreased Capital Gains Taxes. Obama wants to raise them.

    Because the term collective bargaining implied the right to strike. Something FDR opposed. He wasn't opposed to public employees collectively bargaining for the other aspects of wages, hours, and working conditions.


    See above response as it relates to the right to strike.

    The letter also states (CAPs added for emphasis):



    Then FDR says in the same letter:



    He then ends the letter by saying:



    Read the entire letter and NOT the parsed passages that have become conservative talking points.
    So your contention is that because FDR said collective bargaining, he actually meant strikes and that he was for collective bargaining for wages, hours and working conditions? What historical evidence shows this?

    Your analysis is completely wrong and your quotes are completely irrelevant to disproving my point. Here are the facts:
    1) FDR specifically stated that he was not for collective bargaining.
    2) FDR specifically stated that government employee unions should not be able to negotiate wages through collective bargaining.
    3) FDR specifically stated that government employee unions should not be able to negotiate working conditions through collective bargaining.
    4) In relation to #2 & #3, FDR related his own experiences as Assistant Navy Secretary to illustrate those points.
    5) The document you reference specifically delineates FDR's thoughts on collective bargaining and strikes. There is no implication that he equates collective bargaining to striking. He states he is opposed to the two.
    6) The historians at his own library agree with me. http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/aboutfdr/unions.html
    Last edited by Spencer534; 02-19-2013 at 03:19 AM.

  3. #278
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    I'm not leaving anybody. I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, a registered member of any political party. I believe making a choice based on the candidates past performance, or if new to the political scene...if they actually follow through with what they said they will do.

    To be brutally honest I can't stand the direction the Tea Party wants to go and I am in absolute disdain of Republican politics in my home state. The blatant bought and paid for aspect of scooter walker makes me want to puke as he blames all public employees for the states woes and sells the governor's office to the highest bidder. I am equally disgusted with the hard leftist liberal democrats and their decimation of the constitution and the fact that our Homeland (lack of any real security) Security is buying up enough ammunition and guns to kill every man, woman, and child in the US several times over. Corruption, deception, secrets, and tearing at the very fiber of freedom in this country for agendas that mean little or nothing to the average working man and woman seem to be the guiding light of BOTH parties.

    I am not calling for an armed revolution or a take over by force. I still hold out hope that peaceful change through our democratic process is still possible. But the fact is we now have mainstream people becoming "Doomsday Preppers" in anticipation of that catastrophic event of social or governmental collapse. It isn't necessarily only a bunch of wacked out survivalists that believe it is coming.

    So Spencer534, don't celebrate my disillusionment as a victory for the right, especially the Tea Party, just consider it as my acknowledgement that both sides don't have our best interests at heart and haven't for a very long time.
    I certainly did not mean that you were for the Tea Party or that you were a registered Democrat. I was merely pointing to the fact that the Tea Party made changes (right or wrong) from within and that you voted Democrat and now you denounce that Democrat.

    I am troubled by the views of many of my fellow Republicans, but feel that it would be easier to change from within than through a third party. I am a strict constitutionalist, fiscal libertarian, flat-taxer, social conservative on some issues(as related to my Christian religion - abortion, gay marriage, etc.), but a social libertarian on other aspects (marijuana legalization, gun laws, etc.) who thinks the Federal government should not be involved except in very few constitutionally mandated issues and that states should be the point where 99% of issues are solved.

    That is not the Republican party and it is sure not the Democratic party. It is probably closest to the Libertarian party. As you pointed out, it is near impossible for a single party to encompass all of everyone's views. Why wont I vote Libertarian in national politics? My view is to vote for the party which closest meets my platform that can be elected. Libertarians cannot be elected at this time in national politics.

    Based on your previous posts (gun control, abortion, gay marriage, flat tax, etc), I would say your views align more with the Libertarian Party than the Democratic or Republican Parties and I hope that you will find more of what you are looking for from them. Who knows? Perhaps they will be a viable national party 4 years from now.
    Last edited by Spencer534; 02-19-2013 at 03:43 AM.

  4. #279
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I am in the same boat age-wise, but my point was that you stated you would not condemn the policies of today until the economy is as strong as it was before Bush. If it took 50 years for those policies to work, would you still feel the same?
    I won't deal with a hypothetical. I do believe that 50 years from now there will be other things affecting the economy than the policies enacted today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Stimulus is needed in the short term to prevent a recession from becoming a depression. Even Hayek states such. That doesnt mean you keep stimulating.
    So when should economic stimulus be ceased if recovery is not occurring? Does Hayek state that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Agreed. As I stated, the current deficit is 70% of 2008, but the current deficit is 170% of the other years under Bush.
    Not what you said. Reread your original post. I responded to it, not what you meant to say. Bush didn't have the economy in such dire straits when he became president. Plus he handed off policies that are very budget consuming. Some of which are still in place. All of them being paid for with borrowed revenue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    I stated that growth is the true measure of recovery. Why would FDR and Reagan disagree?
    Both of them used significant deficit spending to promote economic growth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Not true. Not once has Obama called for the tax policy of Clinton. Clinton raised the taxes of everyone, not just the rich. Obama has never called for this. Clinton decreased Capital Gains Taxes. Obama wants to raise them.
    Okay. I support those policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    So your contention is that because FDR said collective bargaining, he actually meant strikes and that he was for collective bargaining for wages, hours and working conditions? What historical evidence shows this?
    I pointed out his words in the letter he sent to the National Federation of Federal Employees where he stated:

    The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. ORGANIZATION on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Your analysis is completely wrong and your quotes are completely irrelevant to disproving my point. Here are the facts:
    1) FDR specifically stated that he was not for collective bargaining.
    2) FDR specifically stated that government employee unions should not be able to negotiate wages through collective bargaining.
    3) FDR specifically stated that government employee unions should not be able to negotiate working conditions through collective bargaining.
    4) In relation to #2 & #3, FDR related his own experiences as Assistant Navy Secretary to illustrate those points.
    5) The document you reference specifically delineates FDR's thoughts on collective bargaining and strikes. There is no implication that he equates collective bargaining to striking. He states he is opposed to the two.
    6) The historians at his own library agree with me. http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/aboutfdr/unions.html
    This line from that website pretty much shoots down your claims that he was opposed to public employees being able to collectively bargain:

    No statements as to FDR’s views on collective bargaining for state or municipal workers were found among his papers as Governor of New York or as President.
    One can't say he was opposed to public employee collective bargaining because there are no references to him supporting it. I would submit that in his years as president he never pushed to ban or not allow that ability. Had he done so, I would agree with you, but he did not. I posted an excerpt from a letter he wrote that states he was indeed opposed to strikes by public employees. He referred to them as "militant" actions. So really, your bullet points are not accurate given the excerpt I cited from the page you posted.
    Last edited by scfire86; 02-19-2013 at 10:44 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #280
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    You two will like this article. It perfectly describes what the GOP (not to be confused with conservatism) has become.

    GOP: Scientology for Rednecks
    Since I have made it abundantly clear that I am NOT a member of any political party your cutesy little post has no meaning to me whatsoever. I am just as disgusted with the dems as the repubs, hence my call for a strong 3rd party. We, as a country, will never solve the problems of today with politics as usual, no matter who is in the Whitehouse or controls the congress.

    Further, I find the term redneck incredibly insulting and anyone that uses that term to describe themselves or anyone else, is either ignorant of the original meaning of the word or worse.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  6. #281
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,638

    Default

    He has asked for returning to Clinton era tax levels during several of the debt limit negotiations. The GOP has immediately rejected them.

    As one post has already stated, he did support tax increases on all taxpayers.

    This is especially critical now that Obama wants to hit high-income taxpayers again, after just getting 4 1/2% more out of them.

    By the way, I might support these tax increases if all government spending, except for spending associatted with the military and wars, were immediattly reset to Clinton era spending.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  7. #282
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    By the way, I might support these tax increases if all government spending, except for spending associatted with the military and wars, were immediattly reset to Clinton era spending.
    I would agree with this if you are also willing to pay higher taxes to support the current levels for those items. Otherwise, this is yet another one of your continued idiotic statements.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #283
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I would agree with this if you are also willing to pay higher taxes to support the current levels for those items. Otherwise, this is yet another one of your continued idiotic statements.
    At least it was more applicable that snotty comments about unicorns and rednecks.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  9. #284
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I would agree with this if you are also willing to pay higher taxes to support the current levels for those items. Otherwise, this is yet another one of your continued idiotic statements.
    I would have no issues paying higher taxes if spending, especially welfare, entitlements and all of the other social safety net crap was reduced to Clinton era expenditures.

    And that includes unemployment being reduced to an absolute maximum of 56 weeks.

    I have no desire to pay higher taxes to suppiort the freeloaders that currently ride the social safety net.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  10. #285
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I have no desire to pay higher taxes to suppiort the freeloaders that currently ride the social safety net.
    What makes you believe the good citizens of Bossier Parish like paying taxes for your phony baloney Pub Ed job? A job we both know could go away tomorrow and no one would notice.

    I'm certain there are communities that don't have your position in their locale and I'm also certain the words, "we need a Pub Ed Director" have never been muttered.
    Last edited by scfire86; 02-20-2013 at 10:50 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  11. #286
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    What makes you believe the good citizens of Bossier Parish like paying taxes for your phony baloney Pub Ed job? A job we both know could go away tomorrow and no one would notice.

    I'm certain there are communities that don't have your position in their locale and I'm also certain the words, "we need a Pub Ed Director" have never been muttered.
    I have no idea what any of that has to do with the subject at hand.

    I guess you don't want to continue to discuss Obumba's assualt on the rich.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  12. #287
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I have no idea what any of that has to do with the subject at hand.
    Of course you don't. You don't many ideas about anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I guess you don't want to continue to discuss Obumba's assualt on the rich.
    Then you must have hated Reagan's assault on the rich, and you must consider Eisenhower a communist when their taxation policy is stacked next to Obama's.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #288
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Of course you don't. You don't many ideas about anything.

    Funny thing is I have plenty of ideas. I guess I'm just not into assaulting one's character.


    Then you must have hated Reagan's assault on the rich, and you must consider Eisenhower a communist when their taxation policy is stacked next to Obama's.

    Actually, yes.

    The rich are the drivers of the economy. Taxing them at even the current rate of 40%, especially when you add in state income taxes is not only bad policy but it's also immoral. The government simply has no ... none ..nada ... rights to that big of a slice of somebody's income.


    It's simply not, nor ever should be, the role of the rich to bankroll social programs for the poor. In fact, it shouldn't even be the role of government.


    Unfortunately, the poor have gotten so used to living on government handouts as compared to taking responsibility for their own lives we'll likely never be able to turn back the clock.

    I guess I just find it funny that your buddy Obama can't make the tax cuts he promised when the reps gave him the tax increase on the rich, and in fact he actually wants more.

    Actually, it's more tragic than funny.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 02-21-2013 at 03:35 AM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  14. #289
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    So when should economic stimulus be ceased if recovery is not occurring? Does Hayek state that?
    When the recovery starts, stimulus should definitely end, but Hayek is against any large stimulus.

    Not what you said. Reread your original post. I responded to it, not what you meant to say. .
    This is what I said originally: "Yes the deficit is 70% of 2008 & 2009, but that was the first stimulus more than anything else. The deficit is still 170% more than any other Bush year."
    This is what I said the second time: "As I stated, the current deficit is 70% of 2008, but the current deficit is 170% of the other years under Bush."
    How is my meaning different?

    Okay. I support those policies.
    And I would support raising taxes on everyone only as a compromise if the spending cuts were 10 to 1. Why do you support raising taxes?

    This line from that website pretty much shoots down your claims that he was opposed to public employees being able to collectively bargain:

    One can't say he was opposed to public employee collective bargaining because there are no references to him supporting it. I would submit that in his years as president he never pushed to ban or not allow that ability. Had he done so, I would agree with you, but he did not. I posted an excerpt from a letter he wrote that states he was indeed opposed to strikes by public employees. He referred to them as "militant" actions. So really, your bullet points are not accurate given the excerpt I cited from the page you posted.
    While you can make a case his views on collective bargaining and government employee unions were only related to federal employees, you cannot make a case that the library, its website and the documents contained within show my bullet points to be inaccurate. The letter you refer to is in the material from the library. You had stated in a previous post that he was for collective bargaining. There is absolutely no evidence to show this. I know it is difficult, but the words you are looking for are "I was wrong".

    Please dont take this as I am an FDR hater. I completely disagree with his expansion of the government, but he was a great wartime leader (the most important job a president can have) and his positive attitude as a tenet of leadership helped bring our country through some of its roughest days.
    Last edited by Spencer534; 02-21-2013 at 06:05 AM.

  15. #290
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Then you must have hated Reagan's assault on the rich, and you must consider Eisenhower a communist when their taxation policy is stacked next to Obama's.
    There was a higher tax rate, but there was no assault. Obama has opened a class war and divided the country. His statements such as "it is time they pay their fair share" which are completely inaccurate, have led low-information voters to buy that crap hook, line, and sinker.

  16. #291
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    In fact, it shouldn't even be the role of government.
    I would say it is not the role of the federal government, but there needs to be safety nets for people truly in trouble until they can get back on their feet.

  17. #292
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Funny thing is I have plenty of ideas. I guess I'm just not into assaulting one's character.
    One must have character in order for it to be assaulted.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Actually, yes.

    The rich are the drivers of the economy. Taxing them at even the current rate of 40%, especially when you add in state income taxes is not only bad policy but it's also immoral. The government simply has no ... none ..nada ... rights to that big of a slice of somebody's income.
    Only if one believes the government plays no role in helping that individual acquire wealth.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    It's simply not, nor ever should be, the role of the rich to bankroll social programs for the poor. In fact, it shouldn't even be the role of government.
    Aahhh....let them eat cake. The cute notion that private charity can or ever will provide for the vulnerable in society has been disproven by bitter experience ever since Dickensian Britain. Do we really need to learn that lesson again? Well, apparently, some of us do.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Unfortunately, the poor have gotten so used to living on government handouts as compared to taking responsibility for their own lives we'll likely never be able to turn back the clock.
    Does that include the children who were unfortunate enough to be born to idiot parents?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I guess I just find it funny that your buddy Obama can't make the tax cuts he promised when the reps gave him the tax increase on the rich, and in fact he actually wants more.
    What's even funnier is the tax cuts you so righteously embrace are one of the very big reasons the US is now a debtor nation.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Actually, it's more tragic than funny.
    In your case it is just the opposite.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #293
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    When the recovery starts, stimulus should definitely end, but Hayek is against any large stimulus.
    The UN recognizes approximately 200 nations. Can you point to one that has totally embraced Hayek's ideals and tell us whether or not the citizens of that country are better or worse off than we are in the US? The only nation that comes to mind with a government that is totally untaxed is Somalia. And last I heard no one was willing to invest in timeshares along their coastline. Which I'm told by a former neighbor who was there during the Blackhawk Down episode is one of the most beautiful beaches he's ever seen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    This is what I said originally: "Yes the deficit is 70% of 2008 & 2009, but that was the first stimulus more than anything else. The deficit is still 170% more than any other Bush year."
    This is what I said the second time: "As I stated, the current deficit is 70% of 2008, but the current deficit is 170% of the other years under Bush."
    How is my meaning different?
    They're both wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    And I would support raising taxes on everyone only as a compromise if the spending cuts were 10 to 1. Why do you support raising taxes?
    Because research has shown the US was a much healthier economy when the top marginal tax rate was hovering around 50%.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    While you can make a case his views on collective bargaining and government employee unions were only related to federal employees, you cannot make a case that the library, its website and the documents contained within show my bullet points to be inaccurate. The letter you refer to is in the material from the library. You had stated in a previous post that he was for collective bargaining. There is absolutely no evidence to show this. I know it is difficult, but the words you are looking for are "I was wrong".
    I can make the case that he didn't oppose collective bargaining for public employees based upon his writings and the website you linked. You claimed he opposed union organization for public employees. I'll admit I was wrong when you do the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Please dont take this as I am an FDR hater. I completely disagree with his expansion of the government, but he was a great wartime leader (the most important job a president can have) and his positive attitude as a tenet of leadership helped bring our country through some of its roughest days.
    I agree with his expansion of government. In fact I can state unequivocally it was that expansion that kept the US from total collapse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    There was a higher tax rate, but there was no assault. Obama has opened a class war and divided the country. His statements such as "it is time they pay their fair share" which are completely inaccurate, have led low-information voters to buy that crap hook, line, and sinker.
    Given the rhetoric from conservatives towards organized labor I can easily state they are also engaging in class warfare. The target being the working class. In fact, given that conservative economic policies have seen aggregate wealth shift upward over the last three decades I can make the case that in the battle of class warfare, the upper 1% is clearly winning. Can you point to one conservative fiscal policy in the last 30 years that benefited the middle class MORE than the upper 1% and corporate interests? I'll help you. There are none.
    Last edited by scfire86; 02-21-2013 at 11:44 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #294
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Deleted by user.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  20. #295
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Deleted by user.
    Is there a particular reason why you can't remain in topic? You have continuously fired snotty shot after snotty personal attack here. If you want a serious discourse instead of appearing as an angry troll why can't you just post your views without those additional remarks? LA, spencer and I have remained on topic only to have you respond with attacks, snotty comments, and nonsense, that is irrelevant to the topic. if you don't want to be labeled as a troll then stop acting like one.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  21. #296
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Is there a particular reason why you can't remain in topic? You have continuously fired snotty shot after snotty personal attack here. If you want a serious discourse instead of appearing as an angry troll why can't you just post your views without those additional remarks? LA, spencer and I have remained on topic only to have you respond with attacks, snotty comments, and nonsense, that is irrelevant to the topic. if you don't want to be labeled as a troll then stop acting like one.
    I am on topic and am not angry at all. In fact it is just the opposite. One can see the spittle flying off the lips of folks like LAFE in his responses. If anything I'm educating him by enlightening his hypocrisy. He should be thanking me.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  22. #297
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I am on topic and am not angry at all. In fact it is just the opposite. One can see the spittle flying off the lips of folks like LAFE in his responses. If anything I'm educating him by enlightening his hypocrisy. He should be thanking me.
    Sorry not true, you brought Unicorns and myths into your response to me, you have religiously fired unnecessary snotty and stupid remarks at LA all across these boards and your comments here were not precipitated by any attacks on you.

    Again, if you don't want to be thought of as a troll stop acting like one.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  23. #298
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I am on topic and am not angry at all. In fact it is just the opposite. One can see the spittle flying off the lips of folks like LAFE in his responses. If anything I'm educating him by enlightening his hypocrisy. He should be thanking me.
    And what hypocrisy is that?

    Government should not be taking care of people's needs from cradle to grave. Housing, food stamps, heat and electric and now cell phones, not to mention 96 ... Ninety-friggin-Six ... weeks of umeployment, and Obumba still wants more. Sorry, but while I may agree that in certain circumstances it is perfectly resonable for government to provide LIMITED SHORT-TERM ASSISTANCE to people it is not the role of government to provide long-term LIFESTYLE assistance, except in the c ase of children and elderly.

    You choose to not graduate high school. Too bad, suck it up and don't expect me to help you. Decided not to use bit rth control and you ahd a baby at 16. Then another one at 18. Ain't my damn problem. You drank, did coke, crack or decided that committing crime was a good choice ... Again ... Ain't my issue.

    Government's job is to provide for the common good - highways, border security, air traffic control and military as examples, and LIMITED regulation, not cradle to grave lifestyle support and certainly not the scope of regulation loved by this administration.

    Lowe rates for the rich. Make the 48% that don't pay taxes now pay taxes. Get rid of uneeded departments like Education and give a portion of the budget to the states where it will be truly effective. And spend a whole lot less, especially in the area of social welfare and regulation. it's really a very simple formula.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  24. #299
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post

    Government's job is to provide for the common good - highways, border security, air traffic control and military as examples, and LIMITED regulation, not cradle to grave lifestyle support and certainly not the scope of regulation loved by this administration.

    Lowe rates for the rich. Make the 48% that don't pay taxes now pay taxes. Get rid of uneeded departments like Education and give a portion of the budget to the states where it will be truly effective. And spend a whole lot less, especially in the area of social welfare and regulation. it's really a very simple formula.
    Really? Where in their is the requirement the taxpayer should pay for a phony baloney Pub Ed job?

    Funny that you believe government shouldn't be providing cradle to grave programs. Yet conservatives had no problem supporting a candidate just a few months ago who did just that in his home state.

    You think those you disparage have it so well. Quit your job and join them. Then get back to us how great you have it. I promise to act jealous.
    Last edited by scfire86; 02-22-2013 at 12:42 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  25. #300
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Sorry not true, you brought Unicorns and myths into your response to me, you have religiously fired unnecessary snotty and stupid remarks at LA all across these boards and your comments here were not precipitated by any attacks on you.

    Again, if you don't want to be thought of as a troll stop acting like one.
    Give the victimization schtick a rest. It doesn't suit you.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. membership voting
    By FF7679 in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-31-2010, 03:00 PM
  2. Voting compromise
    By fyrmed in forum Career/Paid Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-15-2009, 04:00 PM
  3. Even though Im voting for....
    By BCmdepas3280 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-28-2004, 09:19 AM
  4. Voting for Officers
    By thoskin in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-05-2002, 10:29 AM
  5. Juniors Voting
    By HF&R_H28 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-21-2002, 10:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register