1. #76
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Liberalism=Socialism=Communism.

    Very little separates them from each other, and the next step is listed above for each stage.

    In all cases, individual rights, liberties, and the Constitution would most likely suffer.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  2. #77
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Originally posted by DaSharkie
    As for the others it was a simple matter of how no country remains at the top for long, we have been on a downturn for years.

    You may now lose control of your bladder.
    Based on what? Economics? Military might? What is your premise for this?

    The US is still the preeminent economic force in the world. Even with all the new debt Bush is saddling future generations to pay off. We spend more money on defense than the rest of the world combined.

    Are you talking about morality? Based upon whose morals? The biggest reprobates I've ever met have been conservatives. Devout religious conservatives at that.

    Are you just one of those wistful nostalgic folks who thinks about the good ole days? The days are better now than they were then. But then again I'm one of those optimistic liberals. Maybe I'm naive. I should be a doom and gloom conservative like you.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #78
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    Based on what? Economics? Military might? What is your premise for this?

    The US is still the preeminent economic force in the world. Even with all the new debt Bush is saddling future generations to pay off. We spend more money on defense than the rest of the world combined.

    Are you talking about morality? Based upon whose morals? The biggest reprobates I've ever met have been conservatives. Devout religious conservatives at that.

    Are you just one of those wistful nostalgic folks who thinks about the good ole days? The days are better now than they were then. But then again I'm one of those optimistic liberals. Maybe I'm naive. I should be a doom and gloom conservative like you.
    The National Debt that is being incurred during wartime is not going to hinder our long term economic health. Every US wartime modern economy has had a large debt. Every post-war economy has had a dramatic upturn. That is the nature of a wartime economy.

    Ahhh, morality. No right or wrong. No black and white. Just what's right for YOU. Soory dude, that is BS. Morality is not bad and there is a very common ground of what is right and wrong. That is the problem with government and education today...nobody wants to say "You are wrong" because we might hurt someone's feelings. After this election, when President Bush wins, I am praying that we can move closer to clear "right and wrong".

    The "biggest reprobates" you have ever met have been conservatives? I don't know what circles you travel in, but that is one of the biggest pieces of crap I have ever heard. Since you are big on evidence, why don't you give us some?

    If any group in this election year is "doom and gloom", it is the libs. It has been stated many times that for your platform to be succesful, bad things must happen to the US. Kerry paints the picture that there are soup lines and seniors eating cat food and a depression around the corner. That is utter nonsense and you have basically admitted it. The conservative belief is based on this country being the greatest and strongest in the world. It is based on the fundamental goodness of the people. Remember, no country has ever been so strong and used that strength for more good than the US.

  4. #79
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    They are now calling in the international reinforcements for their hate speech. From the UK Guardian:

    On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

    You can read the entire disgusting column at:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/c...333748,00.html

    And conservatives are full of hate?

  5. #80
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI

    The National Debt that is being incurred during wartime is not going to hinder our long term economic health. Every US wartime modern economy has had a large debt. Every post-war economy has had a dramatic upturn. That is the nature of a wartime economy.

    Pretty much BS on all fronts. Contrary to conservative thinking, war is not good for the economy. And if you look at economic indicators, post war economies are typically recessionary immediately following the conflict.



    The "biggest reprobates" you have ever met have been conservatives? I don't know what circles you travel in, but that is one of the biggest pieces of crap I have ever heard. Since you are big on evidence, why don't you give us some?

    Freely admit my observation is pretty much anecdotal from living in an enviornment and locale that is dominated by conservatives. But here is a good article that offers statistical proof. Of course you won't like it since Krugman is viewed as one those members of the 'liberal' media. True Blue Americans


    If any group in this election year is "doom and gloom", it is the libs. It has been stated many times that for your platform to be succesful, bad things must happen to the US. Kerry paints the picture that there are soup lines and seniors eating cat food and a depression around the corner. That is utter nonsense and you have basically admitted it. The conservative belief is based on this country being the greatest and strongest in the world. It is based on the fundamental goodness of the people. Remember, no country has ever been so strong and used that strength for more good than the US.

    More bovine scatology. Cheney has been running around predicting more terrorist attacks if Kerry is elected. If that isn't preying upon doom and gloom and fear what is?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #81
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Pretty much BS on all fronts. Contrary to conservative thinking, war is not good for the economy. And if you look at economic indicators, post war economies are typically recessionary immediately following the conflict.
    No kidding? Of course it is "immediately following" a conflict. The economy doesn't upturn overnight. I didn't say that.

    More bovine scatology. Cheney has been running around predicting more terrorist attacks if Kerry is elected. If that isn't preying upon doom and gloom and fear what is?
    Kerry has stated publicly that his policy will be to relegate terrorism to a "nuisance" and to deal with it with a law enforcement strategy. That makes sense since this is the way Clinton dealt with it.

    It won't work. It has never worked. It WILL lead to more terrorist attacks. The Muslim extremists will hate us and want to see our country destroyed no matter who is President. Kerry will make it easier for them to operate. They operated with impunity when Clinton was President, they should expect the same if Kerry is elected. It is reality, not doom and gloom.

    And by the way, your Krugman article is as biased and slanted as your posts.

  7. #82
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI


    No kidding? Of course it is "immediately following" a conflict. The economy doesn't upturn overnight. I didn't say that.

    You stated

    Every post-war economy has had a dramatic upturn. That is the nature of a wartime economy.
    I guess you really meant, the post, post war economy. My mistake.



    Kerry has stated publicly that his policy will be to relegate terrorism to a "nuisance" and to deal with it with a law enforcement strategy. That makes sense since this is the way Clinton dealt with it.

    It won't work. It has never worked. It WILL lead to more terrorist attacks. The Muslim extremists will hate us and want to see our country destroyed no matter who is President. Kerry will make it easier for them to operate. They operated with impunity when Clinton was President, they should expect the same if Kerry is elected. It is reality, not doom and gloom.

    Another crystal ball prediction, what's new?


    And by the way, your Krugman article is as biased and slanted as your posts.

    You asked for something with statistics and more empirical. I guess it's true that the truth hurts. How predictable to blow it off as slanted.

    Here's another one. Reinforcing the point



    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    January 30, 2004
    OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
    Givers and Takers
    By DANIEL H. PINK

    WASHINGTON

    Each of the Democratic candidates vying to replace George W. Bush has a serious electability problem. The problem has nothing to do with their biographies or temperaments — and everything to do with a significant, but unnoticed, structural divide in American presidential politics.

    Each year, the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit research group, crunches numbers from the Census Bureau to produce an intriguing figure: how much each state receives in federal spending for every dollar it pays in federal taxes.

    For example, according to the most recent data, for every dollar the average North Dakotan paid in federal taxes, he received $2.07 in federal benefits. But while someone in Fargo was doubling his money, his counterpart in neighboring Minnesota was being shortchanged. For every dollar Minnesotans sent to Washington, only 77 cents in federal spending flowed back to the state.

    Using the Tax Foundation's analysis, it's possible to group the 50 states into two categories: Givers and Takers. Giver states get back less than a dollar in spending for every dollar they contribute to federal coffers. Taker states pocket more than a dollar for every tax dollar they send to Washington. Thirty-three states are Takers; 16 are Givers. (One state, Indiana, has a perfect one-to-one ratio of taxes paid and spending received. As seat of the federal government, the District of Columbia has no choice but to be a Taker, and is therefore not comparable to the 50 states in this regard.)

    The Democrats' electability predicament comes into focus when you compare the map of Giver and Taker states with the well-worn electoral map of red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) states. You might expect that in the 2000 presidential election, Republicans, the party of low taxes and limited government, would have carried the Giver states — while Democrats, the party of wild spending and wooly bureaucracy, would have appealed to the Taker states. But it was the reverse. George W. Bush was the candidate of the Taker states. Al Gore was the candidate of the Giver states.

    Consider:

    78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states.

    76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.

    Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25.

    Of the 16 Giver states, Mr. Gore carried 12.

    Juxtaposing these maps provides a new perspective on the political landscape. (Interactive moment: Color in the blue and red states — then you'll get the full picture.) Republicans seem to have become the new welfare party — their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who vote Democratic. Of course, not all federal spending is wasteful. But Republicans are having their pork and eating it too. Voters in red states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are some of the country's fiercest critics of government, yet they're also among the biggest recipients of federal largess. Meanwhile, Democratic voters in the coastal blue states — the ones who are often portrayed as shiftless moochers — are left to carry the load.

    For President Bush, this invisible income redistribution system is a boon. He can encourage his supporters to see themselves as Givers, yet reward them with federal spending in excess of their contribution — and send the bill to those who voted for his opponent. It's shrewd politics.

    And it puts the eventual Democratic presidential nominee in a bind, should he try to rally those who believe they aren't getting a fair shake from Washington. If the Democratic candidate won all 16 Giver states plus the District of Columbia in November, he'd collect only 254 electoral votes, short of the majority needed to capture the White House. The electoral votes of all the Taker states, by contrast, add up to 273 — two more than Mr. Bush won in 2000.

    Is there a way out for Democrats? Maybe not. With Republicans holding the purse strings, it's the Democrats who are being taken.


    Daniel H. Pink, the author of "Free Agent Nation," was the chief speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore from 1995 to 1997.




    And while I know you will ignore it since it is from a dem speechwriter writing for the NY Times, here is the link to the non partisan Tax Foundation pretty much saying the same thing about how 'self reliant conservatives' are pretty much sucking up the public trough faster than they are filling it.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #83
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Another crystal ball prediction, what's new?
    Not a crystal ball prediction. An educated opinion based upon fact and history. OOOPS! There's that H word again.

    BTW, why don't you post some factual articles instead of those stupid biased OP-ED pieces? They are baseless and senseless. How about some fact?

  9. #84
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    BTW, why don't you post some factual articles instead of those stupid biased OP-ED pieces? They are baseless and senseless. How about some fact?
    I'm sorry if you didn't read the link from the Tax Foundation. That was the point in posting. Do you have something that contradicts their assertion that conservative leaning states don't receive more federal dollars than they contribute?

    I would love to read something that supports your position. It must not be easy for you to discover the great conservative values of wanting to shrink govt is a myth. Or in this case as long as it is shrunk somewhere else.

    But it is a typical conservative reaction to discount something as stupid when it makes you look bad. It must be difficult since it happens all the time.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #85
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Why do you force the issue when I try to let you off the hook without embarrasing you?

    There is nothing in this article...not a single, solitary word, to support your hypothesis. Not a word!

    This passage will demonstrate how you miscontrued this piece and took it out of context.

    Federal spending on defense and other procurement dollars are often funneled to the states of powerful Members of Congress, and state governments can grab more federal grant money by skillfully manipulating their spending to comply with federal regulations.
    However, demography may be more influential than politics. States with more residents on Social Security, Medicare and other large federal entitlements are bound to rank fairly high. Similarly, the high spending levels in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are explained by the predominance of federal employees.

    On the tax side of the equation, states with higher incomes per capita—New Jersey stands out—pay much higher federal taxes per capita because of the income tax’s progressive structure. The citizens in these high-income, high-tax states do not always live better or save more than people in low-income, low-tax states because the cost of living is usually that much higher or more.


    Do you think that just because you post something that people will automatically accept it withouy reading it?

  11. #86
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI

    Do you think that just because you post something that people will automatically accept it withouy reading it?
    You are truly priceless. It still doesn't change the premise of those that complain about govt (conservatives) benefit more than those who don't.

    Go have another Norm.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #87
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    You can read the entire disgusting column at:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/c...333748,00.html
    I'm no Bush fan. But.....

    Paraphrasing one of my 10,000 favorite movie lines. Who does he think he is? He can't talk about our President that way. Only we can talk about our President that way. I don't bash their PM. And I got plenty of ammo.

    He needs to drink another Guiness and kiss my yankee arse.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #88
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Based on what? Economics? Military might? What is your premise for this?
    Um, History. Check it out.

    The US is still the preeminent economic force in the world. Even with all the new debt Bush is saddling future generations to pay off.
    And this means what? We will not be on top forever. China and India have exponential economic growth. Much of it due to the world's exportation of jobs, not just our own. The rapid growth of China and India is a fairly large contributor to rapid rise in fuel costs and the cost of construction materials worldwide (especially cement).

    Are you talking about morality? Based upon whose morals? The biggest reprobates I've ever met have been conservatives. Devout religious conservatives at that.
    Immorality, fraud, theft, abuse, and waste is not relegated to one political party or political leaning.

    Are you just one of those wistful nostalgic folks who thinks about the good ole days? The days are better now than they were then. But then again I'm one of those optimistic liberals.
    And who said I believe this crud you just stated? You once again infer things that are not stated or insinuated. I know I am better off today than I have ever been in my life. This is due to my efforts, no effort (other than the GI Bill) made it so. I am now taking advantage of (for the first time) student loans, but if part of them were not federally subsidized I would still be doing it. I am responsible for my own rising up from hovering at the poverty line. Me, no one else.

    The nation is the same way, it will always improve for its citizenry, but it may not always remain at the top of the world's power.

    We spend more money on defense than the rest of the world combined.
    Because we have the means to do so. We also have the desire to reduce the number of deaths of infantrymen on the ground by pulverizing defenses of adversaries. Because we are seen as the world's police force (whether we should be is a whole different matter) we have to develop ourselves to be able to act in that manner.

    Do not forget that the Romans were at the pinacle of military might, until they failed to alter their tactics and their adversaries learned how to take advantage of their tactics and the Roman army lost its edge by becoming less effective as a fighting force.

    I should be a doom and gloom conservative like you.
    Go have another Norm.
    You continue act in a juvenile manner and resort to disrespecting others and acting in a manner not befitting an intelligent converstionalist. Excellent example you set for a person espousing the traditions and education of the Democratic or left leaning politicos of the nation.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  14. #89
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    You are truly priceless. It still doesn't change the premise of those that complain about govt (conservatives) benefit more than those who don't.

    Go have another Norm.
    That article does not say one word about conservatives benefitting more those who are not. You are pulling an Emperor's New Clothes with that one. You are lying.

  15. #90
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Shark, don't forget that we spend all of that money on our military and do not use it to expand our country. We have used all of our force for good so many times it is hard to count. And if we have to kick someone's butt for world peace, we put that country back together when we are done. See Japan, Germany and Iraq.

  16. #91
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI


    That article does not say one word about conservatives benefitting more those who are not. You are pulling an Emperor's New Clothes with that one. You are lying.
    Wrong again. The states benefitting from receiving more in federal monies than they pay in voted for Bush. That would make the majority of the residents in those locales as conservative leaning. Irrespective of voter registration.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #92
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    She had asked me if I had ever read Tyler. Although I had only read one book by Tyler unrelated to the statement, we discussed the concept within that statement.
    It's "Tytler", by the way.
    http://www.electricscotland.com/hist..._alexander.htm
    It's a shame that one must rely on completely bogus internet trash to support one's position. The whole thing is total bunk.

  18. #93
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,098

    Red face

    Oh, look who decided to crawl back out from under their ROCK! Dude, does your head still feel funny from wearing the tinfoil hat?
    Proud Right-Wing Extremist since 1992

    "Extreme Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"- Michael Savage

  19. #94
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    There are so many people on his ignore list, he has nobody left to respond to.

  20. #95
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    Wrong again. The states benefitting from receiving more in federal monies than they pay in voted for Bush. That would make the majority of the residents in those locales as conservative leaning. Irrespective of voter registration.
    I guess I am having a hard time following where you are going with this. This would seem to imply that those on welfare would be right leaning then, kind of a contradiction, in my simplistic viewpoint.
    If you are refering to defense contracting, and military bases there are many technological advancements in the civillian world that were developed and implemented by defense related research. GPS, paramedics as well as some of the light weight materials used in bicycles. I would think thats a positive, but I ask because I wasn't clear on what you were getting at.

  21. #96
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Originally posted by jasper45
    I guess I am having a hard time following where you are going with this. This would seem to imply that those on welfare would be right leaning then, kind of a contradiction, in my simplistic viewpoint.
    If you are refering to defense contracting, and military bases there are many technological advancements in the civillian world that were developed and implemented by defense related research. GPS, paramedics as well as some of the light weight materials used in bicycles. I would think thats a positive, but I ask because I wasn't clear on what you were getting at.
    C'mon now. You've been reading sc's posts long anough top know that he doesn't have to have a point. He just throws that trash out there and expect you to think that he is right without actually reading the attached articles.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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