Posted: 9/16/2010 4:49:38 PM EDT
|
Someone embed this for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KGlBHyVeYU&feature=player_embedded#! |
|
Nice painting......but it is open to interpretation.
It shows Reagan there saying what about this poor guy on the street .................. but I remember the Reagan administration as pulling the money out of the mental health systems, hence why we have a lot more nut cases on the street. It goes both ways. ________________________________________ ("You see, Captain, it goes both ways."––Romulian Commander asking what the response would be if her ships were found so deep in Fed space, (w,stte), ST:TOS "The Enterprise Incident") |
|
Quoted:
Nice painting......but it is open to interpretation. It shows Reagan there saying what about this poor guy on the street .................. but I remember the Reagan administration as pulling the money out of the mental health systems, hence why we have a lot more nut cases on the street. It goes both ways. And the money to for Federally funded funny farms came from....? That right skippy, from the poor guy desperately trying to stay in the middle class. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
He should have painted obozo wiping his ass on the US Constitution. http://lh6.ggpht.com/_7NduKsyhQUo/TGaxIpNNLPI/AAAAAAAAPec/rH2499bvlfw/constitutionwipe.jpg No flame bro, but try posting that with the Qua-ran, even on this site... 
Excuse me now, I think I need to throw-up. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nice painting......but it is open to interpretation. It shows Reagan there saying what about this poor guy on the street .................. but I remember the Reagan administration as pulling the money out of the mental health systems, hence why we have a lot more nut cases on the street. It goes both ways. And the money to for Federally funded funny farms came from....? That right skippy, from the poor guy desperately trying to stay in the middle class. Well, one of the things that turned me off from the Republicans for 16-20 years was seeing beggars on the streets. I had traveled the world but I never thought that I would see that in America...............yet, by 1992, it was there, after 20 years of the Republicans (24-4 of Carter). So, back to the picture. We have Reagan there on the "good" side and Bush the 1st on the "bad" side......and guys, I just don't see all the people there like that. For one thing, Bush was part of Reagan....so why is he now on the bad side? Secondly, Reagan rather won or finished the Cold War......and you can't do that with small government. A 600 ship Navy is not a small government type of thing. It is a matter of interpretation..........................to say nothing of Lincoln and Habeas Corpus. ____________________________________________________ ("Alms for the poor? Alms for the poor?"––the beggar who then gets slugged to get him out of the way, "Alms for a blind man?" and then he gets trampled by more people, "Alms for a cripple?" "It's just isn't your night, is it?"––Servant running after his master, (w,stte), "The Three Musketeers") |
|
Quoted:
...Well, one of the things that turned me off from the Republicans for 16-20 years was seeing beggars on the streets.... Then you have absolutely no idea what the role of government is in our Constitutional Republic. Or rather, what the role of government AS INTENDED BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS is. You have some fucked up view of the world where the .gov should cure all that ails society. You're part of the problem with that attitude. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
...Well, one of the things that turned me off from the Republicans for 16-20 years was seeing beggars on the streets.... Then you have absolutely no idea what the role of government is in our Constitutional Republic. Or rather, what the role of government AS INTENDED BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS is. You have some fucked up view of the world where the .gov should cure all that ails society. You're part of the problem with that attitude. Perhaps, as you are welcomed to your opinion as well. But we still come back to the picture, showing Reagan indicating something to be done of the poor man on the street.................and yet, his policies rather put him there. Or, if we want to say that is has nothing to do with that but rather the documents this country was founded on, then there are a few at least on the good side that are questionable in view to those documents. Paintings truly do depend on the eye of the beholder. ___________________________________________ ("She's a walking brain-trust, an Einstein with cleavage."––Piper about Phoebe, (w,stte), Charmed "The Painted World") |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
...Well, one of the things that turned me off from the Republicans for 16-20 years was seeing beggars on the streets.... Then you have absolutely no idea what the role of government is in our Constitutional Republic. Or rather, what the role of government AS INTENDED BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS is. You have some fucked up view of the world where the .gov should cure all that ails society. You're part of the problem with that attitude. No. There is a difference between those who can not take care of themselves and those who won't. I don't see anyone advocating on this board for what we have now with free money for everyone from corporate welfare to those who will not work. But there is a middle ground where we do help to take care of the mentally ill etc. We can do some of that and pay for it as we go. We've been too generous with our money and our troops protecting the whole world without expecting those countries to step up to the plate as well. And we can do SOME help and pay for it as we go. We need to protect our workers and our factories too. Protectionism has ALWAYS been part of economics in world history. That is why we have tariffs and it also keeps a manufacturing base for our defense. None of this is unconstitutional. We have the General Welfare clause. (As in the general good of the country as a whole.) The Framers of the Constitution and the subsequent government knew that some assistance to the infirm and needy is required to keep them from weighing us down as a whole. |
| Meh... general idea is correct, however the representations of the various POTUSes (POTUSi ?) are truely open to interpritation...AND, there is a LOT more involved in the negitive changes in our society (the internal & external assult on Western Civilization)... |
|
Well, one of the things that turned me off from the Republicans for 16-20 years was seeing beggars on the streets.
I had traveled the world but I never thought that I would see that in America...............yet, by 1992, it was there, after 20 years of the Republicans (24-4 of Carter). So, back to the picture. We have Reagan there on the "good" side and Bush the 1st on the "bad" side......and guys, I just don't see all the people there like that. For one thing, Bush was part of Reagan....so why is he now on the bad side? Secondly, Reagan rather won or finished the Cold War......and you can't do that with small government. A 600 ship Navy is not a small government type of thing. It is a matter of interpretation..........................to say nothing of Lincoln and Habeas Corpus. You must have gotten that from the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media. Just because you don't see a lot of stories about "beggars" while Democrats are in charge doesn't mean that they aren't there. Usually the beggars are only visible in the cities run by Democrats. Look up San Francisco and stories about panhandlers - even the biased media can't cover up all the stinking piles caused by liberals. The MSM in this country continues to prove everyday that their liberal bias is strong. This time it’s The New York Times which has an article up with the headline: A G.O.P. Leader Tightly Bound to Lobbyists The article suggests that Boehner has a disturbing level of ties to “lobbyist friends.” Mr. Boehner’s ties seem especially deep But hey….did you know? Nancy Pelosi has raised almost twice as much money from lobbyists this election as Boehner has? At least 18 House Democrats have raised more lobbyist cash this election than Boehner has. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have pocketed more lobbyist cash in the past 18 months than Boehner has raised in the past 6 elections, combined? ~~~ …What if we tried to use facts and data, rather than the reporter’s impression, to measure Boehner’s lobbyist ties against those of other politicians. Let’s start with campaign contributions. The Times writes: [Lobbyists] have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaigns Here’s what they mean: from 1999 until today, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Boehner has raised $299,490 from lobbyists. For comparison, Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln, and Chuck Schumer have each raised more money from lobbyists in this cycle alone. This election cycle, Boehner is not even in the top 20 recipients of lobbyist cash. He’s raised less than $40,000 from lobbyists this cycle — compared to Nancy Pelosi’s $71,000 from lobbyists. I’m guessing Timothy Carney at the Examiner spent about all of five minutes to cull all that from Open Secrets. But Eric Lipton couldn’t be bothered with that kind of unbiased reporting. The paper, and our MSM, are circling the toilet bowl so they might as well play to their base eh? Ed Morrissey: Don’t forget their attempt to smear John McCain with allegations of marital infidelity just as he wrapped up the Republican nomination for President. The newspaper’s public editor ended up scolding the Times and its editors for publishing a hack job based on unsupported allegations from disgruntled former staffers. It wasn’t their only effort at tilting the election, either: Gray Lady fighting dirty against McCain campaign? Update: NYT Ethics Policy The Times Strikes Back, Lamely Someone please call the Gray Lady a waaahmbulance! Update: It wasn’t “tightly controlled” in 1999 In this case, the use of the phrase “especially deep” shows that the Times wanted to make Boehner look as though he was on the extreme outlier of the common practice of fundraising among lobbysists. Whatever one thinks of that practice, it’s one of the truly bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill. The only one tightly bound to each other here appears to be the New York Times and the Democrat party. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...Well, one of the things that turned me off from the Republicans for 16-20 years was seeing beggars on the streets.... Then you have absolutely no idea what the role of government is in our Constitutional Republic. Or rather, what the role of government AS INTENDED BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS is. You have some fucked up view of the world where the .gov should cure all that ails society. You're part of the problem with that attitude. No. There is a difference between those who can not take care of themselves and those who won't. I don't see anyone advocating on this board for what we have now with free money for everyone from corporate welfare to those who will not work. But there is a middle ground where we do help to take care of the mentally ill etc. We can do some of that and pay for it as we go. We've been too generous with our money and our troops protecting the whole world without expecting those countries to step up to the plate as well. And we can do SOME help and pay for it as we go. We need to protect our workers and our factories too. Protectionism has ALWAYS been part of economics in world history. That is why we have tariffs and it also keeps a manufacturing base for our defense. None of this is unconstitutional. We have the General Welfare clause. (As in the general good of the country as a whole.) The Framers of the Constitution and the subsequent government knew that some assistance to the infirm and needy is required to keep them from weighing us down as a whole. Tell you what comrade, we have a President and a .gov that is implementing your glorious worker's paradise as we speak. Get back to me in a few months and let me know how it goes. 
|