Posted: 4/20/2009 7:31:10 AM EDT
|
Im pretty sure that we should all take this as another wake-up call for where this country is heading. We are not out of the first 100 days of his first term, and this is what we are hearing from the WH? What infuriates me is that these liberal assholes didn't think it was un-healthy to protest the Iraq war, Bush, or anything that came out of the White House in the past 8 years (good or bad), but we should be silenced for protesting a legitamate cause? This is nonsense!!!
Axelrod Clip |
| While I wholly disagree with Axelrod's views he is not the real problem. The real problem is with the voters who put these clowns in office. One man can't change too much without the support of the voting populace. That's the real issue. Of course I blame the media and their liberal slant too. |
| Guys i disagree with the whole liberal / conservative labels. Both sides really don't do anything to help the average person. The republican party talks about smaller government, lower taxes, and an end to deficit spending. But look at what the last 8 yrs got us. Bigger government, lower taxes mostly for the wealthy (they can't seem to say middle class tax cut), and a huge increase in deficit spending. And the democrats are not any better. They talk about more jobs, better wages, and a middle class tax cut but once again look at the Clinton administration for examples...... NAFTA (this allowed jobs to go elsewhere), wages really didn't increase when you factor in jobs going elsewhere, and middle class tax cut - don't know about anyone else but if it happened i didn't see it. Although withholding due to FICA increased. I hope this president will do something to help working people. Btw i am glad he did back off the assault ban even though it was a political move. |
|
Well first of all you have to understand conservative doesn't necessarily mean Republican while liberal almost always translates to Democrat. I'm a Conservative first not a Republican. That's why so many conservatives are so pissed at Bush. He ran as a conservative but the longer he was in office the less conservative he acted.
Try to look at it as capitalist vs socialist. The middle class tax cut was in less withholding in federal taxes only. But just today I'm hearing they will let the Bush tax cuts expire next year as well as the Obama promised tax cuts to the those making less than $250K. We get one year only of the Obama tax cut. |
|
Quoted:
Guys i disagree with the whole liberal / conservative labels. Both sides really don't do anything to help the average person. The republican party talks about smaller government, lower taxes, and an end to deficit spending. But look at what the last 8 yrs got us. Bigger government, lower taxes mostly for the wealthy (they can't seem to say middle class tax cut), and a huge increase in deficit spending. And the democrats are not any better. They talk about more jobs, better wages, and a middle class tax cut but once again look at the Clinton administration for examples...... NAFTA (this allowed jobs to go elsewhere), wages really didn't increase when you factor in jobs going elsewhere, and middle class tax cut - don't know about anyone else but if it happened i didn't see it. Although withholding due to FICA increased. I hope this president will do something to help working people. Btw i am glad he did back off the assault ban even though it was a political move. The last small government conservative we've had in the white house was Teddy Roosevelt. Reagan spent like a drunk monkey, and signed a bill making illegals legal. So I don't wanna hear that he was a conservative. Modern "conservatives" are mostly fucking idiots. They are as liberal as Pelosi and Reid, they just don't know it. Example: Liberals want the government to step in and make gay marriage legal. Neocons want the government to keep it illegal or make it illegal again. Both want the government to fix it. A true conservative doesn't want the government to step in to handle something that is none of their business. A true conservative wants the government to shrink and leave us alone. These damn bible thumpers asking the government to legislate morality are the enemy as much as liberals. Bush was NOT a conservative. He was a liar, and since most Americans now days are about as smart as a brick they believed him. |
|
Quoted:
Actually Teddy Roosevelt wanted more government. There have been some recent pundits that brought up some remarks he had made back in his day as POTUS. The additions he wanted were ones like the CCC, that actually did help people. He didn't want to create thousands of new laws, a welfare state, and scores of new agencies just to enforce those laws. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Guys i disagree with the whole liberal / conservative labels. Both sides really don't do anything to help the average person. The republican party talks about smaller government, lower taxes, and an end to deficit spending. But look at what the last 8 yrs got us. Bigger government, lower taxes mostly for the wealthy (they can't seem to say middle class tax cut), and a huge increase in deficit spending. And the democrats are not any better. They talk about more jobs, better wages, and a middle class tax cut but once again look at the Clinton administration for examples...... NAFTA (this allowed jobs to go elsewhere), wages really didn't increase when you factor in jobs going elsewhere, and middle class tax cut - don't know about anyone else but if it happened i didn't see it. Although withholding due to FICA increased. I hope this president will do something to help working people. Btw i am glad he did back off the assault ban even though it was a political move. The last small government conservative we've had in the white house was Teddy Roosevelt. Reagan spent like a drunk monkey, and signed a bill making illegals legal. So I don't wanna hear that he was a conservative. Modern "conservatives" are mostly fucking idiots. They are as liberal as Pelosi and Reid, they just don't know it. Example: Liberals want the government to step in and make gay marriage legal. Neocons want the government to keep it illegal or make it illegal again. Both want the government to fix it. A true conservative doesn't want the government to step in to handle something that is none of their business. A true conservative wants the government to shrink and leave us alone. These damn bible thumpers asking the government to legislate morality are the enemy as much liberals. Bush was NOT a conservative. He was a liar, and since most Americans now days are about as smart as a brick they believed him. Truth. |
| I agree that alot of Republicans don't adhere to the true definition of conservative. Furthermore trying to legislate morality is a further example of government overstepping its bounds. I do have a question to pose to the members of this forum. When it comes down to capitalism vs socialism, does America truly benefit from a totally free and unrestricted free market society or do we need a tad bit of socialism to keep capitalism reined in so to speak? What are you guy's thoughts on this? Personally I am torn between unrestricted capitalism and capitalism with boundaries. I understand that the free market is the best place to breed innovation as well as keeping prices down when more competitors enter the market. But what happens when an unrestricted market allows so many companies to merge that eventually you get conglomerates that control so much. Take a look at the banking industry to see what I mean. AIG controlled so much that its instability threatens the free market. |
|
Quoted:
I agree that alot of Republicans don't adhere to the true definition of conservative. Furthermore trying to legislate morality is a further example of government overstepping its bounds. I do have a question to pose to the members of this forum. When it comes down to capitalism vs socialism, does America truly benefit from a totally free and unrestricted free market society or do we need a tad bit of socialism to keep capitalism reined in so to speak? What are you guy's thoughts on this? Personally I am torn between unrestricted capitalism and capitalism with boundaries. I understand that the free market is the best place to breed innovation as well as keeping prices down when more competitors enter the market. But what happens when an unrestricted market allows so many companies to merge that eventually you get conglomerates that control so much. Take a look at the banking industry to see what I mean. AIG controlled so much that its instability threatens the free market. I had intended to write out a response fulled with facts, logic, and reasoning to destroy the idea of socialism every being good. Then you brought up AIG. So you made my job a lot easier. Aig's business was built on insuring financial products. The financial products are owned by major banks. The same banks that were forced to make bad loans due to socialism. The government stepped in and told them that they HAD to approve certain sub prime loans. Now, when AIG saw this and realized that they needed to raise rates to cover the higher risk loans, the government stopped them from raising rates, why? Because AIG insured the banks that controlled congress' pension. So you have socialism to blame for every bit of that. Had we been living in a free market society, the banks would hever have had to have made loans to retarded losers that couldn't afford the loans, AIG wouldn't have had to cover those losses and we wouldn't be facing any issues. |
|
Quoted:
Furthermore trying to legislate morality is a further example of government overstepping its bounds. Our basic laws are all based on morals. How do you think those laws were originally sought. Should we not have laws against sex with young children? Theft? Rape? etc! Sure sometimes it's a tight rope between moral values but in a civilized society somebody's morals are usually gonna interfere with someone elses interpretation. We can't just have a free for all. That's anarchy. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Furthermore trying to legislate morality is a further example of government overstepping its bounds. Our basic laws are all based on morals. How do you think those laws were originally sought. Should we not have laws against sex with young children? Theft? Rape? etc! Sure sometimes it's a tight rope between moral values but in a civilized society somebody's morals are usually gonna interfere with someone elses interpretation. We can't just have a free for all. That's anarchy. The difference is whether or not there is a victim. Many laws are enforced with zero common sense. For example, the 17 year girl that had topless pics of herself on her cell phone and was convicted of child porn. In a Texas school, 3 girls, all 16 years old, took topless pics of themselves and texted them to their boyfriends. The boyfriends were convicted of child porn as well. For simply opening a text message. I can disguise a link on here using tinyurl and tell you it's a link to a gun website or something else, yet have it link you to child porn. As soon as you open it, being the good man that you are, you'd close it. But that cookie is now on your computer and you'd be guilty in the eyes of the law. Most states have laws allowing sex with minors. 16 is the age of consent in most of these states, including Arkansas. You can do the most depraved sexual acts ever thought of and more to a 17 year old girl, but if you have a picture of her bare ass and you'll go to prison. Common sense? Now, those are laws we can all understand. Child porn should be illegal. The sick bastards that get off on it should rot. I think we can all agree on that. But when our government fails so severely at using common sense in enforcing GOOD laws, should we allow them the ability to create and enforce victimless laws like Gay marriage? No, we should be taking the default posistion of less government regulation since they suck at what they do. |