Mr. Heartbreak Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I always wonder how much of that "more laws, more regulations, more taxes" argument involves things we all take for granted as necessary. For example, I think it's a good thing that we have an FDA to make sure we are not being fed carcinogens by major corporations (although we actually are, thanks to the loose legal definitions of what "food" is); I think it's a good thing that we have airline safety laws, auto safety laws; I think the EPA, created by Republican President Richard Nixon, is a good thing...especially if it helps us have clean air and water; and I think the Civil RIghts Act - which Rand Paul once said he would have voted against on "libertarian grounds" - is a very good thing. It's all well and good for people to complain about laws they don't like or taxes they don't like, but there is a pro and a con on each side. I personally don't like laws that prevent gay people from having visiting rights if their partner is in a hospital, but sometimes we have to suck it up and just fight for the laws to be changed in favor of doing the right thing. Thankfully, history has been on the side of progressives over and over. Republicans were against Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, and many other laws I can't even think of right now, but history is never on the side of regression. In America, we end up doing the right thing, but sometimes it takes a long, long time..and usually a major fight against the comfortable and complacent. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Obviously you disagree with the article. Pity, comments aside. Other then point 8 (You want government to hurt people not help people), which IMHO stupid argument, can you refute the statements? Yes, I disagree with the article -- mainly because it's stupid. But let me start refutin' 1. You are a bigot I'm not. 2. You like eating, drinking and breathing poison. I don't. 3. You think the rich don't have enough money I don't. 4. You don't support our veterans I do. 5. You like big deficits I don't. 6. You don't believe in free speech. I do. 7. You like big government I don't. 8. You want government to hurt people, but not help them I don't. 9. You are greedy, short sighted and rich I'm not. 10. You like torture I don't. So are you against the Net Neutrality regulations? No, but there's more to it than Net Neutrality. First of all, the FCC hasn't released the proposed legislation? Gee, I wonder why ... Second, George Soros and his cronies have been pumping money into the fight for quite some time. Something smells fishy. Third, an FCC commissioner and the EFF have come out against the proposed legislation. Fourth, more government intrusion into our lives is seldom a good thing. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Yes, I disagree with the article -- mainly because it's stupid. But let me start refutin' 1. You are a bigot I'm not. 2. You like eating, drinking and breathing poison. I don't. 3. You think the rich don't have enough money I don't. 4. You don't support our veterans I do. 5. You like big deficits I don't. 6. You don't believe in free speech. I do. 7. You like big government I don't. 8. You want government to hurt people, but not help them I don't. 9. You are greedy, short sighted and rich I'm not. 10. You like torture I don't. You did not understand the article. You personally may not believe in these things. However as pointed out by the voting records and actions of the Republican lawmakers you are voting for these things. If memory serves you are from Texas, and if you voted for GOP senator Ted Cruz you voted for some who believes in direct oppoistion to what you stated. These are by his actions as a lawmaker, not necessarily what he believe. If necessary I can point direct details, but you can read his record here: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Ted_Cruz.htm. It is also a good resource for any law maker. The GOP party has the public fooled. People such as yourself believe one thing about the party, but in essence it is quite the opposite. Honestly, I don't know if you voted for Ted Cruz or not. He is just an example. Nor I am I saying the Democrats are better. I am just saying the records of many GOP lawmakers are not the limited government lower taxes, they claim to be. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 You did not understand the article. You personally may not believe in these things. However as pointed out by the voting records and actions of the Republican lawmakers you are voting for these things.Baloney, I understood the article very well. It was a poorly written waste of electrons that was written by someone with one goal in mind: to generate page clicks and shares on Facebook. It would take about ten minutes to come up with an alternate take and I'm sure that someone's writing it up now: Top 10 reasons to vote Democrat Why would anyone vote Democrat? Well, here are 10 reasons. 1. You hate people of color. President Obama has presided over 2 wars and an ever-expanding number of military actions and drone strikes in Asia and the Middle East. If you vote for him, you're voting for the murders of men, women and children of color. 2. You hate children. Democrats traditionally support abortion rights and thousands of healthy babies are killed every year. They're on your head if you vote Democrat. Etcetera, etcetera. I have no time for such crap. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 wait.... abortions kill healthy babies?!?! when did this start? Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 I think you miss his point. Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 So then how do we interpret Obama being poised to leave office with a balanced budget? I thought Democrats were supposed to spend us into the ground? I don't mean to be flip, it's just interesting to see how the stereotypes or sales pitches break down, as mentioned about Cruz. Clinton for example cut a lot of needy people off of welfare. Obama has been big for oil overall and he's used the military plenty. I guess at a federal level, neither party sticks to the mold. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 I think you miss his point.sorry, i can't hear you from my hyperbolic chamber. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Baloney, I understood the article very well. It was a poorly written waste of electrons that was written by someone with one goal in mind: to generate page clicks and shares on Facebook. It would take about ten minutes to come up with an alternate take and I'm sure that someone's writing it up now: If you can square your beliefs, while voting for someone with a voting record like Ted Cruz, that is fine. I understand the Presidents and other Democrats records. I can square my beliefs to theirs and feel ok (not great mind you) for voting for them . But when confronted with their records I do not bury my head in the sand. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 I can square my beliefs to theirs and feel ok (not great mind you) for voting for them . But when confronted with their records I do not bury my head in the sand. What makes you think that Republican voters don't feel the same way about the politicians they vote for? And who is burying their head in the sand? The article you posted was a piece of clickbait trash. Period. Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 sigh. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 sigh.So most Democrats don't think Obama is a Christian? Aren't they raking Scott Walker over the coals for saying the same thing? Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 54%. FIFTY-FOUR PERCENT. as to your Scott Walker comment, i suppose holding our elected leaders to a higher level of knowledge is unreasonable. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 54%.And an equal number of Democrats don't think that Obama is a Christian. So what's the big story here? Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted February 26, 2015 Author Share Posted February 26, 2015 you really need me to spell this out for you? why do you think there's a 5 and half fold difference of people who think our president (who's been in the public eye for quite some time now) is Muslim, when broken down by party? Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Aren't they raking Scott Walker over the coals for saying the same thing? Being from Wisconsin and knowing of Scott Walker very well, he should be raked over the coals for this, regardless what Democrats believe. Scott Walker, his policies notwithstanding, is first and foremost a politician. He eats, sleeps, and breaths the political process. He is very astute when it comes to what goes on in elections. So he knows, for a fact that Obama is a Christian. He knows this because it was a HUGE issue in 2008, remember Jeremiah Wright? You may have had issues with what he said, but he is a Christian pastor. And furthermore, the President spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast recently and talked about his Christians beliefs. So Scott Walker was not stupid or ignorant, he was just pandering to the shocking number of people who think the President is a Muslim, Satanist, Zoroastrian, or whatever. Though is is horribly shocking, that such a large number of people in that poll did know if Obama is Christian or not. The wording of the question in the poll is bad and can be misinterpreted. Here is an article breaking down and analyzing the poll in regards to Scott Walker's comments. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/25/scott-walkers-view-of-obamas-religion-makes-him-a-moderate/, interesting read or clickbait, only time will tell. Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 sorry, i can't hear you from my hyperbolic chamber.If you thought he was teying to make a legitimate abortion argument, which your reply seems to indicate, then it must have been lost on you that he was making the same kind of ridiculous arguments the article made except about the left, not the right. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 you really need me to spell this out for you? why do you think there's a 5 and half fold difference of people who think our president (who's been in the public eye for quite some time now) is Muslim, when broken down by party?Just don't call it racism because, you know, that's too cheap and easy... and really is quite absurd in these learn'ed days of 2015. :eyeroll Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 How 'bout that FCC and net neutrality? Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 Just don't call it racism because, you know, that's too cheap and easy... and really is quite absurd in these learn'ed days of 2015. :eyerollbut really.... what's the big story? Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Scott Walker says that he's ready to confront global terrorism because he dealt with protestors in Madison: http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/294283651.html Keep in mind that never once did Walker ever confront the crowd, unlike some respect-worthy GOP lawmakers, who braved the crowds to go through the front doors. Also, during the prank call, he said he kept a baseball bat in his office for defense. Maybe that's his answer to IS? Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Scott Walker says that he's ready to confront global terrorism because he dealt with protestors in Madison: http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/294283651.html Keep in mind that never once did Walker ever confront the crowd, unlike some respect-worthy GOP lawmakers, who braved the crowds to go through the front doors. Also, during the prank call, he said he kept a baseball bat in his office for defense. Maybe that's his answer to IS? As one of the protesters myself, I am certainly glad I helped him prepare for the Presidency. It boggles my mind how this man is seen by many conservatives as a good candidate for President. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I'm thinking he would be more likely to use that baseball bat on a union member than on a terrorist. I guess if he ends up being the nominee, I will feel it's my civic duty to campaign for his opponent. Sigh. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I'm thinking he would be more likely to use that baseball bat on a union member than on a terrorist. I guess if he ends up being the nominee, I will feel it's my civic duty to campaign for his opponent. Sigh. I highly doubt he is gonna be the Presidential Candidate. But I would not be surprised if he was VP. He will balance out a candidate who is not seen as conservative enough. Bush / Walker 2016 is very likely. Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 At the risk of sounding like an elitist, shouldn't the fact that Walker lacks a college degree exclude him from running? I mean, I know there's nothing written for that specifically in the constitution... but geez, if you don't/can't graduate from a university with at least a BA then I'm not sure if you have the qualifications to be in charge of the free world. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts