| February 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | |||
I think this may be the final answer to two questions that have appeared baffling for years, specifically: why do the arguments of Liberals appear to be so illogical, and, why do Liberals hurl so many insults?
It's the same answer to both questions. Before we get to the answer, let's recap the background.
ILLOGIC, IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEFT
You don't have to look far to see illogic in the arguments of the Left these days. A few examples:
See especially Evan Sayet and Victor Davis Hanson on this.
THE USE OF INSULTS BY LIBERALS
If you read or watch Liberal media - Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Kos, and on and on and on, you can't miss the insults. Olbermann is famous for having an actual section of his show titled "Worst Person in the World."
Under the radical leadership of Obama, top Dems have even been hurling insults, calling Americans - who are using their rights to free speech and free assembly to speak out against Obama's proposals - insulting names including, "un-American," "thugs," "racists," "nazis," "political terrorists," etc.
THE FINAL ANSWER
The reason Libs are using insults and illogic is to shut down public debate. Insults are an attack on public debate. The use of illogic is an attack on public debate. As I recently posted:
By intentionally using illogic in debate with the opposing side, meaningful debate is destroyed. The public, unable to tell who's winning the argument, is puzzled. The benefit to the left is that they are saying to all, "Join us and win power and money. Nothing else is relevant."
Yes, there are those who are fooled by the illogic of the arguments - e.g. many high schoolers and college students to whom these arguments have been preached by liberal teachers - and who fall for it. But that's not the case with the intellectual leadership of the left, many of whom are too smart to be fooled. The more profound thinkers on the left understand that the illogic is being used intentionally, to achieve a given goal, namely to confound all logical debate, and issue a siren call saying, "join us, and we will help you, and nothing else matters."
Public debate works. The truth defeats the purposes of the Left. Therefore the Left wants to shut down and destroy public debate.
STRATEGY TO COUNTER THE LEFT'S ATTACK ON PUBLIC DEBATE
First, don't respond to insults with insults. That's exactly what they want. Then they can claim, "The argument broke down into name-calling, and nothing was proven on either side. " Ignore their stupid insults and clobber them with the facts.
Second, bear in mind that most people in this country, regardless of political party, love America, and that civil public debate that communicates the facts to them will win, just as it has been winning on the health care debate throughout August. That's why the leadership on the left is trying so hard to shut civil public debate down. Seek ways to communicate the facts to friends, neighbors, contacts on Facebook/Twitter, etc. etc., because the truth is massively on our side.
#1
#2Yea conservatives are never insulting and always logical.... in fantasy land. Based on this post I'm sure anyone doesn't love your rhetoric is a "troll" so I won't expect to see this comment for long but seriously... try looking in the proverbial mirror. Unbelievable.
#3Nothing from amused about the primary point of this opinion. Just attacking the debate tactic. Yea-you libs really are unbelievable.
#4Been reading "Lincoln's Virtues: an Ethical Biography."
He knew a thing or two about arguing with Democrats in his day, when the Democrats stood for slavery and Republicans for freedom for all (have things changed?)
His tactic was to acknowledge that the Southerners were people too and we might think the same if in their shoes. But then he used clear logic, based on well-documented facts, and kept bringing the debate back to the moral principles at the heart of the disagreement. he was almost always tactful and respectful - that's hard to do and why he's on Mt Rushmore and Clinton isn't - but he is a great role model to this day.
#5"join us, and we will help you, and nothing else matters." - yep, pretty much what i have been thinking for years.
#6haha liberals crack me up! who else heard about the caller on Glenn Neck's show where this lady totally goes off on him and has NEVER LISTENED TO HIS SHOW, anyway-
Lol, liberals mud-sling and have to dig up any and all skeletons in the closet.
Also lol James you're right.
healthcare will totally be rationed, it would have to be. funny stuff :D
#7One major cancer that Liberals are responsible for are labor unions.
The NLRA act of 1935 creating labor unions by FDR came from several sources, but most recently in Barbarians Inside the Gate, by Thomas Sowell (I have). Democrats have destroyed the American automobile industry with these unions, and they used the bailout- your taxpayer money, to pay for the unions health care costs (which doomed them when competing with the Toyotas and Hondas of the world, who do not have these union parasites). The fact that cities that elect Democrats go downhill is well-known. Democrats throw taxpayer money at all who perceive themselves as victims to buy votes. One such article is at http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/democrat-run-cites-lead-the-highest-crime-and-murder-rates/blog-15852/
Page 392 of Ever Wonder Why by Thomas Sowell: “No group is more in need of forgetting old political ties and making new ones than blacks. The black vote has been an almost automatic monopoly of the Democratic Party for years. Yet the dominant forces among the Democrats have agendas that are directly contrary to the interests of blacks......Nothing is more important to the future advancement of blacks than the quality of their children’s education. But any attempt to give black parents the option as to where they send their children to school runs into a brick wall because the teachers’ unions are the 800 pound gorillas of the Democrat Party.....But despite polls which show that blacks favor vouchers more than any other group, black votes continue to go to Democrats who sacrifice their children on the altar to the teachers’ unions.....Another great problem for blacks is crime. Liberal Democrats have long resisted efforts to crack down on criminals. Instead, the great liberal dogma is that we need to seek out the ‘root causes’ of crime and set up governmental social programs to solve the problem by ‘prevention’ of crime.
“Name a place where liberal Democrats and environmentalists have been in control for many years and you are certain to find a place where housing costs are far higher than housing costs in the rest of the country. That is because sky-high prices for housing are due to sky-high costs for land. These extravagant land prices are in turn due to ‘open space’ laws and other land use restrictions which the environmentalists push, heedless of the cost to others.....
#8“Beginning in the 1960s, massive and ever – expanding welfare state programs co-existed for decades (me: LBJ’s “Great Society”) with ever – increasing crime rates, while liberal judges kept finding new reasons to turn criminals loose. Eventually, however, tougher new laws in the 1980s (me: That would be Ronald Regan) began to put more criminals behind bars for longer times. Then when the crime rate began to fall for the first time in decades, the liberals were baffled as to why this was happening. Since a higher percentage of blacks than whites are victims of criminals, blacks have far more at stake than others when it comes to controlling crime. But Democrats have been working against the interests of law-abiding blacks because Democrats are more responsive to liberal ideologues like the American Civil Liberties Union.
“The issues on which Democrats cater to blacks are largely symbolic issues, such as naming streets for Martin Luther King or throwing money (me: That would be taxpayer money to buy votes) at the pet projects various ‘community leaders’ (me: that would be Obama, and hypocrites like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson). So long as Democrats can get the votes of blacks by promoting symbolism, and the support of other groups by substantive policies, they are in good shape on election day. But blacks are not, because symbolism does nothing about education, housing, and crime.”
Thomas Sowell is black, and has written about 50 books. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution “think-tank” at Stanford University.
In closing, turn up your speakers for this candidate for our new National Anthem, by the reformed Lynnard Skynnard: This A’int My America, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgNFNTi46R4
#9
#10"the racism wasn't just covert it was right up in in my face,"
Examples?
Note that Limbausgh's long time producer is black.
"check it out and count all the times you read conservatives calling someone a nigger or nigger lover, check it out conservatives"
I have never heard that from any conservative. I hear that languange from blacks.
#11
#12
#13"Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes."
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/19/opinion/oe-ehrenstein19/2
It would be pleasant to talk rationally about race instead of being called racist at the drop of a hat by 'liberals'.
I would encourage gerald to contact Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Clarance Thomas, Conde Rice, Michelle Malkin or the many other minority conservatives if he wants to discuss racism.
#14
#15
#16So you think these people, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Clarance Thomas, Conde Rice, Michelle Malkin.... have not had racial challenges?
Clarence Thomas married a white woman and is conservative so he is attacked from all sides. How does he survive?
I have no clue what gerald has 'been through' or even if he is telling the truth.
Honestly I don't really care. What does matter is not what trials people have been through, but how they respond to such challenges.
#17
#18My ethnicity is immaterial. Someone named Martin Luther King said something about what mattered was character.
Malkin is called all sorts of names and suffers discrimination for her skin color. How is that any different?
I ask again, what do people like Clarence Thomas, Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, Allen Keyes, Les Philips (http://www.lesphillip.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=46) think about being black and how the world treated them?
Again, by the definition of the word, gerald is a racist as he bases his philosophy on race.
"Racism cuts all ways, between all races, and any individual of any race can be equally guilty of this sin. Racism is no more a singularly white sin than is say, drunkenness or gluttony or laziness. "
" black liberation theologians (like James H. Cone) and Black Panthers, Black Muslims and other splinter groups hijacked Dr. King's movement and turned it upside down and inside out, adopting the vengeance/violence model."
"This movement has had very little to do with mending relations between the races and everything to do with gaining power for the leaders of the revolution."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/the_racism_trap_defined.html
Why does gerald play the race game?
#19
#20
#21"Everything can be taken from a man or a woman but one thing: the last of human freedoms to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.
Viktor E. Frankl"
"When we are no longer able to change a situation - we are challenged to change ourselves.
Viktor E. Frankl"
Frankl was a Jew who survived NAZI concentration camps.
How many could have walked a yard in his shoes and have an attitude like this?
#22"Obamacare will cover 46 million additional people, will include no rationing of health care, and will not increase the deficit. The illogic here is appalling."
As long as youre conservative, youre probably unlikely to be able to make the leap to seeing the solution: it requires thinking outside the box. First, there will be a more appropriate use of resources - for example, grandma often sees three doctors for three different ailments, and gets prescribed pills that overlap, even conflict. Some are prescribed unnecessarily, and in many cases, generics can be used rather than brand-name drugs. Basically, under the profit-driven system we have, Americans are sold things they dont need. Ever have that experience in a car repair shop? "obamacare" (an insult) contains a prescription to make all patient records electronic, so that all doctors can see instantly what else patients have been prescribed/treated, and more importantly, data can be collected over the national population to determine what works and what doesnt.
Now to a republican, efficiency = "rationing"; but to everyone else, it makes sense. It cuts costs, and in the VA, this type of electronic record-keeping transformed the system overnight, turning a disfunctional system into one that people are clamoring to join. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_29/b3993061.htm
There is just ONE reason how you can get better care at a lower cost than the current system, which is, as Glenn Beck said, ""I'm just at home and I'm recovering from some surgery that was, uh, scheduled and then went horribly awry....It was one of the most eye-opening experiences of my life to receive health care in the United States. This is one of the hospitals where the president of G.E. is going. If they don't care about the president of G.E., do you really think they care about schlubs that are just working stiffs?"
SO there is a rational discussion with facts.
Lets see you acknowledge the point, edit your article, or respond with reasoned arguments.
Right....
#23" one which isn't even intended to be spent in the first year of the "emergency" it is ostensibly intended to address."
This is too juicy to resist. Some things in life just arent best-addressed in one year. For example, if I inherit a million from my granny as I send her to her death panel, should I spend it all in one year?
It only makes sense to spend all you have on one shot on a GOP-caused depression IF you think you can end it in one year. Sorry buddy - some messes are just too big.
Bush spent $1.4 trillion in tax cuts to stimulate an economy that was already overheating, and guess what - he spread it out over 10 years.
Spending all the cash in one month would have been moronic in the extreme. Projects have to be considered, assessed, designed, and that takes time. Furthermore, these projects are designed to take up the slack until private industry can emply people again. You think they are doing that? Coz' I dont. And until they do, we need the stimulus to continue, or we lose even more consumers from our consumer base, leading to even more job losses.
Every year that private industry fails too create jobs, we need to continue the stimulus. If we had followed your plan, we'd be out of money by now, and the stimulus would be over, and we'd be heading back over the cliff again as we were under Bush.
Finally, half of the stimulus was TAX CUTS. I thought you liked those.
#24Every week government regulations keep private industry from investing to creat new jobs is just one more excuse for socialists to take over the USA.
The solution to a prosperous economy is well documented. Unfortunetly it requires the state to return power to the free market.
#25
#26
#27I'm not sure we've ever had a truly "free market". In a free market, one might believe that the success of a company, product, or service is decided by its own merits. However, this is not the case...those with money and power can crush competition before it ever has a chance. I suppose you can't blame the bigger fish for eating the smaller ones...it's in their nature. But that's why government has a role, and regulation is at times necessary. We can certainly argue about how strict those rules should be, but just because you favor a role for government in playing referee on the economic playing field doesn't make you a socialist. If you believe in laissez faire economics, then you're essentially putting all your faith in corporations...and that survival of the fittest will ensure the best outcome. Personally, I don't see putting all our faith in corporate CEO's as any more sensible than believing one man (the president) is ever responsible for the success or failure of the largest economy in the world. Our government is elected by the people to serve our interests...capitalism must certainly be allowed to breath, but government does and should have a role to play. So let's stop worrying about the size of government, and start focusing on the efficiency of government....that's certainly something that needs a lot of work.
#28
#29The only time a big company can crush a competitor is when they have the protection of the government.
In markets where the government protects everyone's property rights (aka a free market), upstarts are more likely to crush the big companies. (Which is why these companies would rather buy politicians than compete.)
In the late 60s, KMart was huge and only those in Arkansas every heard of Wal Mart. Now Wal Mart is growing and KMart in nearly bankrupt. All this in spite of the government attacking Wal Mart.
In-n-Out burger is growing in S. Cal, NV, and AZ in spite of global competitors like McDonalds and BK. They have not been able to crush In-n-Out. In the east, 5 Guys is doing the same.
Your assertion that big companies crush their competitors in a free market is false. GM couldn't crush Toyota or Nissan or KIA or Hyndai...
Now we have a socialist president taking advantage of crises to control more of the US economy.
#30
#31"Pelosi:
Unemployment Checks Fastest Way to Create Jobs"This is called socialism.
"
Laying the blame for everything on the Bush administration, Vice President Biden told an audience of supporters that the 8 million jobs lost since the recession began are gone forever:
#32
#33
#34"specifically: why do the arguments of Liberals appear to be so illogical, and, why do Liberals hurl so many insults? "
"The reason Libs are using insults and illogic is to shut down public debate. Insults are an attack on public debate. The use of illogic is an attack on public debate."
Please address the socialist policies of the current regime and provide examples of how they are improving the economy.
#35Marjon...the fate of the electric car is well documented. Efforts to develop this new technology were suppressed by those who it most threatened...which are those companies dependent on vehicles that run on oil. The prosperity of new burger chains and Wal-Mart may be good enough for you, but I think we need to set the bar a little higher. We need to be leaders in science and creating new technologies, and we should be leaders in manufacturing these technologies. This requires investment in education, but instead our nation spent the last decade investing in tax cuts for the wealthy and fighting two wars that should have only been one war. "No Child Left Behind" is a joke...teachers are teaching kids to pass specific tests so that their schools don't lose funding...we need to be teaching skills necessary for the next generation to be successful. Conservatives are so focused on trying to get prayer in school and evolution out that they have no time for topics that might be useful...like teaching Personal Finance 101 so that kids don't grow up to be irresponsible adults who run up credit card bills buying things they can't afford.
Bush didn't break everything and Obama can't fix everything. And to be honest, the differences between republicans and democrats is more exaggeration and drama than reality. No matter which party has been in power, our nation has pursued a dangerous quest...chasing after one economic bubble (internet) or another (housing market) in hopes of making easy money. Corporated CEO's have taken a continually bigger slice of the pie, while unions have also laid down unrealistic demands in regards to pay and benefits. America's prosperity has turned into a sense of entitlement. I suggest a major realignment of priorities is in order for this nation to truly turn things around....and Obama seems to me to be pushing us in that direction. The biggest issue was health care...sticking with the status quo was not an option...and though the final product is far from perfect, I think attitudes towards "Obamacare" will change as the benefits of it become more apparent. This is exactly how Medicare went...people cried and moaned and first...now they say, "keep government our of our Medicaid".
I've jumped around a bit...these are big topics and I certainly don't have all the answers. Conservatives have valid points...I can understand the concern of having people become dependent on unemployment. It is likely that many people would indeed be able to get jobs if benefits were pulled....but odds are, they'll be working at Wal-Mart or McDonald's. It's going to take several years to dig ourselves out of the hole we've put ourselves into. As far as insults go...cons and libs have been hurling those back and forth for as long as anyone can remember...the question is, will politicians ever start crossing those party lines and make the tough decisions and compromises necessary to lead our nation towards a better future? Who will start? It starts with me and you...is what I've written here insulting? Is it really so illogical? Is there no middle ground for us?
#36Nissan is launching an electric car.
Chevy is launching an electric car.
GM tried to produce an electric car many years ago, but he technology was not ready for a consumer market.
Some corporations support government regulations to limit competition. Ex pats in Europe could visit the Volvo plant, buy a car the meets US regs (why don't European models meet US regs?) drive it to a port and ship it home as a used car.
Corporations and government collude every day to restrict their competition. I don't blame the corporations as much as the government because the government has the ultimate power. BP is discovering how fickle the government can be. BP took over from Enron cheer leading for cap and trade as BP positioned itself to take advantage cap and tax. All that lobbying money to so many politicians, including Obama, was for naught.
BTW, Medicare is bankrupt and subsidized by the private market. How is that a good deal?
"We need to be leaders in science and creating new technologies, and we should be leaders in manufacturing these technologies. This requires investment in education,"
This requires governments cutting corporate taxes so businesses can earn and keep profits. Promoting STEM education with no economic incentives for those students to enter the STEM field is a waste. The real education that must be promoted is economic. Every student in the USA must study Adam Smith, Mises and Hayek and other free market economists whose theories have been proven time and time again.
#37Electric cars were being worked on in the 70's...and it was stopped. Why was it stopped? Why were electric cars literally, not figuratively, crushed, to keep them from hitting the market?
Nissn is not an American company.
Chevy...hopefully not too little, too late.
If our government is elected by the people, for the people, why should I have a problem with it stepping in when corporations, which are motivated by profit, abuse power are take unnecessary risks with our safety and environment? Do we want to be like China, where the air is so thick with pollution you can barely breath? Do you think corproations will regulate themselves on such matters? There is nothing wrong with profit...I'm all for building a better mouse trap, marketing it, and making money selling it. But I feel there is a role for government to play.
There have been many experts on economics over the centuries...there has not been one yet who's theories have always proven true. Economies are run by humans...and huma societies are too complex to be 100% predictable. Different times and different places call for different solutions. So learning about the great "economic thinkers" such as Adam Smith is an excellent suggestion...but the conclusions students reach may not be the same as your's.
#38
#39
#40
#41
#42Gerald...my point isn't that unemployed people are lazy. My point is that people on unemloyment lost good jobs, and as long as they can get unemployment, I don't blame them for not taking crap jobs at Wal-Mart and McDonalds, which I'm sure are available. Bottom line is we need more than service jobs. But can benefits be extended indefinitely? I don't think that's possible...it's a real dilemma. I don't claim to have all the answers...I just think Marjon doesn't even know what all the questions are.
But you're probably right...I'm probably wasting my time. Maybe I need a new hobby...I'm sure most of the folks here would like to see me disappear.
#43"Jesus helped the poor and sick" Yes, He did. But if He had such power, why did He not end their suffering by giving them what they needed? Jesus did not take money or food from others to help the poor. He wants us as individuals to give of ourselves, OUR property, NOT to take from our neighbor and 'give' to the poor.
" my LAST thoughts about you,"
I doubt that.
#44"Electric cars were being worked on in the 70's...and it was stopped. "
Electric cars were produced over 100 years ago, too.
Why do you think Chevy has taken so long to launch an electric car on the market?
The problems associated with electric cars are numerous. Battery lifetime, battery safety, battery weight which all affect range. Would you spend $20k for a car that could only travel 20 miles before another charge?
Charging batteries is not instantaneous.
Technology has advanced significantly since the 70s and countries that are just as advanced, and just as dependent upon oil have just started to produce an electric car for the consumer market.
Here is another conspiracy, why hasn't the USA taken advantage of its abundant natural gas supplies and promoted CNG vehicles?
#45".it's a real dilemma. "
The real dilemma is for a regime that has no experience with business to admit that government can't solve the problem.
There is no dilemma if one wants to really solve the problem. The solution is cutting taxes and regulation and unshackling the entrepreneurs of the USA and the world.
The Carter years were even worse economically and the solution was Reagan's tax cuts and his acknowledgment that government was part of the problem.
The dilemma only exists for statists who must admit that the government can't solve all your problems.
#46
#47Gerald, why can't you comment about how the current socialist regime is failing?
I offer tried and tested options, cut taxes, cut the size of government, and all you can do is call me names and blame Bush.
Reagan inherited a mess from Carter, but he and his staff did not blame Carter. Reagan took steps to solve the problems.
Bush could have blamed rise of terrorist activity on Clinton, I do, but Bush and his staff did not.
Obama wanted the job, now he owns it regardless of what happened prior to 1/20/09.
BTW, how has the democrats bill, by Dodd and Frank, going to solve any of the bank issues?
My opinion of the last administration is immaterial at this point as they are no longer in charge.
However, there will be many more Republicans in charge after Nov.
The NJ governor is doing very well, Jindal is taking charge as is the governor of AZ. All Republicans. Scott Brown, is doing ok, I did vote for him, but he is still a MA Republican.
How do the Democrats excuse Robert Byrd's leadership position in the KKK and his filibuster of the '64 Civil Rights Act?
#48
#49
#50
#51
#52Tax cuts don't benefit the 'average working joe'?
Letting workers keep more of their own money is not in their benefit?
Letting companies keep more of their profits to invest in the business, growing their business, improving the 'average joes' 401ks and creating a need for more employees doesn't benefit the 'average working joe'?
Businesses in the USA are holding on their cash, they are not borrowing money because they don't know how much they will have to pay in taxes next month or next year. How does that benefit the 'average joe'?
"do you EVER FACT CHECK THE CRAP YOU SAY?"
I can provide many sources. Why don't you offer any alternatives other than calling me names and ranting?
#53"clinton HE DID LEAVE US WITH A SURPLUS!!"
"As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration."
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
#54
#55You obviously don't understand economics.
Tax cuts provide incentives to hire people. That's how it helps the unemployed. They are employed and paying some taxes themselves instead of taking the taxes from others in the form of welfare.
#56
#57Gerald,
You might make your point more clearly if you would stop ranting.
You claim to have knowledge of economics but have not yet demonstrated such knowledge.
The only point you have made is that you are quite emotional and irrational.
#58
#59""Small businesses are not hiring, and until then, we will not have a strong, sufficient recovery," said Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.), a member of the House Committee on Small Business. "I think this is why the economic recovery is moving very slowly."
"The contrast was even more dramatic after the deep recession in the early 1980s."
"Adding to the uncertainties for businesses of all sizes are the shaky global economy and the prospects of higher taxes to deal with the federal deficit and higher costs to deal with healthcare and the recent government overhaul of financial regulations."
"Joy Staveley of Flagstaff, Ariz., said it was clear to her why people are more scared to take a risk on a new business: There are more regulations, taxes and government-mandated costs — and fears of more to come — with President George W. Bush's tax cuts expiring soon, new healthcare rules and pending legislation on energy."
""But what I can't get through is a runaway government."
Such sentiments are not uncommon among many small-business operators, the bulk of them conservatives who believe Washington does not understand or respond to their needs.
"I really feel small businesses have been put on the back burner," said Mike Bailey, owner of Car Doctor, an auto-repair shop in downtown Oklahoma City.
Business has picked up this year, Bailey said, and he's prepared to add workers if he can expand into a bigger place. But he admits to being gun-shy.
"To be frank, I'm a little timid," he said. "We experienced fast growth in the '90s, and then we experienced the worst of the worst. It really keeps me from investing.""
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-smallbusiness-jobs-20100704-2,0,2662903.story?page=2
Gerald, you write and rant much but say little.
#60
#61Gerald,
It is great to see that you don't have to rant and rave all the time.
I won't discuss my personal background as it is immaterial to the discussion and their is no way such information can be verified.
But you still have not contributed any ideas or provided any refutation to lowering taxes and cutting govt red tape.
If your are from Detroit, the effects of socialism should be quite apparent. Especially when compared to the more conservative, free market western MI. It is amazing how Amway could have started in MI if Detroit is the only example of a MI economy.
"I believe in treating people the way I want to be treated."
Do you like being insulted and called names?
#62
#63Gerald,
You lied. You said you were finished.
Tea party members have a coherent view of government. It is well described in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
How coherent is the view of government by Detroit and MI politicians?
#64BTW, Gerald,
The democrats kicked out the liberal Lieberman for not toeing the party line.
But the voters still put him back in office.
#65How tax cuts help the jobless:
"Economic uncertainty was the primary cause of their caution. "We've just been through a tsunami and that produces caution," one told me. But in addition to economics, they kept talking about politics, about the uncertainty surrounding regulations and taxes. Some have even begun to speak out publicly. Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of General Electric, complained Friday that government was not in sync with entrepreneurs."
" But all think he is, at his core, anti-business. When I asked for specifics, they pointed to the fact that Obama has no business executives in his Cabinet, that he rarely consults with CEOs (except for photo ops), that he has almost no private-sector experience, that he's made clear he thinks government and nonprofit work are superior to the private sector. It all added up to a profound sense of distrust."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/04/AR2010070403856.html
#66
#67No, McCAin is a closet democrat.
Why must conservatives compromise when liberals refuse to?
Conservatives like Reagan and Thatcher who wouldn't compromise are called names by people like you, but liberals who won't compromise are hailed as 'progressive'.
#68
#69Gerald, you were starting sound rational. What happend?
You still have not defended the socialist policies of the current regime, but, like the current regime, blame Bush.
BTW, when did the Washington Post become a right wing website?
#70Why should I try to obtain common ground with you Gerald?
I don't want to share common ground with people who do not support free markets and the protection of private property. Why should I compromise on principles that would benefit us both?
Why should I agree to a compromise of principles that would only be in the best interest of tyyranical politicians?
What common ground are you interested in sharing?
#71
#72
#73
#74
#75Gerald, defend socialism, because that is what you support.
You like what is happening in Detroit, Cuba, Venezuela, California, all socialist paradises?
#76
#77
#78Gerard, if you have a government that has the power to control all you want controlled, how will 'the people' control the government?
In MI and CA, people can't control the government and are moving away.
BTW, the federal govermnet is failing miserably in the Gulf to control the spill and it is the same government that manages all the leases 'for the people'.
How do you plan to fix such a government?
#79
#80
#81Gerald: It the democrats who in the pockets of big business today. Why?
Because big business mistakenly believes they can use the power of the state to control their competition. BP tried that. Eron tried that with Clinton.
Look it up. Democrats represent most of the wealthiest districts in the nation.
Calvin Cooledge demonstrated the best action government can take to get out of a depression, cut spending, and cut taxes. The result was years of prosperity which Hoover and FDR killed with government interference.
Instead of ranting, look it up.
#82
#83Gerald,
You keep living up to the theme: "The reason Libs are using insults and illogic is to shut down public debate. Insults are an attack on public debate. "
I challenge you again to defend the socialism you support.
"I have very valid points"
What are those points? Prove they are valid.
#84
#85
#86
#87" I tried to debate,"
When?
#88
#89
#90Jesus never advocated theft. That is exactly what socialist welfare is. Jesus advocated that INDIVIDUALS GIVE, not join a mob and steal.
Compare the fiscal responsibilty of Republican governors like Christy with MI governor or any democrat governor or president today.
Care to debate with facts instead of ranting?
#91"Taxation is an obvious area the Obama administration ought to reconsider. Income taxes, the dividend tax and capital gains taxes are all set to rise as the Bush tax cuts expire."
"
Roosevelt, too, pursued the dual purposes of revenue and social good. In 1935 he signed legislation known as the "soak the rich" law. FDR, more radical than Obama in his class hostility, spoke explicitly of the need for "very high taxes." Roosevelt's tax trap was the undistributed-profits tax, which hit businesses that chose not to disgorge their cash as dividends or wages. The idea was to goad companies into action.
The outcome was not what the New Dealers envisioned. Horrified by what they perceived as an existential threat, businesses stopped buying equipment and postponed expansion. They hired lawyers to find ways around the undistributed-profits tax. In May 1938, after months of unemployment rates in the high teens, the Democratic Congress cut back the detested tax. That bill became law without the president's signature."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070804272.html
And tax cuts do NOTHING for unemployment?
#92"
When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.”
In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama."
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/230874/55-percent-likely-voters-find-socialist-accurate-label-obama
#93"BUT I SURE AS THE HELL DON"T LIKE THE alternative do you?"
What is the alternative? Free markets? Socialism?
#94
#95
#96"- I'm a progressive,"
No, you are a socialist. You may not like the term, but if you support redistribution of wealth by the state, then you are a socialist.
Why do you keep worrying about people who are no longer in power?
#97
#98Gerald, you keep living up (or down) to the theme of this message board by refusing to engage in any discussion.
#99
#100The trouble with our party system is that 'independents' span the spectrum from communists to libertarians.
Politicians do look at voter registrations to get a sense of who they need to persuade to vote for them.
Being a registered 'somehting' provids a 'vote' as to the philosophy you support.
We now have a grass roots campaign called tea parties that are telling the parties where they stand and what they want. Repubulicans like McCain has primary election with more conservative candidate as do many candidates this year. That is the way the process should function.
Reagan called himself a Republican won two elections and even carried MA.
Politics is messy and full of crooks in all parties. That is what happens with power, corruption. Ask yourself, what candidates want to reduce the size of government and let you keep more of your money?
So far, there are more Republican candidates who want to do that then democrats.
#101
#102
#103former, so you plan to vote for Obama, his Chicago thugs and all the socialist democrats?
Grow up and understand the real world.
BTW, do you have problem using my name correctly or is it a typo?
gerald had a hard time refraining from calling me names instead of enganing in any serious discussion. I don't really care, but I like to point it out as people like gerald like seem to think they are 'tolerant' and 'rational'.
#104An intersting conspiracy theory arose regaring Clinton. I don't remember where I heare it, but the theory was Clinton wanted the Lewinsky scandle to break in order to distract the media and Republicans from other actions and the failing economy.
I am sure BHO would love to have some distraction from all that oil spilling in the Gulf and his inability and apparent lack of any desire to do anything to improve the econmy.
There are a few Republican governors who are taking action to improve their state's economies and to protect their citizens from illegal aliens. What Democrat is trying to control illegal aliens or improve their state economy?
So former, vote for democrats and get more unemployment and higher taxes.
#105
#106What is the point of your question?
" does how is government getting smaller when republicans spend our tax dollars on nonsense?"
I ask the same question, except substitute democrats for republicans.
The Lewinsky affair was over 10 years ago. How does it apply today?
So go ahead and attack republican missteps in the past and I will focus on democratic atrocities occurring now.
MA voted a republican to replace Ted Kennedy, who killed a girl in his mother's car and got away with it.
If you want to play games regarding bad politicians where do you want to start?
At least you are not ranting, swearing and flinging insults like gerald, yet.
#107
#108
#109Former, most Republicans don't like their party today.
What are they doing about it? Working hard to elect candidates that will represent them.
Reagan was a democrat, didn't like where they were going and switched to repblican. But he was not a RINO like Nixon and Reagan worked to change the party.
If you are not lying 'former', why were you a republican?
If you were a republican because you like limited government, are you going to vote for democrats? Are you joining the Libertarians and wasting your vote?
What is YOUR agenda?
#110" tax moneys goes towards schools in my area,"
What is the quality of your schools? How much money is wasted in those schools? Do you care?
Socialism is state control of 'private' property. Sociaism is minimum wage laws and most regulations controlling business and commerce today. Socialism is a K-12 system controlled by unions.
What is your defininition of socialism?
#111
#112
#113
#114"what did my former republican party do for me?"
What have you done for youself?
I used to live in SD and realized that SD had little opportunity so I went to school and moved away. The people who used to live in the Great Plains used to be proud of being indpendent. Now they are not much better than the Sioux on Rosebud.
What did you think of the Cornhusker kickback? That is straight up clean politics?
How does subsidizing unemployment help you get a job?
Also, why can't you spell?
A few years ago, a small boat factory in MN had to close because they could not get financing due to the housing collapse. The housing collapse was caused by democrats (Clinton, Dodd, Frank) promotion of bad loans.
So if you pay attention, you many not like Republicans, and I have said, many Republicans don't like the party much either, what has the other party done to stimulate the economy and create private sector jobs?
#115
#116
#117
#118Marjon wrote:
""Jesus did not take money or food from others to help the poor. He wants us as individuals to give of ourselves, OUR property, NOT to take from our neighbor and 'give' to the poor. No, you are a socialist. You may not like the term, but if you support redistribution of wealth by the state, then you are a socialist.
Forget labels. The republican tactic is to label everything that is obviously wrong (marxist dictatorships) the same way as things that sounds reasonable to most people (taxing the rich to support the poor). In this case, Socialism = Hitler, Stalin and Obama.
The fact that none of these shares anything substantial in common is irrelevant to conservatives.
The simple fact is this: Modern American Conservatives hate Jesus. Jesus is only there for the following reasons, as far as they are concerned:
(1) To make them rich (gospel of prosperity)
(2) To absolve them of responsibility for their actions (forgiveness) and
(3) To use as a banner so they can distinguish themselves from everyone else, i.e. as a stick to foster war, racism, gay-bashing etc.
In reality, Jesus ran around as a homeless bum, begging for a living, with a band of men in rags. Jesus was a communist, in that no disciple owned anything for themselves, instead, they shared a common purse. Furthermore, in the acts, its clear that the disciples continued to act as communists after his death. (look up "ananias" to see what happened when one member didnt pony up). He hated the religious of his day, calling them liars and hypocrites, parasites. He argued that if someone hits you, no, you dont bomb them back to the stone age, you show them your other cheek. He went out of his way to live with outcasts - today, he'd be living with Aids-ridden homosexuals.
In the gospels, Jesus made no mention of government redistribution of wealth, simply because there was no such thing back then. But he certainly made his views on sharing the wealth. Only in one point does Jesus say how God will divide those going to heaven and hell. Guess what he says: Matthew 25:31-46
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Alas, the gospel of prosperity is a lie; and forgiveness is a pipe dream (remember the rich man in hell? Nobody forgave him).
Jesus says explicitly that if you do not look after the poor {METHOD NOT STATED}, youre going to hell.
Its as simple as that. Burn, you heretic.
--------
If giving some money to the poor, by whatever means, is socialism, then we need more of it, and you can call me a proud socialist. If its christian, you can call me a christian. If its Turkish, then you can call me a turk; but I'm with Jesus:
ITS IMMORAL IN A COUNTRY AS RICH AS AMERICA THAT PEOPLE GO TO BED HUNGRY.
I know I'm with Jesus on this one, and in your heart, you know so too.
Jesus never intended to create a religion of individual greed and me-comes-first.
Consider the bums on the street; they neither spin nor weave, yet solomon in all his glory was simply one more brutal leader who took from his people.
#119
#120
#121
#122Why do I blame democrats? Because they are at fault for increasing the level of socialism in the USA.
Maybe you all think communism was grand, but ask anyone who survived the USSR or most eastern European socialist states. Watch 'Other People's Lives'. It is about the state police watched and controlled everyone.
The reason this country became wealthy is its laws respected private property rights and enabled people to prosper from their hard work. Ever wonder how so many immigrants from tyrannical regimes could prosper here and not at home?
" I choose to help people," Good for you. That is the way it should be. No one should have a 'right' to take to someone else's property.
That is what democrats and socialists believe, they have a right to take from those who work hard and earn and give to those who do not.
Before government welfare there was church charity and mutual aid societies that provide local aid, but at a price, gratitude. Such aid was personally given and the recipients had to look their neighbors in the eye and thank them. Now we have the fattest and wealthiest 'poor' in the world.
"Jesus never intended to create a religion of individual greed and me-comes-first."
That is true. But he NEVER advocated or supported theft. He told the rich man what to do: GIVE. "Liberal" churches today support the use of taxes for welfare. Taxes are NOT donations. They are appropriated funds at the point of a gun.
The Salvation Army is one of the few charities that still has principles. I don't believe they accept taxes nor do they accept gambling winnings.
Since you all are ranting and raving about Republicans I can only assume you support democrats and socialism and you are no better than common thieves. Except common thieves have the courage to steal for themselves and not hire government agents to do it for them.
"If giving some money to the poor, by whatever means, is socialism,"
One cannot give what one does not own. Taking money from others and redistributing that money is not 'giving'.
#123
#124"Maybe you all think communism was grand"
"Acts 2:44. All those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began to sell their property and possessions, and share them with all, as anyone might have need."
Acts 4:32-35. And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles' feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need.
85% of liberals think communism was bad. 98% think that dictatorship (which is not equal to communism, btw, there are many conservative right wing dictatorships) is bad. The difference between liberals and you is that YOU think that 25% taxation is communism, whereas we think its simply moral behavior to redistribute the wealth (there's that phrase you hate).
I think communism is neither right nor wrong, I believe that in large groups it cannot work. Largely because the rich are resentful. But in small groups, like the disciples or my family, it works very well indeed.
Do you charge your children for the food you put "on your family" (as Bush put it)? Do you charge your wife rent? OH MY GOD! YOURE A COMMUNIST!!! TO EACH WHAT THEY NEED, FROM EACH WHAT THEY CAN GIVE!!! YOURE A STINKIN RED!!!!
"It is about the state police watched and controlled everyone."
Question: Who signed into laws recording what library books you read?
Question: Who wiretapped americans without warrants, even as he said he wasnt?
Question: Which party always wants more funding for the police?
Question: Which party wants to regulate what drug experiences you have?
Question: Which party wants to regulate who you are allowed to marry, and how you die?
Go read the patriot act, moron, something nobody ever did. It was rushed into law at dead of night, all 300 pages of it, without any public discussion. Half of it is top secret. Yes - the thing you say you hate was introduced by REPUBLICANS.
"The reason this country became wealthy is its laws respected private property rights and enabled people to prosper from their hard work."
Liberals believe in these too - youre a fool or a liar. THe question is whether you allow any taxation. If you dont, youre an anarchist, because no government can survive without taxes.
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives want to spend the money on wars abroad, while liberals want to spend it on America - our roads, schools, hospitals, and yes, keeping people off the streets and fed.
"That is what democrats and socialists believe, they have a right to take from those who work hard and earn and give to those who do not."
Its what everyone believes. If you eliminated all welfare tomorrow, all hell would break loose. America would descend to something resembling an african country with corrupt rich people at the top and starving children at the bottom, dying of malnutrition with flies on their faces.
"Before government welfare there was church charity"
With religious folk like you, thats hardly dependable, is it?
#125
"the recipients had to look their neighbors in the eye and thank them."
So thats it. You need to have someone say "thank you" before you will give them a bowl of food.
Jesus again: (Matthew 6)
1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
SORRY JERK; JESUS HATES YOU ONCE AGAIN. I GUESS YOU NEVER READ THE BIBLE.
"He told the rich man what to do: GIVE. "Liberal" churches today support the use of taxes for welfare. Taxes are NOT donations. They are appropriated funds at the point of a gun."
Nobody brings a gun around to my place.
Basically, the difference between liberals and christians is this:
Christians want to pay taxes to their church (tithes), and then have the church decide who lives and who dies on the streets, preferably as they grub on their bended knees and praise your generosity.
Liberals want the money to be taken automatically from their paycheck (a pittance, actually, very little of your taxes go to actual welfare -SS is your pension, not feeding the hungry), and before they even see it, they want it to go invisibly and silently to those who are in need.
We dont get our jollies seeing beggars on their knees in front of us. It doesnt make us orgasm to have them thank us. Like Jesus, all we care about is that they are fed, and fed as well as a country as rich as America can comfortably afford.
I'm not even asking that the rich go hungry to feed the world - just that we give something back to the country that has made us so rich.
If I said "we should give something back to "god" who has given us so much" - you would understand. But god forbid that its administered by a secular authority than a pedophile priest who can feel thrills up his spine and he hands out the bowls of gruel.
"One cannot give what one does not own. Taking money from others and redistributing that money is not 'giving'."
GOD SAYS:
Deut. 26:12. When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied.
Lev. 19:19ff. Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.
"One cannot give what one does not own. Taking money from others and redistributing that money is not 'giving'."
So I take it youre against the republicans taking my money and using it for wars?
No. I guessed not.
Just like John Kyl is only worried about the deficits if they pay for unemployment, but not when its tax cuts for the rich. When its the rich mans tax cuts, then all the wars will go on the old credit card.
YOU, vs. JESUS AND THE LIBERALS comes down to this:
""the recipients had to look their neighbors in the eye and thank them.""
""So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men.""
BURN IN HELL.
DEPART FROM ME, YE ACCURSED
You have been the helper of the orphan... O LORD, You have heard the desire of the humble; You will strengthen their heart, You will incline Your ear to vindicate the orphan and the oppressed.
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours in the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.
Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.
Prov. 29:7. The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern.
#126""Liberal" churches today support the use of taxes for welfare."
While conservative churches support the use of taxes for warfare.
What would Jesus do?
Or maybe Jesus would be opposed to taxes altogether?
"he NEVER advocated or supported theft ...Except common thieves have the courage to steal for themselves and not hire government agents to do it for them."
Lets see. First he asked a taxman to be a disciple, and then, when asked specifically about taxation, he specifically said to give to caesar what is caesars.
So yes, Jesus supported, as you put it, theft.
Given his comments about caring for the poor, I think he would rather that it be used to feed the poor than to kill people.
"Taking money from others... appropriated funds at the point of a gun..."
Lets cut to the chase here. We both believe in taxation. You believe in taxing people so we can have a "war on drugs", so we can have a "war on terrorism", and so we can install religious principles and create a religious state.
Liberals, like you believe in taxation, but we believe that feeding americans has a higher priority than searching for WMD in Saddams toilets or draping statues in the nations capital.
Thats it.
Conservatives had absolute power from 2000-2006, and they spent far mroe than Clinton ever did, and they turned his breakeven budgets into massive deficits. So dont tell me that republicans dont spend. They spend like thieves. THEY JUST DONT SPEND IT ON THE LEAST AMONG US.
And thats not just a LIBERAL priority, its a JESUS priority.
And for the record, I dont want it because Jesus wants it, I want it because I dont want the place to look like Ghana with kids with flies on them and lepers crawling in the streets so that christians can feel all superior about themselves. I think a well-fed and well-groomed person is far better placed to get a job than someone who cant afford a bath or an interview suit. Treat a person like a bum long enough "Such aid was personally given and the recipients had to look their neighbors in the eye and thank them." and they will lose all self-respect and start acting like bums. And their kids will grow up like rats.
#127In summary, the difference between people like you and people like me is:
(1) You want the church to administer the taxation/welfare system ("Before government welfare there was church charity"), whereas I want the state to do it. Why? Because the state is accountable to the txapayer.
(2) You want taxes to go to things you support (mine also) - such as war, oil subsidies and keeping gays out of the military and wedlock - and I want taxes (yours and mine) to go to the things I support - renewable energy, welfare, public health, infrastructure.
Regarding point 2: Would you agree to a system whereby the government was run on the basis that everyone contributes what they want to the cause they want? So for example, you could donate a few thousand to the Iraq war, and I could donate a few thousand to building windmills? Anything else, as you note, is legislated theft.
All your talk about "private property rights" and "tyrannical regimes" is irrelevant. We both agree that dictatorships are bad, and that we should have the right to profit from our labors AT A FAIR WAGE and use those to buy private property. Your straw man of the liberal who wants to take your house away and give it to a muslim black poor person doesnt exist. Never did, never will.
The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern.
--------
"The reason Libs are using insults and illogic is to shut down public debate. "
" you are no better than common thieves."
#128
#129
#130"Lets see. First he asked a taxman to be a disciple, and then, when asked specifically about taxation, he specifically said to give to caesar what is caesars.
So yes, Jesus supported, as you put it, theft."
That is quite a stretch.
The image on the coin was Ceasar, therefore the coin belonged to Ceasar and as you say, Jusus said to GIVE the coin to Ceasar as it was the property of the government.
Jesus ASKED people to be disciples. Jesus said the rich man must GIVE away his wealth.
God warned what a government will do in 1 Samuel 8: 10-20. It will TAKE.
#131
#132
#133
#134Gerald, I might consider reading your babble if you could format your text, spell correctly and stop insulting.
But, you keep proving the theme of the intial discussion.
#135
#136
#137
#138What good points?
How can anyone find any points in all the babble and insults?
How do you all write? Stream of consciousness?
BTW, there is a spell check feature here. Right click in the window and it pops up.
#139
#140
#141Like gerald, former continues to reject opportunities to engage in a discussion of the issues.
Instead, he lives up the original theme of obfuscation to avoid discussing the failures of socialism.
#142
#143
#144
#145"ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION WHAT DID I SPELL WRONG!!!????"
If you are talking to me, marjon, you all keep typing 'marjoh'.
I'll repeat, if you want to have a reasonable discussion, write in reasonable manner.
Format and spelling are quite useful for expressing ideas.
Stream of consciousness writing may have been acceptable to your liberal teachers, but it does not serve well for clear communication.
#146"(1) You want the church to administer the taxation/welfare system ("Before government welfare there was church charity"), whereas I want the state to do it. Why? Because the state is accountable to the taxpayer."
I said churches and mutual aid societies, but I don't want them take coerced tax money, I want them to use the funds they receive freely from doners. These organizations are much more responsible because they must ASK for donations. They cannot put a gun to anyone and demand money like the government does.
The recipients of such 'welfare' have a better sense of gratitude because the charity was DONATED FREELY. There is little or no chance charity recipients will ever feel entitled.
#147"(2) You want taxes to go to things you support (mine also) - such as war, oil subsidies and keeping gays out of the military and wedlock - and I want taxes (yours and mine) to go to the things I support - renewable energy, welfare, public health, infrastructure."
Taxes should only fund the functions of government allowed by the Constitution, nothing more.
Defense is a function of government and the military has an obligation to accept only those individuals are are qualified, capable and help to best achieve the mission.
Carter wasted billions on 'renewable' energy, the 'war' on poverty has not ended poverty.
#148"""So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men."""
The key word is GIVE. Taxes are coerced. They are NOT given.
God said thou shall not steal.
#149
#150
#151
#152Gerald, I might consider reading your babble if you could format your text, spell correctly and stop insulting.
But, you keep proving the theme of the intial discussion.
#153
#154Gerald, I might consider reading your babble if you could format your text, spell correctly and stop insulting.
But, you keep proving the theme of the intial discussion.
#155They want to shut down public debate because their faulty and hollow philosophy cannot withstand intellectual debate. This is why leftist public radio always fails. Once things get intellectual they fall like emotional flies.
They have however hijacked the notion of compassion. I despise the term "compassionate conservative" which implies a conservative with compassion is something special. NO! It is the opposite. Conservatives have more compassion because they want to teach a man to fish rather than give him a fish. Giving a fish gives immediate gratification to the giver but not much to the taker except one meal. Learning to fish is a conservative ideal of self reliance through work. Conservatism is much more compassionate for other human beings than liberalism. Liberalism is based on feel good immediate gratification by helping others, while conservatism is compassionate for all people because it offers practical solutions to the worlds problems. While they sing kumbaya I'm teaching people to be empowered.
Ya feel me bro?
Dennis Farez
Good post. Thank you. I will follow your advice