View Full Version : 'splain This To Me, Lucy?
PornoDoggy
11-08-2002, 09:29 PM
Just wondering why something ... how come the party-loving Republicans, their kissing cousins the LibeRepublicans, and self-described "strict Constitutionalists" like Morone on this board aren't on GW like the proverbial stink on shit? I mean, I've read several posts on here lately about the Democrats providing social programs for no reason other than to perpetuate getting "their" vote. We won't even go off into a discussion of who they are; that was pretty obvious.
Here's what bothers me. The Democrats don't hold the White House, don't hold the House of Representatives, and will soon no longer hold the Senate. The Democrats aren't a threat right now. But GW's already got an Office of Faith-Based initiatives operating out of the White House. He is also expected to seek Senate approval for stealing - all taxes are stealing, right? - more of your hard-earned tax $ for the programs run out of this office. So, I'm amazed that the freedom loving Americans around here aren't up in arms about it. Seems to me that welfare is welfare, no matter who you are giving it to; I would think that pork (or beef, or tofu, depending upon Church priciples [at least in theory]) to the church-lady do-gooders is just is bad as any other kind, isn't it?
You would think a strict constitionalist like Morone would be foaming at the mouth by this blurring of the line between Church and State. You would think that the LibeRepublicans like HairPiece would quit playing with themselves and their guns long enough to come out of their bunkers and protest this bamboozling of the American people. You would think the party-hearty Republicans (who are convinced that all this talk about Beloved Leader being tied to the Religious Right is just more liberal media lies) would be just a little uncomfortable that a "moderate" Republican like GW would be doing this.
It just strkes me as odd, that's all. I mean, I realize that the next sound I hear is gonna be the firing up of a dozen Poulans, Pioneesr, Stihls, and McCullochs to split a head full of hairs into tiny little pieces. It will be amusing to watch, however.
Last edited by PornoDoggy at Nov 8 2002, 09:38 PM
Mike AI
11-08-2002, 11:09 PM
PD you are correct on this issue with Bush. He is wrong, and should shut down the program immediately. I like the idea of PRIVATE charities helping out the people who need it rather then the gov't - I think it is more effective, but the way Bush has it set up is probably unConstitutional, and something that could back fire on Conservatives.
20 years from now, we could have wackos in office and pushing Scientologyor some other garbage.
See PD? We are in agreement.... :agrin:
You would think that the LibeRepublicans like HairPiece would quit playing with themselves and their guns long enough to come out of their bunkers and protest this bamboozling of the American people.
**************
PD, Geez.... I can tell you are truly upset with all the name calling and stereotyping. Too bad that, just like Dig, you are what you proclaim to hate.
I agree with what Mike has said above about charities. Unlike you, however, I do not go on long diatribes about either party. I have expressed that I disagree with both parties and support more of the Libertarian thinking. It's that simple.
I have also expressed that I think that the liberal Democrat thinking is the most dangerous out of the two main parties. What's hard to understand?
I know you want to group every party / thinking that is not with yours in the same boat, but you can't have it that way by your own declarations.
I have been very clear and pithy. You should try it.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
PornoDoggy
11-09-2002, 08:57 AM
Pithy? Perhaps. Clear? I think not.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by name calling. I fully acknowledge poking fun at your board handle. Other than that, I don't see much of a personal attack, unless you are referring to the term "LibeRepublicans." Perhaps you would find RepubLitarians more acceptable?
"I have also expressed that I think that the liberal Democrat thinking is the most dangerous out of the two main parties. "
I can understand why you may have held that opinion in the past; the "threat" from anti-American liberal democrats like me seems rather muted at the moment. Aren't you also fond of suggesting that "liberals want to take your money, conservatives want to take your freedom?" GW now has a very disciplined crew in both houses of Congress, and virtually unlimited ability to appoint a slew of federal judges that can do just that. I guess they've bought your approval - or your blindness - by making all the right noises about your guns, huh? Too bad he doesn't have anything of equal value to dangle in front of the churches ... we could save a few more tax dollars.
Not clear??? In your opinion, maybe. You are entitled to it... just like me. :rolleyes:
"liberals want to take your money, conservatives want to take your freedom?"
Yes, I said this. Now what?? I look at the big picture and the current state of the Presidency, Senate and House is not the big picture. You, on the other hand, cannot see the forest through the trees, IMO.
Clearly, you are about to fucking lose it. You can hardly hold back your animosity due to the Democrats losses. I feel sorry for you. PD, It's not that big of a deal. Life goes on, so try and do something with your time besides writing novels on every message board out there.
BTW, by name calling, I am referring to the playing with yourself, guns and bunker comments. Is that not name calling and stereotyping? I mean is that the best you can do, anyway??
Lemme see if I can give it a try... You are a tired and old ex-swabby who hates conservatives and religion because you are gay and a broke dick. Your true board handle should be PoorMe Doggy. How's that?
:nyanya:
Mike AI
11-09-2002, 09:56 AM
PD - remember we love you here. We might harass you, but we understand you are the faithful oposition.
While we may not always agree, we will always agree that you are passionate about your opinions!!
Torone
11-09-2002, 10:27 AM
Much of what Pd says must be pipe dreams...I am (as I have repeatedly stated) an agnostic. That means that I neither accept or deny the existence of a Supreme Being. It also means that I do not think 'faith-based initiatives are going to be the answer.
My personal take...?
Reexamine the tax emptions of all charities, churches, and so-called 'help groups' (NAACP, LULAC, JDL, etc.). Make them do what they are supposed to do, instead of being PAC's. By forcing them to do the charitable work that they collect money for, the social programs could be phased out. If existing laws were enforced, there would be a lot less of what the 'faith-based initiatives' are supposed to cure. I intend to continue applying whatever pressure I (as a private citizen) can toward those ends.
As for Bush increasing taxes, I think I heard him say just yesterday that he wanted to CUT taxes and make the tax cuts permanent.
PornoDoggy
11-09-2002, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by wig@Nov 9 2002, 09:56 AM
Not clear??? In your opinion, maybe. You are entitled to it... just like me. :rolleyes:
"liberals want to take your money, conservatives want to take your freedom?"
Yes, I said this. Now what?? I look at the big picture and the current state of the Presidency, Senate and House is not the big picture. You, on the other hand, cannot see the forest through the trees, IMO.
Clearly, you are about to fucking lose it. You can hardly hold back your animosity due to the Democrats losses. I feel sorry for you. PD, It's not that big of a deal. Life goes on, so try and do something with your time besides writing novels on every message board out there.
BTW, by name calling, I am referring to the playing with yourself, guns and bunker comments. Is that not name calling and stereotyping? I mean is that the best you can do, anyway??
Lemme see if I can give it a try... You are a tired and old ex-swabby who hates conservatives and religion because you are gay and a broke dick. Your true board handle should be PoorMe Doggy. How's that?
:nyanya:
As far as losing it, I'm actually in a much better space about the election results today than I was two days ago.
* I don't think my freedom will be served well by the judges that will get through the Senate over the next two years.
* I don't think the environment will be served well by Republican control of the government.
* I think the dispensing of federal manna to religous organizations will be a boondoggle that could ultimately challenge some of the "Great Society" programs as folly, and is an attempt by a Republican President to further his agenda, repay a political debt, and buy continuing party loyalty (and activism) from a segment of society he has found very useful.
* I think the privitazation of Social Security will end up making Enron look like the closing of a 7-11 because a couple of clerks stole from the till.
The nation will survive, however. It lived through Reagan, and Gingrich, and a slew of others, after all. For a variety of reasons these could be a good couple of years to let the Republicans do their thing, and let the people see exactly what that is. It could motivate the Democratic base (too many of which sat this one out) and swing a lot of the centerists to the Democratic side. I could be very wrong, too ... that has happened at least 3 times before :D .
If you took the "playing with yourself/guns/bunkers" remarks personally, I apologize. Meant them to be an attempt at humor that turned to personal ridicule, which was NOT deliberate. About the your allegations, however:
* I am profoundly heterosexual.
* Neither my dick or my wallet is broke (although I do not now get enough/have enough).
* Regarding old ... I plead guilty, with the special circumstance that I'm not as old as Torone.
As far as losing it, I'm actually in a much better space about the election results today than I was two days ago.
***********************************
This is comforting. :D
* I don't think my freedom will be served well by the judges that will get through the Senate over the next two years.
***********************************
I can agree on this in part. But the same is true on the flip side. This is why I can accept balance and gridlock and am not 100% thrilled with the elections. However, I admit I feel much better than if it was the other way around.
I also have to admit that I don't think the judges Bush will appoint will legislate from the bench like some of these liberal judges -- at least not in the areas that I care about. :D
* I don't think the environment will be served well by Republican control of the government.
************************************
Can't say I agree with this. I find the tree hugging left to be every bit as dangerous. But, I really don't care because it is only a vicious circle in which I have limited control. I find it more beneficial in this case (as well as others) to simply accept it and concentrate on how I can position myself to gain. For instance, do I want to be short Minks or long Alaskan real estate. j/k
* I think the dispensing of federal manna to religous organizations will be a boondoggle that could ultimately challenge some of the "Great Society" programs as folly, and is an attempt by a Republican President to further his agenda, repay a political debt, and buy continuing party loyalty (and activism) from a segment of society he has found very useful.
************************************
I agree in that I do not believe faith-based initiatives should be the role of the FEDERAL Government. In that same vein, I don't think social programs should be either!
* I think the privitazation of Social Security will end up making Enron look like the closing of a 7-11 because a couple of clerks stole from the till.
*************************************
I totally disagree. Markets go up and markets go down. I have been studying and trading markets for 17 years. What we just witnessed happens about every 60 years or so. No politician or party can take credit or be blamed for it as it is a natural phenomenon. We will likely not see another euphoria and collapse in our life time.
The crux of the matter is simply whether we as tax payers should have a choice in how we invest for retirement. And, whether we should also be able to pass along any of these proceeds after our death. Personally, I think we should be able to opt out of Social Security all together. Problem with that is that all the achievers would opt out and there would be no one to take the money from to redistribute.
The nation will survive, however. It lived through Reagan, and Gingrich, and a slew of others, after all.
*********************************
I lived through Carter for whatever that's worth. :blink:
For a variety of reasons these could be a good couple of years to let the Republicans do their thing, and let the people see exactly what that is. It could motivate the Democratic base (too many of which sat this one out) and swing a lot of the centerists to the Democratic side. I could be very wrong, too ... that has happened at least 3 times before .
*********************************
I also think being able to see how a philosophy will work is a great advantage. I would like to see it on both the liberal, conservative and especially the Libertarian side. However, I would ONLY like to see this if it was done at the STATE level where competition and market forces could prevail. I am extremely opposed to FEDERAL intervention in anything that is not mandated by the Constitution. The federal gov't was given limited powers for a reason and we have strayed from this.
Socialized medicine in Oregon would have been a great example. Too bad it failed or we could have seen how it would have worked for Hillary on the Federal level. I think gun control is a great example, too. There is a higher rate of violent crime and gun crime where these laws are most severe.
If you took the "playing with yourself/guns/bunkers" remarks personally, I apologize. Meant them to be an attempt at humor that turned to personal ridicule, which was NOT deliberate. About the your allegations, however:
* I am profoundly heterosexual.
* Neither my dick or my wallet is broke (although I do not now get enough/have enough).
* Regarding old ... I plead guilty, with the special circumstance that I'm not as old as Torone.
**********************************
Apology accepted and returned. :D :D
What I would like explained is how some people feel that it is not the job of government to take care of its citizens. All defense spending debate aside, you honestly don't think it is the government's responsibility to make sure that its people have food, health care, and basic necessary services? This is not to say everyone should be on welfare, just to say that everyone is entitled to lead a good and happy life.
Privatization has failed as miserably (or deregulation I guess I should say) as your Oregon initiative. Look at California, as soon as they deregulated the major power companies sold off all their power plants and stashed the money in their global parent corporations. Then they cried poverty and the state bailed them out while Enron and others jacked the price of electricity up hundreds of percentage points. But hey people have a right to make a profit, right?
I feel that no basic service, meaning health care, electricity, food, water, or shelter should be denied ANY citizen. If you did the math you'd see that one stealth bomber could support thousands of families on a reasonable yearly level, so they would be right at the poverty line or a bit above it. But as Americans we don't think on these terms. Due to human nature we cannot leave these essential services in the private sector, since in this country our charities are just as corrupt as our corporations. Deregulation of power companies has been a massive failure in many states, not just California. With our defense budget growing, taxes decreasing (the one buffer we have against poverty, let's be honest) and companies downsizing, I see a very bleak immediate future unless some real social voices emerge in this country.
Oh, and tree-hugging? I hate to bring it up but trees provide us with oxygen. It has never been a corporate right to irreparably pollute this planet. Bush put off funding for alternate energy cars in favor of waiting for fuel cells (a nod, albeit a smart one, to the oil and auto lobbies who are heavily invested now in fuel cells) which are currently being realized and should be widely available in a decade. Yet he wants to drill Alaska. Do we not have enough oil for the next ten years? Would we rather drive another 200 species to exctinction so we can reduce the price at the pump?
Sorry for the rant, but it never ceases to amaze me that people can say these things with a straight face.
C.
Originally posted by Cal@Nov 9 2002, 04:00 PM
What I would like explained is how some people feel that it is not the job of government to take care of its citizens.
Cal, what I personally feel is this... Government as a whole is flawed. Knowing this, our founding fathers gave the Federal Gov't limited powers. Instead, they gave the powers to the States. The did this because they knew that, although government was flawed, at the State level there would be competitition. This would allow market forces to prevail -- a natural buffer to corruption and misguided policies if you will.
I do not believe it is the role of Gov't to take care of me. I believe the role of Gov't is to preserve my RIGHT to take care of myself.
As far as trees giving us oxygen and extinction of species, I really don't know what to say. Wow, maybe. The prior debate was about extremists on both ends. Can't we agree that they both exist? These people are not in sync with reality, anyway.
And finally.... The planet??? We can't even save ourselves.
I say this all with a very straight face. :)
Torone
11-09-2002, 06:24 PM
Hey, Pd! Looks like Cal is even further to the Left than you. He claims to be a scientist or interested in a scientific way; but he sure talks like a California Socialist. :nyanya:
Yeah as I was eating I realized I shouldn't have said anything at all. My tirades always come out sounding (to people who disagree) to be way extremist. I'm actually quite conservative on HOW to run a business, I just don't think businesses should be given sway over people's lives. Like wig said, we have the right to live our own lives, I couldn't agree more. But I think its also our obligation to make sure that 'noone gets left behind' (cheap shot quote from our beloved leader!)
Hey Torone, science supports me man! Haha. It's not about left or right it's about empathy!
I have no love for Republicans, and after this month I'm not too fond of most Democrats either. But the saddest part of this debate is if you look at the numbers and go beneath the surface, you'd see that everyone can still make a fortune and live free and happy lives doing things the right way! I don't have to tell most of you that, but running a business responsibly has worked for millions of people, unfortunately the ones who don't tend to be the ones who inflict all the problems on everyone else.
C.
Torone
11-10-2002, 08:36 AM
Cal,
Sciemce is absolutely wrong where Socialism/Communism is concerned. It has never worked because the concept is fatally and irreparably flawed. It can never work for the same reason. Screw that BS! I prefer being free to determine my own destiny and make as much (or as little;}}}) money as I can. The only money I have ever received from the gov't was military wages; and I want to keep it that way.
And just for people like you, here is some info:
The Constitution doesn't tell the people what they can do...it tells the gov't what it CANNOT do.
Yep no argument about the Constitution. The states refused to pass it without the Bill of Rights, for the reason you mentioned. Unfortunately our government, as most people would agree, is now trying to trample that very same Bill. I'm not sure how you can say socialism doesn't work when it is currently in practice (to some degree, pure socialism like pure ANYTHING doesn't work) in most of the EU, but arguing it with a Libertarian is probably useless.
I subscribe to the belief that we are part of collective evolution, meaning we all need each other to move forward as a species. Being isolationist and selfish doesn't mesh with my ideas of how people should interact, that's all. People in America are quick to take and slow to give. Noone seems to interpret our great privilege as a gift, they view it as a RIGHT. I just hope that trend changes as the world grows more prosperous and connected.
C.
Torone
11-13-2002, 07:10 AM
BTW, at this point, I don't consider myself a Libertarian. I want to advance my own agenda, so I consider myself a Conservative Capitalist.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.