Out of Touch
Find a Conversation
Out of Touch
| Mon, 11-24-2008 - 3:30pm |
Just got this from one of my GOP friends - wanted to know if I wanted this bumpersticker - reminds me of the old Hall and Oates song...
| Mon, 11-24-2008 - 3:30pm |
Just got this from one of my GOP friends - wanted to know if I wanted this bumpersticker - reminds me of the old Hall and Oates song...
Pages
>>> 'Take your head out of the sand' is not really a worthy debate offering.
It is for people who deny the truth and keep spouting the same old lies.
>>> Democrats did not initiate the war, they signed off on Bush's intentions based on limited information cherry picked by the administration to back its contention that war was necessary.
More lies. If the "information" was so limited and Bush had to "cherry pick" it to make a case, then what was the basis for Democrats pushing Clinton to do something about Hussein's WMDs and nuclear weapons program and Clinton bombing Iraq for 4 days just a year before Bush took office?
>>> I opposed the war from the first - when some on the right laughed and said I was crying wolf over an intent to invade Iraq - they didn't believe it would happen. That was happening in April 2002.
Who cares? You didn't have a vote and you were basing your opinion on a complete lack of information. Opposing war for the sake of opposing war is absurd and completely unrealistic.
Actually, most everything that led me to oppose reared its ugly head, and still poses a long term threat. We might be at risk of the consequences of this action for the next 50 years. Thank goodness we can get out, but a lot of damage has already been done.
Time for this one to go bury my head in my pillow-sand.
You go on believing what you believe. What I believe, and my opinion, is not going to change your mind. If you think me ignorant, well... enjoy your night. :)
Full length fiction: http://llhaesa.org/ (pronounced la.hay.ess.sa)
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
Standing ovation.
Well said.
>>> I am a choicer, not an abortionist.
You say potato...
>>> Abortion is but one choice, and is performed the vast majority of the time in the first trimester.
So you're against "choice" after the third trimester?...the Obamessiah disagrees.
>>> And it comes down to individual rights -
Except the right of the individual growing in the woman's womb. BTW, according to you, at which moment does an unborn child become an "individual" and get those elusive "individual rights?"
>>> the right loves the second amendment, yet wishes to restrict what I and other women might do with our bodies.
The government already restricts what you can do with your bodies every day...it's a bit more noble if that restriction saves a life.
>>> There is no tie available here, no equal rights. Rights to a foetus means the woman carrying has her rights abridged.
So you advocate a pregnant woman smoking or drinking or taking drugs without regard for her unborn child? After all, you wouldn't want to "abridge" her "rights," now would you?
>>> You can try to sell the war, just as you try to sell the financial crisis as a liberal endeavour, but both belong to the right, and the right gets to wear this one -
I guess we're back to the "head in the sand" bit. Some people are just more comfortable denying the truth and believing the liberal lies.
>>> that is why you have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president - the right blew it when it had the chance to govern. I pray we get it right.
Well, the Dems haven't gotten it right in the past two years, so I'm not holding my breath, but if they do what they said they were going to do, then we can all look forward to the country going through a lot more hurt.
>>> On taxes - the right cut taxes for the most wealthy, while spending like crazy. Is that responsible? Nope.
Oh, I see...when the tax cuts are for "the wealthy" and it's the Republicans who are spending it's irresponsible...but when it's Obama who proposes tax cuts for 95% of Americans (actually, that's welfare for 40% of them) and proposes spending Trillions more (on top of trillions in bail outs) then it suddenly becomes "responsible." LOL!
>>> Under Clinton, things were in sync, and improving - after 12 years of the right controlling the presidency.
Crap. Clinton lied to his supporters and didn't give them the tax cuts he promised. Instead, he raised their taxes. Clinton also failed in his meager attempts to deal with terrorism, and his military leadership was a joke. Clinton's policies also did nothing for the economy, he just coincidentally happened to be President when the internet was created and the boom that followed. He was also the President when it collapsed and left Bush with a recession when he took office.
>>> And finally, I was talking on financial regulation, which a bit of searching through history will show why we have a clean air law, a clean water law, minimum wage and age laws, anti-discrimination laws, workers compensation, unemployment compensation, the SEC, the FDIC, social security, etc. It all came about by learning the hard way.
Democrat regulation also brought about the current economic crisis. Thanks.
>>> I keep seeing conservatives offer up this incredibly off mark notion that this market crisis was precipitated by some liberal regulations concerning fair lending practices. Wow.
Because it was.
>>> How does that explain the bundling and marketing of unstable securities - if this was as you suggest, surely these professionals knew their book of business was repleat with such risk? Yet it was sold off, the risk split and shared across world investors, mostly financial institutions.
Right...the banks were forced to offer these "bad loans," but by bundling with other mortgages the percentage of likely losses per bundle was diminished, enhancing their value...until the scheme collapsed.
>>> And they did this via unregulated instruments, with little capital set as reserves in case of loss, something an average run in the mill smaller insurer cannot do.
The loans were guaranteed by Freddie and Fannie which were run by Democrats and protected by the Democrats from Republican regulation.
>>> It was not liberal law that led to the demise of loan officers for banks and their replacement by independent loan brokers and originators. It was not liberal law that led to the selling of bundles of mortgages by the original lender, and in turn the bundling of still larger packages as securities that carried little capital backing as a protection against loss.
It was "liberal law" that forced banks to devise methods to deal with these poor marketing practices and make them viable.
>>> It is not liberal law that led to the development *and aggressive marketing* of sub prime loans - if you think the major subprime lenders had their arms twisted into selling these products, wow... talk about revisionist history! These products were amongst the most aggressive marketing campaigns this nation has ever witnessed.
It never would have happened if not for Democrat regulation and Democrats forcing the policy on to banks.
>>> Now you say liberals think people deserve money who don't earn it from those who do.
That was Obama's proposal...and the libs elected him.
>>> I suppose you speak of anything other than a flat tax, something I have shown time and again is in fact an incredibly regressive tax. And I suppose you also mean things like unemployment compensation, medicare, social security, and the odd welfare recipient.
The "odd welfare recipient?" LOL! For a lot of Democrats, welfare is a way of life. And a flat tax is a fair tax...everyone pays their fair share, but I don't mind a progressive tax when it's not oppressive, but saddling welfare and health insurance for 95% of the country on the backs of 5% is oppressive...and stupid.
>>> Again, a view point that fails to recognise the threat of instability in society. I do not know what it will take for the right to grasp this, that if there is no social safety net in place - the possession of wealth by any individual becomes a risky proposition.
Aah...so because you're fearful of the animal-like lawlessness of the average American, you advocate socialism to placate them. Good thinking...until your theory collapses because you've removed any incentive for people to be entrepreneurs and take risks and build the economy. Pretty foolish, really.
>>> Wealth is an imaginary creation; it exists because enough people believe any given person is wealthy
LOL! Boy, I wish more people would believe that I was wealthy.
>>> enough accept the current rules and such that give this some sort of hierarchy... but if you introduce anarchy into the mix, well... the more the anarchy, the more people who do not accept the rules that say person A has X amount of wealth, and voila! its gone - simply because no one recognises that wealth as belonging to person A any longer.
Where do you get this crap?
>>> Think of it in land ownership terms. Person A owns a sizeable chunk of land. Under current rules and societal structure, this is recognised. In a time of great anarchy, people flood onto that property. Does person A have anything of value land wise any longer? Nope, not in reality.
Sure they do...they have the land, and via the land they have wealth, and via that wealth they have power and with that power they will defend their land and their wealth from the encroachment of those without wealth and power.
>>> That is why social programmes play a vital role in society, even aside from the sheer humanitarian element.
More crap. Social programs are designed for humanitarian purposes as well as to mitigate the financial burden to society. In America, these are designed to be a "leg up" not a way of life, which gives the individual an opportunity to become a productive member of society instead of a perpetual drain on it.
>>> As for weakness and enemies... this administration just made use of the exact same strategy vis a vis North Korea that the Clinton administration did.
Except that Clinton was a complete failure and Bush is making progress.
>>> It was a liberal president that got the Soviets to back down in Cuba - and forestalled a war in the process.
Kennedy was a Democrat, not a liberal, and it was his inexperience and naivete that led the Russians to "test" him...which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Now we have Obama, an even more inexperienced President poised to take office and within hours of the election, Russia was saber rattling again. Thanks.
And unfortunately, it was a liberal president who got us stuck in Vietnam. He deserved to be a one term president for that faux pas.
>>> It was a liberal president who saw us through WWII - when by the way, conservatives wanted no part of that war, and actively demonstrated against involvement in Europe prior to Pearl.
Again, you're confusing ancient Democrats with modern liberals...completely different animal...and it was a Republican who actually commanded the fighting in WWll. BTW, everyone in America was "conservative" in 1940.
< It's liberalism that makes the individual's wants and desires more important than the society in which s/he lives and liberalism that promotes mediocrity rather than excellence.
>>> Now this one puzzles me. Are you, a conservative, arguing that an individual's wants and needs are secondary to societal needs? ;-)
In many cases...yes.
>>> And on competition taken out of schools. What sort of competition? You want kids competing to be top dog? Ugh.
Yes...the liberal concept of "everyone gets a trophy" is inane and breeds mediocrity.
>>> Let them play sports, debate, etc. The idea is to learn, and we need to do a better job of it through smaller class sizes and more individual attention, removing the cookie cutter element that has plagued our schools throughout.
Right...because all liberals know that little Bobby is different than little Johnny and can't possibly be taught by the same teacher in the same classroom. We must discover what it is that motivates little Bobby and little Johnny so that we can spend billions catering to their individual needs, which far surpass their need to spell and to learn math, because after all, it's their feeeeeeellllllings that really matter, not their education. And once we learn what it is that motivates little Bobby and little Johnny we can spend billions more on individualized learning programs and testing that is specially designed to fairly evaluate how little Bobby and little Johnny feel about themselves and what they were supposed to be learning in order to prepare them to take their place at the bottom of our new welfare society.
>>> There is some notion out there that schools were perfect creatures years ago, well... not if one lies outside the mainstream of society - it can eat such students alive.
Good...separate the wheat from the chaff. The wheat can go on to be productive members of society and the chaff can get government jobs.
>>> Liberals believe in the value of education.
Liberals believe in the value of pushing kids who can't read through the system so they can get more money.
>>> We believe in free markets, but we also recognise markets must be tempered by regulation and monitored - think of the Uniform Commercial Code as one great example, it creates a framework that makes for an efficient running of an economy, where business can thrive. Yet busiinesses must adhere to it as well.
i.e. controlled to be used as a weapon in pressing their liberal agenda.
>>> We believe that we have no business invading countries that do not first attack us. Funny that one, it is what I grew up believing America was all about - leave us alone, and all is cool.
A stupid policy that cost us hundreds of lives and many ships at Pearl Harbor. Anyone who's ever been in a fight can tell you that it's a fool who purposefully let's the opponent have the first punch.
>>> We believe that there is an inherent regressive nature in taxation, and that rates must account for this - thus a progressive income tax rate structure.
Everyone paying the same percentage is simply fair. Why should an under-achiever get free use of a communities resources (and even free money back) while someone who is more successful, through their own enterprise, has to pay for the resources used by 10 other people?
>>> We believe that social security and unemployment compensation are essential programmes.
If that were true, then every society everywhere would have them...they don't.
>>> We believe universal health care - whether or not delivered by the government - is essential for our people and for our businesses.
Again, no...we've managed to get by without it for over 230 years, and where it has been implemented, it has not been a stunning success.
>>> We believe that we are part of this world, not its ruler.
Sure...but we are not the equal of every other nation. and it's foolish to strive for that mediocrity...but then, liberals do love their mediocrity.
>>> We recognise our own mistakes, both as liberals and as a country. We are not, nor have ever been, perfect.
You got that right...but the liberal pass-time of America-hating is getting pretty old.
>>> We recognise that discrimination must end. That includes against gay folk, and it includes finally taking our constitution to include women.
Gays are already protected from discrimination...and so are women. Hey, did you hear? A woman just ran for Vice-President.
>>> We believe that regulation is necessary, and that it in fact helps business by smoothing out the rough patches we are now in. The right tends to think only of the soaring times, not recognising that low times come as well. This needs to be smoothed out... less spectacular highs, less hurtful lows.
It was liberal Democrat regulation that led to the "rough patch" we are now in.
>>> We believe in choice. In case you haven't noticed, no matter the choice, this is taking personal responsibility.
Killing someone else is not taking responsibility.
>>> We believe in separation of church and state.
Boo hoo! Learn to live with a government that is completely infused with religion.
>>> We believe civilisation means helping each other, not saying 'to hell with you."
Sure, y'all love to help...as long as it's with other people's money...unless, of course, it's the religious right or some other folks who don't subscribe to your ideology...then you want to destroy them and trash their beliefs.
>>> We believe in freedom, and in not spying on each other, unlike the current administration.
Unless it's freedom of religion and a majority of the folks want to put a manger scene on the town square, or the freedom to bear arms...then it's no, no, no. We know the left is all for hobbling the efforts of law enforcement who are trying to protect us...BTW, Obama supports spying.
>>> We believe no one should be held indefinitely without charge and a fair trial under through our court system.
Then devise a system by which the detainees can be tried while still protecting our national security and interests. We'll wait.
>>> We believe in comprehensive sex ed, and wide availability to access to contraception.
We know...and in allowing 13 year old girls to have abortions without their parent's consent to take care of those "little problems" that pop up when you teach kids about sex and then hand them a condom.
>>> We believe in responsible energy plans.
As long as their completely inefficient and utterly useless. Libs sure do like "going through the motions" so it makes them feel like they're doing something...until it actually comes to them doing something...then they always point the finger elsewhere.
>>> We believe the right lost its way. Which is why we are now in charge.
The Dems are in charge because they lied and because their supporters are grossly uninformed.
>>> Actually, most everything that led me to oppose reared its ugly head, and still poses a long term threat.
Really? You knew more than the President, Congress, the UN, our allies and almost every intelligence agency in the world? How did you stumble on this incredible expertise and insight?
>>> We might be at risk of the consequences of this action for the next 50 years. Thank goodness we can get out, but a lot of damage has already been done.
Yeah...democracy is a helluva thing. Imagine how horrible we are for giving other people a shot at it.
>>> Time for this one to go bury my head in my pillow-sand. You go on believing what you believe. What I believe, and my opinion, is not going to change your mind. If you think me ignorant, well... enjoy your night. :)
True...I prefer to be swayed by the truth and the facts, rather than other people's opinions. Enjoy your night.
Pages