The reason why, I believe, boils down to which end of the lynchers' rope one's people have historically been on.
The end that gets hastily thrown over a tree limb, or the end from which a hapless soul hangs, for the "crime" of race or ethnicity.
In an infamous photograph taken when three innocent Black circus workers were lynched from a lamp post in Duluth in 1920, included in the crowd is a fellow my family knew well.
Someone who would later become a very prominent businessman.
He was Finnish-American.
Apparently he'd forgotten (I can't belive he never knew about) the anti-Finnish discrimination that was savagely prominent on the Mesaba Range in the early 20th century.
Manifested, among many other terrible ways, in signs on boarding houses and bars, saying "No Finns or Dogs Allowed!"
Maybe he wasn't aware that, two years earlier, a Finnish IWW member was lynched in Duluth for his anti-war activity.
But he should have known, and he definitely ought to have never been a part of that grinning mob.
I think of these things as the controversy surrounding Trent Lott continues to swirl.
I think, too, of the powerfully poignant, heart-wrenching scenes from the film Snow Falling on Cedars, as Japanese-Americans are herded onto trucks taking them to concentration camps during World War II.
I vividly recall their bewilderment, and fear.
I'm reminded, too, of Bloody Selma, and the violent police attack gratuitously unleashed on peaceful civil rights marchers.
I understand John Lewis is willing to forgive Lott.
Being a true hero of the struggle for American racial justice (still obviously far from entirely won), I respect his choice. After all, he walked the walked, talked the talk, and languished in cracker jails. Far be it for me to criticize him for having a greater capacity for forgiveness than I personally possess, in all my frailty.
But I won't compromise on this matter, or accept that it was all a joke, or that Lott was somehow referring to other aspects of Thurmond's wholesale backwardness -- but NOT his well-known and nefarious devotion to segregation.
As I said in a previous post, this is 2002, not 1952.
If we don't put our foot down on this destructive shamefulness now, when will we?
Thanks to one man's incredible insensitivity, we've been presented with a watershed moment.
It would be foolish to believe racism can now be forever, completely extirpated from our midst.
But we can strike such a strong, determined blow against it that others will think twice about articulating racist remarks.
Every hurtful comment not delivered is a small victory in itself, and their absence, in quantity, lays a brighter basis for better tomorrows.
So they're saying: We don't care about the racial fallout, because African Amercans don't vote Republican anyway.
This is a grand opportunity to get rid of someone who couldn't come through when we needed to grab power from Clinton and has compromised too much with Democrats in the Senate?
What don't you (and JT) understand that Republicans, Democrats, and people black and white seem to understand completely in both context and meaning?
I think we all understand the same thing. We understand that democrats are using it as a political tool knowing full well what Lott said was made at a birthday party for an old man and it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. And in fact the statement was made without any thought at all. I think we all understand that certain members of the Republican party are using it to change the party hierarchy in the Senate, something they couldn't do before. I think we all understand that some conservative commentators want Lott out so that the party doesn't have to heed more minority cries for more handouts. The fact is they don't want to deal with the underlying issues and want them to go away. I think we all understand that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion although only a few will admit it. I think we all understand that if Mississippi doesn't want Lott to represent them then the citizens of Mississippi should decide that.
So they're saying: We don't care about the racial fallout, because African Amercans don't vote Republican anyway.
This is a grand opportunity to get rid of someone who couldn't come through when we needed to grab power from Clinton and has compromised too much with Democrats in the Senate?
Yes. I think most people know that what the Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's are asking for has nothing to do with discrimnation.
1. You've never really listened to Rush Limbaugh because you're already sure that you disagree with practically everything he's ever said.
2. You refer to liberal Catholics, Protestants and Jews as "people of faith" but conservative Catholics, Protestants and Jews as the "religious right" or "radical religious right". (Maybe you have a thing for alliteration too.)
3. You think all white Republicans are racists and all black Republicans are sellouts.
4. You are a champion of first amendment rights except in public school classrooms and in front of abortion clinics.
5. You're glad you're not a Republican because after all, they want to starve school children and senior citizens.
6. You actually think that "liberal" and "progressive" are synonymous.
7. In your opinion, a government donation to the poor is somehow more effective than yours would be.
8. You only listen to and respect the views of "open-minded" people who think like you do.
9. You blame society's problems on "religious fanatics" and "corporate greed", never on the irresponsible behavior of individuals.
Satveer Chaudhary is the second Indian American to be elected to a state Senate in the United States.
bet none of you guys can even pronounce this chap’s name.
There has been blatant discrimination against people of South Asian origin since September 11, 2001, irrespective of whether they are Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. It is important now, more then ever, that Indians no matter where they , stand up, be counted and demand their seat at the political table.
1. You've never really listened to Rush Limbaugh because you're already sure that you disagree with practically everything he's ever said.
I have listened to him extensively and found a lot of what he says to be flat out wrong (a nice way of saying "lies") and devisive in many of the ways this very list tries to paint liberals with. I mean, a full grown man calling a 13 year old girl a "dog" on TV is not my idea of intelligent or fair.
2. You refer to liberal Catholics, Protestants and Jews as "people of faith" but conservative Catholics, Protestants and Jews as the "religious right" or "radical religious right". (Maybe you have a thing for alliteration too.)
I refer to "liberal Catholics" as "confused", since the Catholic organization itself is a conservative operation.
3. You think all white Republicans are racists and all black Republicans are sellouts.
I think that all white Republicans that aren't racist are hypocrites for belonging to a party that allows known racist to have power within that organization. Black Republicans have no excuse for associating with people who support known racists.
4. You are a champion of first amendment rights except in public school classrooms and in front of abortion clinics.
The first amendment gives no right to force children to say things, much less to pray. As a matter of fact, I fail to understand why ANYONE would want the government, regardless of party, to dictate what kind of religion be mandated in schools. The lie that your statement here is implying is that children can't pray in schools. Any good liberal will tell you that is bullshit. Kids can say whatever they like...however, government paid teachers cannot tell them to pray. As for abortion clinics, conservatives have been known to harrass and even shoot people at those clinics. People have a right to be protected from violence. Also, free speech does not allow you to FORCE your speech on me, which is what happens in front of those clinics.
5. You're glad you're not a Republican because after all, they want to starve school children and senior citizens.
It was the Republican administration who wanted to define ketchup as a vegetable for our school kids. The current Republican president wants to have Social Security made private so it can be invested in things like the stock market...have you seen what has happened to a LOT of people's 401Ks lately. If the same thing was allowed to happen to Social Security, a lot of elderly would indeed starve. It's not so much that they want people to starve, it's just that their policies tend to not care if they do.
6. You actually think that "liberal" and "progressive" are synonymous.
no I don't.
7. In your opinion, a government donation to the poor is somehow more effective than yours would be.
when any resource is collectively pooled, it does indeed have more potential to be effective.
8. You only listen to and respect the views of "open-minded" people who think like you do.
I listen to people like you...but in reference to "respect", say something that deserves respect and you will get it.
9. You blame society's problems on "religious fanatics" and "corporate greed", never on the irresponsible behavior of individuals.
"corporate greed" (i.e. Enron..etc) IS "the irresponsible behavior of individuals". Am I supposed to respect the fact that you are trying to say different?
but my point remains...Republicans are fond of implying that the Government is something removed from the people.
Try not paying your taxes for a few years and let me know how that works out for ya.
people have been known to not pay them.
me? I don't mind paying for the services that my government provides me...providing it is representing me. My country was in part founded on not paying taxes to a government that we weren't a part of.
Try not paying your taxes for a few years and let me know how that works out for ya.
besides...by allowing politicians who allow them to be mandatory to be in office, we indeed are voluntarily saying that we should be forced to be taxed.
Technically, everything the government does we let it do voluntarily as a group. As long as we can change it and do not do so, we are voluntarily allowing it.
Than you don't see this is further proof that conservatives don't see the people as the government.
Technically, everything the government does we let it do voluntarily as a group. As long as we can change it and do not do so, we are voluntarily allowing it.
Technically you're right. I'm glad the Republican's finally have power. I just hope they don't screw it up.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying my taxes shouldn't be lower.
There's no reason I shouldn't get $300.
Trouble is, I knew the government was going to keep on spending.
btw: It's naive to think you or I have much power in government. There will always be a disconnect as long as people are people, because people are corrupt.
Welcome to this corner of the P.F I think we've talked before if I remember correctly but welcome. It's nice to talk to someone of a differing opinion who can debate or discuss in a reasonalble fashion. We will probably disagree on many things but glad you stopped by.
I think that all white Republicans that aren't racist are hypocrites for belonging to a party that allows known racist to have power within that organization. Black Republicans have no excuse for associating with people who support known racists.
There are racists in almost any organization. Those same people who you call hypocrites are also the ones who wanted to see Lott get the ax and made it happen. Were some motivated by political reasons ? No doubt. There are D's that are racists as well, are all those that support or not call for thier ouster hypocrites as well ? Black or white it's up to the individual to decide.
As for abortion clinics, conservatives have been known to harrass and even shoot people at those clinics. People have a right to be protected from violence. Also, free speech does not allow you to FORCE your speech on me, which is what happens in front of those clinics.
And that fringe element is just as wrong as the fringe from the left that trash buildings or cities or endanger lives to further their cause as well. So if you want to lump all conservatives into that group the same can be done with liberals as well but we both know that neither is correct nor a fair generalization of a group.
The current Republican president wants to have Social Security made private so it can be invested in things like the stock market...have you seen what has happened to a LOT of people's 401Ks lately. If the same thing was allowed to happen to Social Security, a lot of elderly would indeed starve. It's not so much that they want people to starve, it's just that their policies tend to not care if they do.
It's all about choice. You wouldn't be forced to do so. I'll take the return on an average of 45 years of work in the stock market any day over the return on S.S. And yes, you'd still do much better than S.S. Oh yea and if you die 2 days after hitting 62&1/2 then your benefit to your family is quite reduced isn't it. But you'd rather force people to stay in a broken system instead of giving them freedom to do so. Talk about anti choice. Ironic that people that claim to be pro-choice over someones body have no problem in giving someone no choice when it comes to choosing to opt in or out. And as far as your assertion that elderly would starve, the same thing was said of welfare reform.
but my point remains...Republicans are fond of implying that the Government is something removed from the people.
Not at all, Government is there to serve the people Not, the other way around. When govt. becomes so powerful and intrusive it then has the reverse effect. Libertarians have a view of almost a limited government. Contrary to some people's assumptions and rash generalizations, a majority of conservatives disagree with that to an extent. The contention is that the government and therefore the level of taxation that goes along with it can become onerous and counterproductive to a free society.
"a government donation to the poor is somehow more effective than yours would be. "
this statement reveals something very important in the way a conservative thinks..." A government donation IS my donation.
Right, and you're also forcing other people to donate. Although I would disagree that it's a donation. There are many areas of the safety net that could be met through charity and not forced charity. BTW I need 50.00, so please mail it to me because I need it.
Your statement is very telling of a liberal's thought process. There's a problem or need in society ? We'll just create another govt. program for that, no problem. It's the easy solution and requires little of the person calling for action. They merely have to say that they feel something should be done and demand everyone participate. How noble.
Does it mean that there aren't areas or a safety net that should be there? Of course. It merely comes down to what level and how onerous and counterproductive it becomes and that's where the debate is. It's too easy to just say that conservatives want people to starve or that their policies promote that or that they don't care. It's way too easy.
Hi Crabby! No, I'm not a Republican. I like the Independence party flag myself. Too bad we can't get someone other than disgruntled Democrats to run for office in our party. I'm actually kind of shocked that my "you might be a conservaphobic" piece was creating such a stir. It was meant for a good chuckle. Glad you could make it down to this neck of the woods. I am always up for spirited debade regardless of where you stand.
I hope everyone had a wonderful holiday season. Everything was pretty upbeat here with the exception of one family in town that lost their home to fire 4 days before Christmas. We gave their 3 kids presents and gave the family some money to help them through the holidays. It's definately a rough time for them but I know there were quite a few of us that helped out at the last minute. As tragic as it was, no one was hurt and all the pets made it out OK. They have other family in town to stay with until the house can be repaired.
I hope everyone else had a much better holiday celebration. Everyone have a safe and happy New Year. Our prayers are with you all.
There will always be a disconnect as long as people are people, because people are corrupt.
the Republican battlecry
I think it's the people that always provide a connect. It's not perfect, sure, but a lot of people are not corrupt. You're excuse is to validate corruption.
Actually, if you think about it, excusing sin seems to be some of what the Bible is about.
but name for me one politician that isn't corrupt.
okay...we get the point...you accept that your politicians are corrupt. You don't need to keep re-stating it.
it's o.k as long as you get away with it and if you do get caught, blame the law for simply being law.
I've heard this stated... and not just here, Repubs keep saying that politicians are just corrupt so it's okay that they are corrupt (as long as they aren't trying to get a blow-job)
I've heard this stated... and not just here, Repubs keep saying that politicians are just corrupt so it's okay that they are corrupt (as long as they aren't trying to get a blow-job)
Still hung up on billy bob ? Sheesh.
No it's actaully being honest enough to admit that there is probably corruption on your side of the aisle as well insted of being dishonest about it and only accusing the other side. Nobody here I believe condones it. And it shouldn't be overlooked when found regardless of who is doing it.
Tell me Jethro... Which benefits should be increased for the bravery and service of our nation's Veterans?
I'll be honest with you, fold, I don't know and I don't care.
Lott's tribute to Thurmond is easily defended on principled constitutional grounds. However, to speak against the neoconservative Republican and liberal Democrat ideal of a powerful central government is as impermissible as to utter words deemed to offend the legally privileged.
Some people defend Lott.
Others condemn him.
The reason why, I believe, boils down to which end of the lynchers' rope one's people have historically been on.
The end that gets hastily thrown over a tree limb, or the end from which a hapless soul hangs, for the "crime" of race or ethnicity.
In an infamous photograph taken when three innocent Black circus workers were lynched from a lamp post in Duluth in 1920, included in the crowd is a fellow my family knew well.
Someone who would later become a very prominent businessman.
He was Finnish-American.
Apparently he'd forgotten (I can't belive he never knew about) the anti-Finnish discrimination that was savagely prominent on the
Mesaba Range in the early 20th century.
Manifested, among many other terrible ways, in signs on boarding houses and bars, saying "No Finns or Dogs Allowed!"
Maybe he wasn't aware that, two years earlier, a Finnish IWW member was lynched in Duluth for his anti-war activity.
But he should have known, and he definitely ought to have never been a part of that grinning mob.
I think of these things as the controversy surrounding Trent Lott continues to swirl.
I think, too, of the powerfully poignant, heart-wrenching scenes from the film Snow Falling on Cedars, as Japanese-Americans are herded
onto trucks taking them to concentration camps during World War II.
I vividly recall their bewilderment, and fear.
I'm reminded, too, of Bloody Selma, and the violent police attack
gratuitously unleashed on peaceful civil rights marchers.
I understand John Lewis is willing to forgive Lott.
Being a true hero of the struggle for American racial justice (still
obviously far from entirely won), I respect his choice. After all, he walked the walked, talked the talk, and languished in cracker jails. Far be it for me to criticize him for having a greater capacity for forgiveness than I personally possess, in all my frailty.
But I won't compromise on this matter, or accept that it was all a joke, or that Lott was somehow referring to other aspects of Thurmond's wholesale backwardness -- but NOT his well-known and nefarious devotion to segregation.
As I said in a previous post, this is 2002, not 1952.
If we don't put our foot down on this destructive shamefulness now, when will we?
Thanks to one man's incredible insensitivity, we've been presented with a watershed moment.
It would be foolish to believe racism can now be forever, completely extirpated from our midst.
But we can strike such a strong, determined blow against it that others will think twice about articulating racist remarks.
Every hurtful comment not delivered is a small victory in itself, and their absence, in quantity, lays a brighter basis for better tomorrows.
As JT asked, Rahkonen, what was the racist remark that Lott made?
jethro:
I'll use one of your techniques, at the risk of being as crude as you.
"What was the racist remark that Lott made? "
What don't you (and JT) understand that Republicans, Democrats, and people black and white seem to understand completely in both context and meaning?
If neither of you can identify it, I think you two are he ones with the problem.
What don't you (and JT) understand that Republicans, Democrats, and people black and white seem to understand completely in both context and meaning?
Fiddle faddle
The Republican's are only doing this because whether Lott is guilty or not, they know the Democrats are going to make sure he's an ineffective leader.
So they're saying: We don't care about the racial fallout, because African Amercans don't vote Republican anyway.
This is a grand opportunity to get rid of someone who couldn't come through when we needed to grab power from Clinton and has compromised too much with Democrats in the Senate?
What don't you (and JT) understand that Republicans, Democrats, and people black and white seem to understand completely in both context and meaning?
I think we all understand the same thing. We understand that democrats are using it as a political tool knowing full well what Lott said was made at a birthday party for an old man and it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. And in fact the statement was made without any thought at all. I think we all understand that certain members of the Republican party are using it to change the party hierarchy in the Senate, something they couldn't do before. I think we all understand that some conservative commentators want Lott out so that the party doesn't have to heed more minority cries for more handouts. The fact is they don't want to deal with the underlying issues and want them to go away. I think we all understand that the whole thing has been blown out of proportion although only a few will admit it. I think we all understand that if Mississippi doesn't want Lott to represent them then the citizens of Mississippi should decide that.
So they're saying: We don't care about the racial fallout, because African Amercans don't vote Republican anyway.
This is a grand opportunity to get rid of someone who couldn't come through when we needed to grab power from Clinton and has compromised too much with Democrats in the Senate?
Yes. I think most people know that what the Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's are asking for has nothing to do with discrimnation.
You might be conservaphobic if:
1. You've never really listened to Rush Limbaugh because you're already sure that you disagree with practically everything he's ever said.
2. You refer to liberal Catholics, Protestants and Jews as "people of faith" but conservative Catholics, Protestants and Jews as the "religious right" or "radical religious right". (Maybe you have a thing for alliteration too.)
3. You think all white Republicans are racists and all black Republicans are sellouts.
4. You are a champion of first amendment rights except in public school classrooms and in front of abortion clinics.
5. You're glad you're not a Republican because after all, they want to starve school children and senior citizens.
6. You actually think that "liberal" and "progressive" are synonymous.
7. In your opinion, a government donation to the poor is somehow more effective than yours would be.
8. You only listen to and respect the views of "open-minded" people who think like you do.
9. You blame society's problems on "religious fanatics" and "corporate greed", never on the irresponsible behavior of individuals.
I blame that listing of simplistic silliness on the irresponsible behavior of the individual who authored it.
Dennis Rahkonen: conservaphobic!
Maybe so.
But nine shots in the belly will cure it.
I'll leave you to decide whether those nine are something the doctor gives you, or the bartender.
what kinda phobic is this gent??
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/exposing_satans_snares.html
Dennis Rahkonen - (PFID:13d34f)
Your previous post, in a silly way, is way too simplistic. I think you have possibly been irresponsible in the posting of your previous post.
Brown Minnesota Senator
Satveer Chaudhary is the second Indian American to be elected to a state Senate in the United States.
bet none of you guys can even pronounce this chap’s name.
There has been blatant discrimination against people of South Asian origin since September 11, 2001, irrespective of whether they are Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. It is important now, more then ever, that Indians no matter where they , stand up, be counted and demand their seat at the political table.
bet none of you guys can even pronounce this chap’s name.
It's no worse than my birth name.
I remember Satveer holding a press conference right after the 9/11 attacks.
Don't know much about him but he seems like an ok guy.
I have listened to him extensively and found a lot of what he says to be flat out wrong (a nice way of saying "lies") and devisive in many of the ways this very list tries to paint liberals with. I mean, a full grown man calling a 13 year old girl a "dog" on TV is not my idea of intelligent or fair.
I refer to "liberal Catholics" as "confused", since the Catholic organization itself is a conservative operation.
I think that all white Republicans that aren't racist are hypocrites for belonging to a party that allows known racist to have power within that organization. Black Republicans have no excuse for associating with people who support known racists.
The first amendment gives no right to force children to say things, much less to pray. As a matter of fact, I fail to understand why ANYONE would want the government, regardless of party, to dictate what kind of religion be mandated in schools. The lie that your statement here is implying is that children can't pray in schools. Any good liberal will tell you that is bullshit. Kids can say whatever they like...however, government paid teachers cannot tell them to pray. As for abortion clinics, conservatives have been known to harrass and even shoot people at those clinics. People have a right to be protected from violence. Also, free speech does not allow you to FORCE your speech on me, which is what happens in front of those clinics.
It was the Republican administration who wanted to define ketchup as a vegetable for our school kids. The current Republican president wants to have Social Security made private so it can be invested in things like the stock market...have you seen what has happened to a LOT of people's 401Ks lately. If the same thing was allowed to happen to Social Security, a lot of elderly would indeed starve. It's not so much that they want people to starve, it's just that their policies tend to not care if they do.
no I don't.
when any resource is collectively pooled, it does indeed have more potential to be effective.
I listen to people like you...but in reference to "respect", say something that deserves respect and you will get it.
"corporate greed" (i.e. Enron..etc) IS "the irresponsible behavior of individuals". Am I supposed to respect the fact that you are trying to say different?
well...it wouldn't be the first time someone did.
I just thought that list of crap shouldn't go unchallenged.
this statement reveals something very important in the way a conservative thinks...
A government donation ISmy donation.
We ARE the government.
The Government IS us.
A donation from the government ISa donation from me.
Conservatives are fond of making the government into the enemy...self-hatred doesn't look good on anyone.
A government donation IS my donation.
And this statement reveals something very important in the way a Liberal thinks.
Only in the Liberal mind is forced taxation considered a donation.
::slams head on desk::
Naw BF, you know I've got the thickest skull around.
:-)
I believe it was CSC who referred to "government donation", I was mearly referencing what was said.
Is CSC a liberal?
or are you saying his entire premise is false?
technically, taxes are voluntary
I'm not a DEM, I'm a liberal...big difference
I believe it was CSC who referred to "government donation", I was mearly referencing what was said.
CSC was being sarcastic.
technically, taxes are voluntary
Try not paying your taxes for a few years and let me know how that works out for ya.
:-)
so was I.
but my point remains...Republicans are fond of implying that the Government is something removed from the people.
people have been known to not pay them.
me? I don't mind paying for the services that my government provides me...providing it is representing me. My country was in part founded on not paying taxes to a government that we weren't a part of.
besides...by allowing politicians who allow them to be mandatory to be in office, we indeed are voluntarily saying that we should be forced to be taxed.
Technically, everything the government does we let it do voluntarily as a group. As long as we can change it and do not do so, we are voluntarily allowing it.
Than you don't see this is further proof that conservatives don't see the people as the government.
It boils down to the large difference in opinion between Liberals and Conservatives on how to solve this nations problems.
Contrary to popular belief, Conservatives don't mind taxes.
I guess it's a matter to what extent and what they're used for.
Technically, everything the government does we let it do voluntarily as a group. As long as we can change it and do not do so, we are voluntarily allowing it.
Technically you're right. I'm glad the Republican's finally have power. I just hope they don't screw it up.
"Contrary to popular belief, Conservatives don't mind taxes."
Yeah!!! LOL!
You cannot say that.
Everyone minds paying taxes.
Everyone minds paying taxes.
Yes, I can say that.
Of course there's limits, but I don't mind paying taxes if they are used responsibly.
Yeah, sure!! LOL!
so, you sent your $300 back in?
so, you sent your $300 back in?
No, but at the time I said it was a bad idea, that we'd be paying for it later, and that they should just keep it for a rainy day.
not very "conservative" (i.e. Republican) of you.
It was a Republican idea, wasn't it?
still the language reveals the disconnect between the people and the government..."we'd" pay for it, but "they" should have kept it.
the fact is, we took it from us to give it to us.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying my taxes shouldn't be lower.
There's no reason I shouldn't get $300.
Trouble is, I knew the government was going to keep on spending.
btw: It's naive to think you or I have much power in government. There will always be a disconnect as long as people are people, because people are corrupt.
but my point remains...Republicans are fond of implying that the Government is something removed from the people.
It is.
I believe that was Sen. Leiberman's(sp) idea, was it not?
Crabgrass,
Welcome to this corner of the P.F I think we've talked before if I remember correctly but welcome. It's nice to talk to someone of a differing opinion who can debate or discuss in a reasonalble fashion.
We will probably disagree on many things but glad you stopped by.
I would take issue with most things in post #
crabgrass 12/30/02 5:53am
There are racists in almost any organization. Those same people who you call hypocrites are also the ones who wanted to see Lott get the ax and made it happen. Were some motivated by political reasons ? No doubt. There are D's that are racists as well, are all those that support or not call for thier ouster hypocrites as well ? Black or white it's up to the individual to decide.
And that fringe element is just as wrong as the fringe from the left that trash buildings or cities or endanger lives to further their cause as well. So if you want to lump all conservatives into that group the same can be done with liberals as well but we both know that neither is correct nor a fair generalization of a group.
It's all about choice. You wouldn't be forced to do so. I'll take the return on an average of 45 years of work in the stock market any day over the return on S.S. And yes, you'd still do much better than S.S.
Oh yea and if you die 2 days after hitting 62&1/2 then your benefit to your family is quite reduced isn't it.
But you'd rather force people to stay in a broken system instead of giving them freedom to do so. Talk about anti choice. Ironic that people that claim to be pro-choice over someones body have no problem in giving someone no choice when it comes to choosing to opt in or out. And as far as your assertion that elderly would starve, the same thing was said of welfare reform.
Not at all, Government is there to serve the people Not, the other way around. When govt. becomes so powerful and intrusive it then has the reverse effect. Libertarians have a view of almost a limited government. Contrary to some people's assumptions and rash generalizations, a majority of conservatives disagree with that to an extent. The contention is that the government and therefore the level of taxation that goes along with it can become onerous and counterproductive to a free society.
"a government donation to the poor is somehow more effective than yours would be. "
Right, and you're also forcing other people to donate. Although I would disagree that it's a donation. There are many areas of the safety net that could be met through charity and not forced charity. BTW I need 50.00, so please mail it to me because I need it.
Your statement is very telling of a liberal's thought process. There's a problem or need in society ? We'll just create another govt. program for that, no problem. It's the easy solution and requires little of the person calling for action. They merely have to say that they feel something should be done and demand everyone participate. How noble.
Does it mean that there aren't areas or a safety net that should be there? Of course. It merely comes down to what level and how onerous and counterproductive it becomes and that's where the debate is. It's too easy to just say that conservatives want people to starve or that their policies promote that or that they don't care. It's way too easy.
Hi Crabby! No, I'm not a Republican. I like the Independence party flag myself. Too bad we can't get someone other than disgruntled Democrats to run for office in our party. I'm actually kind of shocked that my "you might be a conservaphobic" piece was creating such a stir. It was meant for a good chuckle. Glad you could make it down to this neck of the woods. I am always up for spirited debade regardless of where you stand.
I hope everyone had a wonderful holiday season. Everything was pretty upbeat here with the exception of one family in town that lost their home to fire 4 days before Christmas. We gave their 3 kids presents and gave the family some money to help them through the holidays. It's definately a rough time for them but I know there were quite a few of us that helped out at the last minute. As tragic as it was, no one was hurt and all the pets made it out OK. They have other family in town to stay with until the house can be repaired.
I hope everyone else had a much better holiday celebration. Everyone have a safe and happy New Year. Our prayers are with you all.
the Republican battlecry
I think it's the people that always provide a connect. It's not perfect, sure, but a lot of people are not corrupt. You're excuse is to validate corruption.
Actually, if you think about it, excusing sin seems to be some of what the Bible is about.
...but a lot of people are not corrupt.
Everyone in politics is corrupt to some extent. Republicans don't hold a monopoly on corruption.
I can't do anything about him sending you messages but I blocked his newest username from the PPWC.
I suggest you don't respond to his BS. Once I quit responding, he stopped doing it.
the Republican battlecry re-stated
"Everyone in politics is corrupt to some extent."
As opposed to the left's mantra which is, it's o.k as long as you get away with it and if you do get caught, blame the law for simply being law.
the Republican battlecry re-stated
Fiddle Faddle
I guess it depends on what you label as corrupt, but name for me one politician that isn't corrupt.
There's no one in politics that doesn't owe someone something for getting them in office.
That's corrupt.
okay...we get the point...you accept that your politicians are corrupt. You don't need to keep re-stating it.
I've heard this stated... and not just here, Repubs keep saying that politicians are just corrupt so it's okay that they are corrupt (as long as they aren't trying to get a blow-job)
I knew you couldn't name even one.
I hate to break it to you crabgrass but YOUR politicians are just as corrupt as mine.
Still hung up on billy bob ? Sheesh.
No it's actaully being honest enough to admit that there is probably corruption on your side of the aisle as well insted of being dishonest about it and only accusing the other side. Nobody here I believe condones it. And it shouldn't be overlooked when found regardless of who is doing it.