Members guitarbilly74 Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 where are the {censored}in graphs? It's about time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wayne2 Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 I'd love to vote to give everyone all kinds of free stuff. The problem is in the long run if the United States can't pay interest on its debt, and can't maintain a strong military, then it's game over. American voters won't be controlling their own destiny anymore. High taxes/high entitlements/big government only works for a few decades, then you end up like Greece, with creditors telling you what to do. All Obama's saying is that if we turn rich people upside down and shake hard enough, that enough money will fall out we can all divvy it up and lead better lives. It's a seductive message, but short-sighted. It also ignores the fact that government workers will skim most of what shakes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ***1776*** Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Hey partisan blinder boy... I said forget political labels. Democrats used to be the hardcore conservatives. Republicans used to be the more progressive party. Look at ideology not labels. Im not the one labeling people like you have, and preaching liberalism ideas over conservatives ideas saying that they are 'better ', so whos partison? I have said before there is so much more important {censored} going on in this country than gay marriage and drummed up issues like free contraceptives - are people really talking about this {censored} at the dinner table, water cooler, among friends, i dont think so Much more important {censored} than this trivial or at best 'not as important' stuff, but the media and politicians are playing the 'look over here' game instead of talking about real issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Axe_34 Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Hey partisan blinder boy... I said forget political labels. Democrats used to be the hardcore conservatives. Republicans used to be the more progressive party. Look at ideology not labels. And for that matter, liberals used to not be the progressive entitlement type they have since become either. I think that's where the bigger divide is. People attach themselves with a more liberal ideology not thinking too much about the progressive elements that do the most damage and create the lack of moderation among the democratic party we have today. By the same measures, JFK could have been considered conservative. On the other side of the fence, republicans have their own lack of moderation among their leadership. I think most people are both liberal and conservative. problem comes from having attaching oneself to a particular party. Then even if you want to be moderate or express middle of the road ideology, you can't. Once the D or R is attached, people seem content on reinforcing whatever that party has become (good or bad). Sad that people believe they have to be on one side or another. There are great things conservatives do as much as there are great things liberals can do. It's the more extreme elements that make either party bull{censored} imo. The ideologies of either party seem moderate until the power moves are made, then you see the real indifference and extreme right or left directions being taken. Our govt and system as well as their manipulative tactics have changed us into an us vs them situation. Polarizing many people and brainwashing enough to maintain party loyalty. This way every election only requires a few of those moderates to win. The loyalty base will always be there because people attached to those parties are not willing enough to see how badly they have been manipulated to thinking otherwise.... aka sheep. Just look at how many "close" elections there have been. That rarely if ever happened, and we never had to consider new methods of voting and what not. With us being so polarized, again it only takes those fewer moderate votes to win, so many races are closer than ever because the polarization makes it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kardula Posted September 17, 2012 Members Share Posted September 17, 2012 Democratic Party: 153 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wayne2 Posted September 18, 2012 Members Share Posted September 18, 2012 'Cept he didn't say Democrats and Republicans, he said "liberals." I'm not sure that Abe Lincoln would be a republican by todays standards as he didn't support states rights when it came to slavery and modern Republicans are all about limited gov and the gov not telling them how to run their stuff. If Lincoln didn't believe in states' rights regarding slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation would have included DE, MD, WV, KY, and MO. What he was against was the spread of slavery to territories in the west that didn't want it, like Kansas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kardula Posted September 18, 2012 Members Share Posted September 18, 2012 If Lincoln didn't believe in states' rights regarding slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation would have included DE, MD, WV, KY, and MO. What he was against was the spread of slavery to territories in the west that didn't want it, like Kansas. Guess my understanding of it is wrong. If Lincoln didn't want it expanded into states that didn't want it, shouldn't that have still been a state matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wayne2 Posted September 18, 2012 Members Share Posted September 18, 2012 Guess my understanding of it is wrong. If Lincoln didn't want it expanded into states that didn't want it, shouldn't that have still been a state matter? Kansas wasn't a state yet, didn't have a fully-functioning government and couldn't prevent violence by fanatics on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TheRymanChu Posted September 18, 2012 Members Share Posted September 18, 2012 I'd love to vote to give everyone all kinds of free stuff. The problem is in the long run if the United States can't pay interest on its debt, and can't maintain a strong military, then it's game over. American voters won't be controlling their own destiny anymore. High taxes/high entitlements/big government only works for a few decades, then you end up like Greece, with creditors telling you what to do.All Obama's saying is that if we turn rich people upside down and shake hard enough, that enough money will fall out we can all divvy it up and lead better lives. It's a seductive message, but short-sighted. It also ignores the fact that government workers will skim most of what shakes out. What route was the turnip truck on that you fell off of? Chase it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kardula Posted September 18, 2012 Members Share Posted September 18, 2012 Kansas wasn't a state yet, didn't have a fully-functioning government and couldn't prevent violence by fanatics on both sides. I thought Kansas was admitted to the Union 3 months before the start of the Civil War? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pedaltones Posted September 18, 2012 Members Share Posted September 18, 2012 I'd love to vote to give everyone all kinds of free stuff. The problem is in the long run if the United States can't pay interest on its debt, and can't maintain a strong military, then it's game over. American voters won't be controlling their own destiny anymore. High taxes/high entitlements/big government only works for a few decades, then you end up like Greece, with creditors telling you what to do.All Obama's saying is that if we turn rich people upside down and shake hard enough, that enough money will fall out we can all divvy it up and lead better lives. It's a seductive message, but short-sighted. It also ignores the fact that government workers will skim most of what shakes out. Are you saying this is what caused Greece to be in the position it is in today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.