The ..2012.... Political thread
-
mustangsally10:
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
You know there's medication for your condition
And I'm sure you are more than familiar with this type of medication...BTW, what other side effects have you been experiencing besides obsessive mania? (Just having fun with ya )
You will say anything to avoid answering a question that is because you don't have an answer. My question was : What is the GOP/republicans for? Who is your national leader/leaders? What is the philosphy of the republican/conservative party? You all are in total disaray with no message. The majority of the american public has caught on to your party of corruption and incompetence. But, I guess some of you will stick around like the poor Japanese soldiers who continue to fight WW2 long after they had been defeated. Sad
I answered it!!!! Didn't know I had to write an indepth essay .....repeat - Federalism, fiscal conservatism. Here it is again...
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
You know there's medication for your condition
And I'm sure you are more than familiar with this type of medication...BTW, what other side effects have you been experiencing besides obsessive mania? (Just having fun with ya ) Personally speaking regarding the Republican Party and what I've heard from the conservative faction, they have been extremely critical of the last 6-7 years. The problem they express is they have lost their conservative values by trying to become more Moderate similar to the DLC faction of the Democratic Party. Personally I believe in many of Republican values. But I don't agree 100% with everything they stand for. I'm with the Dems on gun control. I just don't get the whole hunting thing. And I'm for Gays and Lesbians having the right to marry. These are two contested issues within the conservative movement that I don't agree with. But I do agree with strong fiscal conservatism and I do consider myself a Federalist. I am excited about the prospect of Michael Steele heading the RNC.
Here I'll take you to my leader
I've been a huge fan of his for along time. And now he is running to head the RNC and I'm really excited about it! And if he is elected I will join the RNC. -
Bill:
deKooningartist:
Bill here in the U.S. I can not think of one high level professional position where the applicant is not required to prove their academic qualifications and previous work experience. Why has he been held to a different standard for the most important job??? With regards to the overall totals from According to Associated Press today with 99% of the vote in, approximately 66 million people voted for Obama and 59 million voted against him. That's approximately an 8 million difference. That's about the size of New Jersey. http://hosted.ap.org/specials/election_night_2008/election_map_basic/index.html 59 million people disagree with you Bill. That's almost 3 times the population of your entire country or just shy of the populaton of the entire UK that have questions regarding Obama and or disagreed with his policy To quote Obama: "That ain't chump change"
quote="Bill"] Why not give him a chance to live up to his promise insteading of dwelling on all this irrelevant nonsense about schoolwork?
I guess Obama thinks differently The hyposcrisy has already begun! http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/13/obama-white-house-questionnaire
Job seekers are being asked to supply copies of all résumés or bios for the last decade - presumably to screen out people inflating their credentials. Applicants are also being asked to hand over all written material - from books and articles to lowly comments on blogposts. They must provide all internet handles, and the URL of professional and personal networking sites. But Obama appears to have set a new standard for intrusiveness as recruiters try to establish a financial, personal and professional paper trail for job applicants, their spouses, and their grown children.
Sort of a double standard don't ya think?
-
Not really. The applications for Obama's job are now closed and the majority of those who made that decision chose him. Your issue is with those who gave him the job.
deKooningartist:
So I guess what you are saying...do as I say but don't do as I have done????
I don't know where on earth you got that from.
deKooningartist:
Australia is a great country and a fun place to visit. I have many friends there. I love the UK and now Oliver has me interested in Spain as well. But it's not my country. So therefore, I keep my political activities centered within my own borders and try to make changes within. Maybe you are doing the same within your own country? If you are not then maybe you should.
Oh, you'd better believe it. It's just that no-one around here takes any notice. And why would they? Most of them are American.
deKooningartist:
I am not saying I am not interested in your countries politics. I just wouldn't get involved. If for example, I felt your country was adversely effecting my country, then I would work within my own country and work with my representatives to address my concerns in this way.
Yeah, well good luck with that. How well has expressing your concerns to your local representatives worked when it's with regard to your own country? American voters can be thankful for places like this that give them the opportunity to understand how their vote may effect those of us in the "free world" who don't get to choose who "leads" it.
deKooningartist:
If I did voice an opinion regarding another countries politics and someone from that country who lives there, makes the sacrifices and pays the taxes disagreed with my opinion, I wouldn't turn around and call them liars and opportunists and crybabies because they disagreed with me.
Evidently you don't mind misconstruing those who disagree with you. It's got nothing to do with whether they agree with me or not. It's to do with hypocrisy. Those who are saying the electoral result is a massive exaggeration of the popular will have had no argument from me. I just find it very curious that they've just worked that out and didn't notice in 2004 or 2000. Do a search of my posts if you don't believe me. I pointed out what a gross exaggeration it was in 2004 and back then everyone said, "Hey, the winner takes it all, man!" To talk now of how close the result was, to me, is hypocritical if they weren't just as bothered by the closeness of the 2004 election. You can't have it both ways.
deKooningartist:
Maybe someone's resume for a professional position may not be relevant in your country, but it is to me and many others...
Now you're just being silly. That's an unworthy comment and you know it. On several levels in fact. It's not whether resumes are relevant in principle, it's the relevance of the resume to the job being applied for. I have every respect for John McCain's service, but spending five years as a POW doesn't qualify one to be president. That was the case being put to the people and the people said, "Sorry, we'd rather have someone with a more modern outlook." You're still pursuing the meme that everyone who voted for Obama did so because he was good looking and they didn't look at his record. The reality is that they DID look at his record as compared to McCain's (both are honourable) and decided that under the current circumstances, they felt that Obama's CV was more relevant to them this time. I think it's pretty arrogant to suggest that so many people didn't care about his fitness for the job just because they came to a different conclusion to you.
deKooningartist:
Obama has a lot to live up too.
Damn right. Now would you rather have someone who reaches for the peak of their potential, or someone who says, "Ah screw it, there's nothing we can do!" I fully expect many to label Obama a failure if he doesn't fulfill 100% of his potential. The sad thing is, they're the same people who said Sarah Palin won the debate because she didn't fall over. The Republicans keep working the law of diminished expectations. The majority decided to aim higher.
-
I must give the right wing credit for coming up with a tactic that I had never thought of. Those of us who dared to question George W Bush's cognitive ability were frequently reminded by his fans that he has an MBA from Harvard. When it came to the question of whether he really earnt that degree, most of us were happy to let the fact that he had bankrupted every business he ever tried to administer speak for itself. I don't remember anyone calling for Bush's assignments to be published. But if that's the way it's going to be, then let's see The Bush Papers! If that's an unfair request, then that tells you all you need to know about Obama's papers. Shepard Smith has the last word on the so-called media support for Obama:
-
deKooningartist:
Here I'll take you to my leader
I've been a huge fan of his for along time. And now he is running to head the RNC and I'm really excited about it! And if he is elected I will join the RNC.Good stuff! No, really! What he is talking about is actual, real conservatism and not the right-wing ideology that has gripped the Republican party more recently. However, I must note the irony of him talking about "the change we need" after six years of Republicans controlling all levels of government. I note that the video was added in May 2007. Without the broader context, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was talking about "the change we need" in the Republican party. Also, I'm all for teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish. But it must be noted that any time Democrats talk of teaching a man to fish, they are accused of socialism by Republicans who would rather sell him an overpriced book about fishing. Having said all that though, based on the little I've seen, he certainly represents the change the Republican party needs. For that matter, so did John McCain until the party machine blew it for him. Twice.
-
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
deKooningartist:
Someone's race, sex or age does not dictate their common sense with regards to intelligence. Political Charisma, Political Poetry, Ivy League Intelligence - that's great. That makes anyone with those qualities an effective speaker- star like qualities. These are a plus. The problem with some of us that could not vote for him was there was no history that proved that what he pointificated infront of an audience, he actually could follow through with. That was one of my main problems with him. To me he felt 'manufactured' by the Democratic Party. Within the Democratic Party there are some great people there with good records but unfortunately for the Liberals they come from the DLC. And for me what is an immediate alarm bell, is all the promises he made being erased from his website. That should send a signal to anyone
You're saying that the democratic party decided to 'manufacture' a black candidate most had not heard of, with the middle name of Hussen because he would be the package deal that everyone really wanted. That is one of the most hilarious things I have ever read
Then tell me why would they not release any of his school records? He claims to be smart. People around him are always telling us he is. But yet we have no records of his claims? The press and his campaign kept pushing on his high intelligence but yet we can't confirm any of it. Yes he reads a great speech written by others, but can he write one himself??? Now McCain released his records both medical, school and military service. Even 1.200 pages of medical. Obama submitted a one page letter from his Doctor We have barely a voting record. Mostly he has voted present. The few times he did make a decision was to vote yes to close the session. That's what I'm talking about being manufactured.
Do you live in a cave? The media has been all over Obamas record at Harvard Law. CNN for one compiled a whole 2 hour program on Obama and one on McCain before the election. Obamas intellect, judgement and people skills stood out at Harvard Law. They interviewed Allan Dersovitz a nationally recognized law professor who said that Obama stood out as the most gifted scholar he has ever seen in his career. I personally am famialiar with Dersovitz reputation and that is high praise indeed. The program also spent some time on the fact that he was elected editor of The Harvard Law Review. the first AA to do so. The career decisions he made after law school showed a real ability for him to make independent decisions and to do what he felt was best to utilize his talents. There was so much information out there. It's really scarey that so many people don't know how to find information. If I had wanted more info on McCain I would have made sure it got it. No information was withheld some people just don't know where to find it. People in a.democracy have a responsibility to be informed. Elections have consequences and bush was selected by mainly low info voters. This time there were enough informed voters who understood the stakes involved and made the right decision. But I'm sure you will still go around saying that no one knows anything about Obama because thats who you are
-
Bill:
deKooningartist:
Here I'll take you to my leader
I've been a huge fan of his for along time. And now he is running to head the RNC and I'm really excited about it! And if he is elected I will join the RNC.Good stuff! No, really! What he is talking about is actual, real conservatism and not the right-wing ideology that has gripped the Republican party more recently. However, I must note the irony of him talking about "the change we need" after six years of Republicans controlling all levels of government. I note that the video was added in May 2007. Without the broader context, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was talking about "the change we need" in the Republican party. Also, I'm all for teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish. But it must be noted that any time Democrats talk of teaching a man to fish, they are accused of socialism by Republicans who would rather sell him an overpriced book about fishing. Having said all that though, based on the little I've seen, he certainly represents the change the Republican party needs. For that matter, so did John McCain until the party machine blew it for him. Twice.
Well at least you might understand more about where I am coming from. I have been following Michael Steele for many years and truly admire his qualities. The difference between Conservatism and Liberalism on the "fish issue" is a difference in ideology. Democratic congresses have spent mass amounts of money towards social welfare programs in the past with no significant positive change. Democratic Liberals tend to give money to those in need as opposed to the Conservative idea of finding out why those struggling are having a hard time and to implement programs to help them help themselves. Example: Obama wants to give childcare credits for those struggling. I have no problem with that, but I ask why would a single mother can not pay for her own childcare? Yes the amount of money she will save will help her but not make a significant difference for someone in that dire of a situation. And why? Probably because she is under qualified for a better job and therefore a better life all around. So a Conservative would approach it this way - we will extend to her free childcare at tax payers expense if she agrees to also improve her income status by improving her jobs skills by participating in one of the many free programs the government offers. That way she can not only afford her own childcare, healthcare and provide a better life for herself and her child. It's more complicated than this of course. I am not a great writer. It's not one of my talents by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe someone else here can express the difference to you better than I. With regards to spending, the last two years of the Democratic controlled congress has increased dramatically. If you go to this link, you will see a graph and explaination. It stats come from the U.S. Treasury. http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/C1029A24-C908-4372-B4A2-19C0155AC5CB/ The only reason it isn't higher is because of Bush's veto power. It will be interesting to see how Obama handles this congress.
-
I've always understood where you're coming from. It's just that I don't understand why you continue to support a party that has sold out on so many of your principles. If you're campaigning for a return to those principles, then good for you. I have no issue with conservatism and never have. My issue has been with so-called conservatives who talked a lot about small government and personal responsibility and then did the complete opposite. For my opposition to that behaviour, I get called a liberal. Go figure. But the conservative pundits are right about one thing. America is a centre-right country which is why they elected a centre-right candidate. By any other country's standards, Obama is very conservative. He's not a right-wing ideologue, but he is certainly not liberal.
-
Bill:
I've always understood where you're coming from. It's just that I don't understand why you continue to support a party that has sold out on so many of your principles. If you're campaigning for a return to those principles, then good for you. I have no issue with conservatism and never have. My issue has been with so-called conservatives who talked a lot about small government and personal responsibility and then did the complete opposite. For my opposition to that behaviour, I get called a liberal. Go figure. But the conservative pundits are right about one thing. America is a centre-right country which is why they elected a centre-right candidate. By any other country's standards, Obama is very conservative. He's not a right-wing ideologue, but he is certainly not liberal.
I don't know how many times I have stated that I am not part of either party. I am a conservative. Obama towards the end of his campaign very and I may add, brilliantly convinced the voters he was center right. But those of us that have been embracing the ideals of conservatism were not fooled. The example I gave about the childcare credit Obama will implement is NOT an example of conservatism-that is liberalism. And that's only one example
-
SurSteven:
loose 20% liberal 20% democratic 20% republican 20% conservative 20% What are your basic philosophical inclination ratios and why?
5 Dimensions +
-
That's a blast from my past
-
deKooningartist:
Bill:
deKooningartist:
Here I'll take you to my leader
I've been a huge fan of his for along time. And now he is running to head the RNC and I'm really excited about it! And if he is elected I will join the RNC.Good stuff! No, really! What he is talking about is actual, real conservatism and not the right-wing ideology that has gripped the Republican party more recently. However, I must note the irony of him talking about "the change we need" after six years of Republicans controlling all levels of government. I note that the video was added in May 2007. Without the broader context, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was talking about "the change we need" in the Republican party. Also, I'm all for teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish. But it must be noted that any time Democrats talk of teaching a man to fish, they are accused of socialism by Republicans who would rather sell him an overpriced book about fishing. Having said all that though, based on the little I've seen, he certainly represents the change the Republican party needs. For that matter, so did John McCain until the party machine blew it for him. Twice.
Well at least you might understand more about where I am coming from. I have been following Michael Steele for many years and truly admire his qualities. The difference between Conservatism and Liberalism on the "fish issue" is a difference in ideology. Democratic congresses have spent mass amounts of money towards social welfare programs in the past with no significant positive change. Democratic Liberals tend to give money to those in need as opposed to the Conservative idea of finding out why those struggling are having a hard time and to implement programs to help them help themselves. Example: Obama wants to give childcare credits for those struggling. I have no problem with that, but I ask why would a single mother can not pay for her own childcare? Yes the amount of money she will save will help her but not make a significant difference for someone in that dire of a situation. And why? Probably because she is under qualified for a better job and therefore a better life all around. So a Conservative would approach it this way - we will extend to her free childcare at tax payers expense if she agrees to also improve her income status by improving her jobs skills by participating in one of the many free programs the government offers. That way she can not only afford her own childcare, healthcare and provide a better life for herself and her child. It's more complicated than this of course. I am not a great writer. It's not one of my talents by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe someone else here can express the difference to you better than I. With regards to spending, the last two years of the Democratic controlled congress has increased dramatically. If you go to this link, you will see a graph and explaination. It stats come from the U.S. Treasury. http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/C1029A24-C908-4372-B4A2-19C0155AC5CB/ The only reason it isn't higher is because of Bush's veto power. It will be interesting to see how Obama handles this congress.
If a party is advocating self reliance it seems to me that they would be most supportive of public education. Yet, the economic model of the republican party which is small government sounds great but starves public education at all levels.. I don't think the economic model of down sized govt. really can work in a country as massive as the US. I advocate smart govt. and that I think is what we will get with Obama. The republicans have also left our infrastructure crumbling and we have no efficient national ground transportation system. Because of the last 30 years of fiscally conservative small govt, nonregulating economic philosophy we find ourselves in this financial mess. The republicans really thought that wall street would regulate itself Time for the dems to clean up the mess left over from the excess of the repub party. You talk about the woman above thats all well and good but the repubs would not support or would starve out the budgets of any program that would benefit the woman. The repub economic model has failed and we are living with the failure now.
-
deKooningartist:
Bill:
I've always understood where you're coming from. It's just that I don't understand why you continue to support a party that has sold out on so many of your principles. If you're campaigning for a return to those principles, then good for you. I have no issue with conservatism and never have. My issue has been with so-called conservatives who talked a lot about small government and personal responsibility and then did the complete opposite. For my opposition to that behaviour, I get called a liberal. Go figure. But the conservative pundits are right about one thing. America is a centre-right country which is why they elected a centre-right candidate. By any other country's standards, Obama is very conservative. He's not a right-wing ideologue, but he is certainly not liberal.
I don't know how many times I have stated that I am not part of either party. I am a conservative. Obama towards the end of his campaign very and I may add, brilliantly convinced the voters he was center right. But those of us that have been embracing the ideals of conservatism were not fooled. The example I gave about the childcare credit Obama will implement is NOT an example of conservatism-that is liberalism. And that's only one example
Exactly right, conservatives would not be concerned about the woman and her struggle or the child for that matter.
-
mustangsally10:
deKooningartist:
Bill:
I've always understood where you're coming from. It's just that I don't understand why you continue to support a party that has sold out on so many of your principles. If you're campaigning for a return to those principles, then good for you. I have no issue with conservatism and never have. My issue has been with so-called conservatives who talked a lot about small government and personal responsibility and then did the complete opposite. For my opposition to that behaviour, I get called a liberal. Go figure. But the conservative pundits are right about one thing. America is a centre-right country which is why they elected a centre-right candidate. By any other country's standards, Obama is very conservative. He's not a right-wing ideologue, but he is certainly not liberal.
I don't know how many times I have stated that I am not part of either party. I am a conservative. Obama towards the end of his campaign very and I may add, brilliantly convinced the voters he was center right. But those of us that have been embracing the ideals of conservatism were not fooled. The example I gave about the childcare credit Obama will implement is NOT an example of conservatism-that is liberalism. And that's only one example
Exactly right, conservatives would not be concerned about the woman and her struggle or the child for that matter.
Eh Gawds... so dramatic! And that includes the your previous post : Here we go again FYI... http://talkingpoints.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/conservative-vs-liberal-charity-donations/ CONSERVATIVE VS. LIBERAL - WHO IS MORE CHARITABLE???
A recently published book outlines the difference between Conservative and Liberals who donate to Charity ? that?s the subject of today?s Talking Points memo. So what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30% more to charity than liberal Americans? A new book called ?Who Really Cares? by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks is not going to please the Howard Dean crowd. The book states flat-out that religious Americans who vote Republican are far more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives. The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about ?nurturing? people who need help. The ?tax the rich? crew can?t yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money. That may be unfair, but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is ?income redistribution;? that is, big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well-off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed ?economic justice,? things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security. But a funny thing happened on the way to liberalism. Americans who believe in ?income redistribution? give 75% less to charity than Americans who do not, according to Dr. Brooks. That is a stunning differential. I believe this is a religious thing. Liberals believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and that vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it?s all about you, then you are thinking about you, not about poor Dave down the street. But devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in scripture. Jesus was a huge ?help your neighbor? guy. For Christians, it is all about Dave down the street, not the latest material possession. The statistics say that religious Americans give four times as much money to charity each year than secular people, and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here?s another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation?s blood supply would rise 45%. So in this season of giving, Christmas, a word some liberals don?t like to say, it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portrays conservatives as mean, sexist, racist, bigoted homophobes who are cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden. But, as the tax returns of multi-millionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The Vice President gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little. So the next time you hear a big government liberal bloviate about helping the poor, please trot out the statistics mentioned Dr. Brooks book. And then tell that person that in America today, giving money to charity seems to be the right thing. What?s left is ? well, liberalism. And that?s the memo. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
deKooningartist:
Bill:
I've always understood where you're coming from. It's just that I don't understand why you continue to support a party that has sold out on so many of your principles. If you're campaigning for a return to those principles, then good for you. I have no issue with conservatism and never have. My issue has been with so-called conservatives who talked a lot about small government and personal responsibility and then did the complete opposite. For my opposition to that behaviour, I get called a liberal. Go figure. But the conservative pundits are right about one thing. America is a centre-right country which is why they elected a centre-right candidate. By any other country's standards, Obama is very conservative. He's not a right-wing ideologue, but he is certainly not liberal.
I don't know how many times I have stated that I am not part of either party. I am a conservative. Obama towards the end of his campaign very and I may add, brilliantly convinced the voters he was center right. But those of us that have been embracing the ideals of conservatism were not fooled. The example I gave about the childcare credit Obama will implement is NOT an example of conservatism-that is liberalism. And that's only one example
Exactly right, conservatives would not be concerned about the woman and her struggle or the child for that matter.
Eh Gawds... so dramatic! And that includes the your previous post : Here we go again FYI... http://talkingpoints.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/conservative-vs-liberal-charity-donations/ CONSERVATIVE VS. LIBERAL - WHO IS MORE CHARITABLE???
A recently published book outlines the difference between Conservative and Liberals who donate to Charity ? that?s the subject of today?s Talking Points memo. So what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30% more to charity than liberal Americans? A new book called ?Who Really Cares? by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks is not going to please the Howard Dean crowd. The book states flat-out that religious Americans who vote Republican are far more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives. The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about ?nurturing? people who need help. The ?tax the rich? crew can?t yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money. That may be unfair, but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is ?income redistribution;? that is, big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well-off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed ?economic justice,? things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security. But a funny thing happened on the way to liberalism. Americans who believe in ?income redistribution? give 75% less to charity than Americans who do not, according to Dr. Brooks. That is a stunning differential. I believe this is a religious thing. Liberals believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and that vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it?s all about you, then you are thinking about you, not about poor Dave down the street. But devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in scripture. Jesus was a huge ?help your neighbor? guy. For Christians, it is all about Dave down the street, not the latest material possession. The statistics say that religious Americans give four times as much money to charity each year than secular people, and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here?s another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation?s blood supply would rise 45%. So in this season of giving, Christmas, a word some liberals don?t like to say, it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portrays conservatives as mean, sexist, racist, bigoted homophobes who are cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden. But, as the tax returns of multi-millionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The Vice President gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little. So the next time you hear a big government liberal bloviate about helping the poor, please trot out the statistics mentioned Dr. Brooks book. And then tell that person that in America today, giving money to charity seems to be the right thing. What?s left is ? well, liberalism. And that?s the memo. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you know that the woman you used as an example above would not get educational help from charity. You actually used a perfect example for voting democratic. Not only can all families have a better chance for a good education for their children, but no one falls through the cracks. When a country makes sure that all are educated to reach their portential the country prospers. Obama has been communicating that very effectively and using himself as an example. Most could relate to him and that is why he was elected. I'm proud to be a democrat we tend to care more about each other. I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying here its just not you.
-
mustangsally10:
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
deKooningartist:
Bill:
I've always understood where you're coming from. It's just that I don't understand why you continue to support a party that has sold out on so many of your principles. If you're campaigning for a return to those principles, then good for you. I have no issue with conservatism and never have. My issue has been with so-called conservatives who talked a lot about small government and personal responsibility and then did the complete opposite. For my opposition to that behaviour, I get called a liberal. Go figure. But the conservative pundits are right about one thing. America is a centre-right country which is why they elected a centre-right candidate. By any other country's standards, Obama is very conservative. He's not a right-wing ideologue, but he is certainly not liberal.
I don't know how many times I have stated that I am not part of either party. I am a conservative. Obama towards the end of his campaign very and I may add, brilliantly convinced the voters he was center right. But those of us that have been embracing the ideals of conservatism were not fooled. The example I gave about the childcare credit Obama will implement is NOT an example of conservatism-that is liberalism. And that's only one example
Exactly right, conservatives would not be concerned about the woman and her struggle or the child for that matter.
Eh Gawds... so dramatic! And that includes the your previous post : Here we go again FYI... http://talkingpoints.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/conservative-vs-liberal-charity-donations/ CONSERVATIVE VS. LIBERAL - WHO IS MORE CHARITABLE???
A recently published book outlines the difference between Conservative and Liberals who donate to Charity ? that?s the subject of today?s Talking Points memo. So what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30% more to charity than liberal Americans? A new book called ?Who Really Cares? by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks is not going to please the Howard Dean crowd. The book states flat-out that religious Americans who vote Republican are far more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives. The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about ?nurturing? people who need help. The ?tax the rich? crew can?t yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money. That may be unfair, but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is ?income redistribution;? that is, big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well-off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed ?economic justice,? things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security. But a funny thing happened on the way to liberalism. Americans who believe in ?income redistribution? give 75% less to charity than Americans who do not, according to Dr. Brooks. That is a stunning differential. I believe this is a religious thing. Liberals believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and that vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it?s all about you, then you are thinking about you, not about poor Dave down the street. But devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in scripture. Jesus was a huge ?help your neighbor? guy. For Christians, it is all about Dave down the street, not the latest material possession. The statistics say that religious Americans give four times as much money to charity each year than secular people, and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here?s another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation?s blood supply would rise 45%. So in this season of giving, Christmas, a word some liberals don?t like to say, it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portrays conservatives as mean, sexist, racist, bigoted homophobes who are cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden. But, as the tax returns of multi-millionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The Vice President gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little. So the next time you hear a big government liberal bloviate about helping the poor, please trot out the statistics mentioned Dr. Brooks book. And then tell that person that in America today, giving money to charity seems to be the right thing. What?s left is ? well, liberalism. And that?s the memo. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you know that the woman you used as an example above would not get educational help from charity. You actually used a perfect example for voting democratic. Not only can all families have a better chance for a good education for their children, but no one falls through the cracks. When a country makes sure that all are educated to reach their portential the country prospers. Obama has been communicating that very effectively and using himself as an example. Most could relate to him and that is why he was elected. I'm proud to be a democrat we tend to care more about each other. I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying here its just not you.
My goodness you are soooo judgemental Who do you think you are anyway??? For someone who PREACHES tolerance, you are exhibiting the most INTOLERANCE.
If this man's words are against your beliefs and soooo horrible and means that those of us who embrace these concepts are are in your words from this thread: "greedy, hatefilled, and lack compassion towards others" then so be it -
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
deKooningartist:
Bill:
I've always understood where you're coming from. It's just that I don't understand why you continue to support a party that has sold out on so many of your principles. If you're campaigning for a return to those principles, then good for you. I have no issue with conservatism and never have. My issue has been with so-called conservatives who talked a lot about small government and personal responsibility and then did the complete opposite. For my opposition to that behaviour, I get called a liberal. Go figure. But the conservative pundits are right about one thing. America is a centre-right country which is why they elected a centre-right candidate. By any other country's standards, Obama is very conservative. He's not a right-wing ideologue, but he is certainly not liberal.
I don't know how many times I have stated that I am not part of either party. I am a conservative. Obama towards the end of his campaign very and I may add, brilliantly convinced the voters he was center right. But those of us that have been embracing the ideals of conservatism were not fooled. The example I gave about the childcare credit Obama will implement is NOT an example of conservatism-that is liberalism. And that's only one example
Exactly right, conservatives would not be concerned about the woman and her struggle or the child for that matter.
Eh Gawds... so dramatic! And that includes the your previous post : Here we go again FYI... http://talkingpoints.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/conservative-vs-liberal-charity-donations/ CONSERVATIVE VS. LIBERAL - WHO IS MORE CHARITABLE???
A recently published book outlines the difference between Conservative and Liberals who donate to Charity ? that?s the subject of today?s Talking Points memo. So what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30% more to charity than liberal Americans? A new book called ?Who Really Cares? by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks is not going to please the Howard Dean crowd. The book states flat-out that religious Americans who vote Republican are far more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives. The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about ?nurturing? people who need help. The ?tax the rich? crew can?t yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money. That may be unfair, but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is ?income redistribution;? that is, big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well-off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed ?economic justice,? things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security. But a funny thing happened on the way to liberalism. Americans who believe in ?income redistribution? give 75% less to charity than Americans who do not, according to Dr. Brooks. That is a stunning differential. I believe this is a religious thing. Liberals believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and that vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it?s all about you, then you are thinking about you, not about poor Dave down the street. But devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in scripture. Jesus was a huge ?help your neighbor? guy. For Christians, it is all about Dave down the street, not the latest material possession. The statistics say that religious Americans give four times as much money to charity each year than secular people, and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here?s another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation?s blood supply would rise 45%. So in this season of giving, Christmas, a word some liberals don?t like to say, it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portrays conservatives as mean, sexist, racist, bigoted homophobes who are cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden. But, as the tax returns of multi-millionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The Vice President gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little. So the next time you hear a big government liberal bloviate about helping the poor, please trot out the statistics mentioned Dr. Brooks book. And then tell that person that in America today, giving money to charity seems to be the right thing. What?s left is ? well, liberalism. And that?s the memo. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you know that the woman you used as an example above would not get educational help from charity. You actually used a perfect example for voting democratic. Not only can all families have a better chance for a good education for their children, but no one falls through the cracks. When a country makes sure that all are educated to reach their portential the country prospers. Obama has been communicating that very effectively and using himself as an example. Most could relate to him and that is why he was elected. I'm proud to be a democrat we tend to care more about each other. I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying here its just not you.
My goodness you are soooo judgemental Who do you think you are anyway??? For someone who PREACHES tolerance, you are exhibiting the most INTOLERANCE.
If this man's words are against your beliefs and soooo horrible and means that those of us who embrace these concepts are are in your words from this thread: "greedy, hatefilled, and lack compassion towards others" then so be itWhat Steele said was great....the trouble is we have tried those concepts for 30 years and economically they don't work. Well we agree to disagree but I'm happy that a lot more people agree with me and elected Obama
-
Why is this thread even still going? : The election's over and the Republicans lost. Jan. 20, 2009 - Bush's Last Day. Thank God !
-
Scanning this thread makes me wish I was here more often... it's really a good read! Mustangsally, thanks for acknowledging my rant on the auto industry. I'm in Detroit, so I'm surrounded by it. I actually can't escape it... and I'm afraid they're f*cked. I saw this mess coming for 20 years, and I really do wish I was/am wrong! Bill, I personally will not call Obama a failure if he doesn't go 100% I am a huge believer in consumer confidence and expect him to become successful if he almost does nothing. Now don't take me too literally, but I just think people here wanted and needed a boost. I said here, months ago "Winning this election should be a layup for Obama." Meaning there was no way a Republican was going to get elected this time. He has plenty of grace period, and can blame Bush for at least 2 or 3 years. But I think he has good intentions and will hit the ground running, actually exceeding expectations. Long story, short...I back my President. The Daytraders are the ones I'm really worried about! :
-
mustangsally10:
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
deKooningartist:
mustangsally10:
deKooningartist:
Bill:
I've always understood where you're coming from. It's just that I don't understand why you continue to support a party that has sold out on so many of your principles. If you're campaigning for a return to those principles, then good for you. I have no issue with conservatism and never have. My issue has been with so-called conservatives who talked a lot about small government and personal responsibility and then did the complete opposite. For my opposition to that behaviour, I get called a liberal. Go figure. But the conservative pundits are right about one thing. America is a centre-right country which is why they elected a centre-right candidate. By any other country's standards, Obama is very conservative. He's not a right-wing ideologue, but he is certainly not liberal.
I don't know how many times I have stated that I am not part of either party. I am a conservative. Obama towards the end of his campaign very and I may add, brilliantly convinced the voters he was center right. But those of us that have been embracing the ideals of conservatism were not fooled. The example I gave about the childcare credit Obama will implement is NOT an example of conservatism-that is liberalism. And that's only one example
Exactly right, conservatives would not be concerned about the woman and her struggle or the child for that matter.
Eh Gawds... so dramatic! And that includes the your previous post : Here we go again FYI... http://talkingpoints.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/conservative-vs-liberal-charity-donations/ CONSERVATIVE VS. LIBERAL - WHO IS MORE CHARITABLE???
A recently published book outlines the difference between Conservative and Liberals who donate to Charity ? that?s the subject of today?s Talking Points memo. So what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30% more to charity than liberal Americans? A new book called ?Who Really Cares? by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks is not going to please the Howard Dean crowd. The book states flat-out that religious Americans who vote Republican are far more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives. The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about ?nurturing? people who need help. The ?tax the rich? crew can?t yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money. That may be unfair, but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is ?income redistribution;? that is, big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well-off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed ?economic justice,? things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security. But a funny thing happened on the way to liberalism. Americans who believe in ?income redistribution? give 75% less to charity than Americans who do not, according to Dr. Brooks. That is a stunning differential. I believe this is a religious thing. Liberals believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and that vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it?s all about you, then you are thinking about you, not about poor Dave down the street. But devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in scripture. Jesus was a huge ?help your neighbor? guy. For Christians, it is all about Dave down the street, not the latest material possession. The statistics say that religious Americans give four times as much money to charity each year than secular people, and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here?s another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation?s blood supply would rise 45%. So in this season of giving, Christmas, a word some liberals don?t like to say, it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portrays conservatives as mean, sexist, racist, bigoted homophobes who are cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden. But, as the tax returns of multi-millionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The Vice President gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little. So the next time you hear a big government liberal bloviate about helping the poor, please trot out the statistics mentioned Dr. Brooks book. And then tell that person that in America today, giving money to charity seems to be the right thing. What?s left is ? well, liberalism. And that?s the memo. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you know that the woman you used as an example above would not get educational help from charity. You actually used a perfect example for voting democratic. Not only can all families have a better chance for a good education for their children, but no one falls through the cracks. When a country makes sure that all are educated to reach their portential the country prospers. Obama has been communicating that very effectively and using himself as an example. Most could relate to him and that is why he was elected. I'm proud to be a democrat we tend to care more about each other. I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying here its just not you.
My goodness you are soooo judgemental Who do you think you are anyway??? For someone who PREACHES tolerance, you are exhibiting the most INTOLERANCE.
If this man's words are against your beliefs and soooo horrible and means that those of us who embrace these concepts are are in your words from this thread: "greedy, hatefilled, and lack compassion towards others" then so be itWhat Steele said was great....the trouble is we have tried those concepts for 30 years and economically they don't work. Well we agree to disagree but I'm happy that a lot more people agree with me and elected Obama
Ah, that's the Reagan's philosophy