I fear that you have, once more, completely and utterly missed the point, Booners.
Not at all. Point being small, limited government. States rights. Folks allowed to fail if they so choose and, of course, no impediments for those who wish to achieve w/out racial quotas etc. Advancement based on merit, not on entitlement. Responsible for your own health and ease of access to it.
Bottom line - the opposite of your beloved Nanny State
A Deplorable Bitter Clinger
Yeah, trash MediCare.Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Yeah, PATRIOT act, small gov't in action right?Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Trash Medicare is fine by me. I'll never use it anyhow. And as far as the Patriot Act? Don't get me started - I hate the damn thing! You know how hard it is now to get money out of the states depending on where you have it invested??? Have to maintain a US bank account for some dispursments too! Fila da Puta!
I guess the part i have missed in all of this.... Someone answer this for me.
Forget the parties.... I just have a simple question... Although I fear there is no real answer other than greed.
We as citizens are expected to live within our means..... Why can't the government? I live in and pay one of the highest income tax rates in the country... Okay thats fine I do it even though I dont like, its part of life... So uncle spank monkey takes give or take about 25% of what I make in taxes... Uncle Spank monkey says I want to put out new programs so I am gonna raise your taxes.... WTF man.....
We as citizens have restrictions put on us.... '
1. Why shouldnt the Government of the USA have to do the same?
2. what right does spanky have to say I am creating new government jobs (per capita are paid higher than the prevailing wages for said work) so I need more of your money......?
3. There are able bodied people who are out of a job and need un-employment so I need you to cover that to?
4. Government offers cash for clunkers..... Great why do I pay taxes so worthless Spanky and the reset of'em can offer an incentive for people to take back good cars (that are payed for in most cases) and buy new ones so they go back in debt?
Preach We need to get spending under control which BAM spanky has been doing lately only to spend more than Bush/Clinton did in their time..... Damn I love a country where these pieces of garbage can run things.... Guess the American dream is still alive for them, but they are killing it for those of us who really want to elevate ourselves...
I guess its better to be like Ocotmom and able bodied people on welfare let the Government take care of you....
TRICKLE UP POVERTY
^ Agree.
Agree, Boonie. Medicare is not mandated under the Constitution. More unnecessary taxes. The Patriot Act, several provisions of which bamboy recently retained as law, was necessary after 9/11. Now? I think bamboy is using it to check up on anti-libbies.
Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:
_Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
_Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
_Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.
Obama's signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.
The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.
The Associated Press: Obama signs one-year extension of Patriot Act
A nice example, albeit inadvertently, of the central ethos of many conservatives everywhere displayed by Booners there: 'If it doesn't effect me directly I don't care'.Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Funny thing is, they have a tendency to do an abrupt about-face when it does.
So it was necessary up to Jan 19th 2009, but now it's just a bad libbie thing?Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon
I think that since Conservatives claim to be for smaller gubmint and less intrusion they should have been up in arms when it was first implemented, but predictably they weren't.Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon
The fact that you are criticising Obama for extending something that Bush championed would be almost beyond belief if it weren't for the repeated hypocrisy demonstrated.
Personally if I was an American I would be disappointed that Obama has extended it, but sorta pleased that he stripped a few things like the warrantless wiretaps out.
I'm not surprised he kept it because (a) it is hard to think of any politician who willingly gives up power and (b) it would have been politically very dangerous to trash something called the 'Patriot Act', even though it is an odious and dishonest piece of legislation.
bibo ergo sum
If you hear the thunder be happy - the lightening missed.
This time.
Christ, you can almost see the Fox 'News' headlines now:Originally Posted by slackula
- 'Obama Hates Patriots, Birth Cert. Still Not Seen!'
- 'Anti-American Obama Digs up Corpses of Founding Fathers, Sodomises Them'
- 'Leaked Documents Reveal Obama Hates Patriots*!!!!'
*In the NFL
Oh, no! It's the Coffee Party headed by an Obama grunt! 555555555555
'Grassroots Coffee Party' Organizer An Obama Political Operative...NYT Refuses To Update Their Article...UPDATE: CNN Refuses To Mention/Ask About Her Connection To Obama's Campaign
Weasel Zippers: 'Grassroots Coffee Party' Organizer An Obama Political Operative...NYT Refuses To Update Their Article...UPDATE: CNN Refuses To Mention/Ask About Her Connection To Obama's Campaign
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN PROTEST TURNS VIOLENTThis is more violence than all the Tea Party protests put together, despite the Lamestream media fearmongering...
Running out of other people’s money really sucks, doesn’t it...
2,300 TURN OUT to Protest Obama at St. Louis Fundraiser… Top Dems Scatter! (Video)
OVER 2,000 TURNED OUT TONIGHT IN ST. LOUIS TO PROTEST BARACK OBAMA
But, but, top Democrats Scattered!
^ They be angry for just normal hard-working folks. November cannot come soon enough.
^^ Protest towards Obama, the feds, the state, and city - everything and everyone.
As Maudib noted in another thread in US Domestic, Pensions at Risk? thread.
There are small pockets of unrest: CA, Wisonsin, and in St. Louis.
I expect more protests and certain acts as states and municipalities make cuts.
And remember: it's not about November elections. Sure, many incumbents may be booted, but nothing will change the course the states and cities are on.
The budget short-falls are predicted by economics and analysts to worsen over the next 2 years.
............
Hypocrisy?
No surprise. We hate the gove, but if it's for ME, I'll take that government job created by the stimulus.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLBZwxqgYgwI
Tea Party Advocates Who Scorn Socialism Want a Government Job
By Heidi Przybyla
March 26 (Bloomberg) -- Tea Party activists, who are becoming a force in U.S. politics, want the federal government out of their lives except when it comes to creating jobs.
More than 90 percent of Tea Party backers interviewed in a new Bloomberg National Poll say the U.S. is verging more toward socialism than capitalism, the federal government is trying to control too many aspects of private life and more decisions should be made at the state level.
At the same time, 70 percent of those who sympathize with the Tea Party, which organized protests this week against President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, want a federal government that fosters job creation.
They also look to the government to rein in Wall Street, with almost half saying the government should do something about executive bonuses. Supporters are also conflicted over whether private-enterprise elements should be introduced into government programs like Social Security and Medicare.
“The ideas that find nearly universal agreement among Tea Party supporters are rather vague,” says J. Ann Selzer, the pollster who created the survey. “You would think any idea that involves more government action would be anathema, and that is just not the case.”
A message that Comrade Obama is going to be hearing loud and clear...
This is terrorism.
Op-Ed Columnist - Going to Extreme - NYTimes.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Op-Ed Columnist
Going to Extreme
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 25, 2010
...For if you care about America’s future, you can’t be happy as extremists take full control of one of our two great political parties.
Paul Krugman
To be sure, it was enjoyable watching Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican of California, warn that by passing health reform, Democrats “will finally lay the cornerstone of their socialist utopia on the backs of the American people.” Gosh, that sounds uncomfortable. And it’s been a hoot watching Mitt Romney squirm as he tries to distance himself from a plan that, as he knows full well, is nearly identical to the reform he himself pushed through as governor of Massachusetts. His best shot was declaring that enacting reform was an “unconscionable abuse of power,” a “historic usurpation of the legislative process” — presumably because the legislative process isn’t supposed to include things like “votes” in which the majority prevails.
A side observation: one Republican talking point has been that Democrats had no right to pass a bill facing overwhelming public disapproval. As it happens, the Constitution says nothing about opinion polls trumping the right and duty of elected officials to make decisions based on what they perceive as the merits. But in any case, the message from the polls is much more ambiguous than opponents of reform claim: While many Americans disapprove of Obamacare, a significant number do so because they feel that it doesn’t go far enough. And a Gallup poll taken after health reform’s enactment showed the public, by a modest but significant margin, seeming pleased that it passed.
But back to the main theme. What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party’s leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was “Armageddon.” The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee’s chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on “the firing line.” And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight.
All of this goes far beyond politics as usual. Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.
No, to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president. Like President Obama, Bill Clinton faced a G.O.P. that denied his legitimacy — Dick Armey, the second-ranking House Republican (and now a Tea Party leader) referred to him as “your president.” Threats were common: President Clinton, declared Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, “better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.” (Helms later expressed regrets over the remark — but only after a media firestorm.) And once they controlled Congress, Republicans tried to govern as if they held the White House, too, eventually shutting down the federal government in an attempt to bully Mr. Clinton into submission.
Mr. Obama seems to have sincerely believed that he would face a different reception. And he made a real try at bipartisanship, nearly losing his chance at health reform by frittering away months in a vain attempt to get a few Republicans on board. At this point, however, it’s clear that any Democratic president will face total opposition from a Republican Party that is completely dominated by right-wing extremists.
For today’s G.O.P. is, fully and finally, the party of Ronald Reagan — not Reagan the pragmatic politician, who could and did strike deals with Democrats, but Reagan the antigovernment fanatic, who warned that Medicare would destroy American freedom. It’s a party that sees modest efforts to improve Americans’ economic and health security not merely as unwise, but as monstrous. It’s a party in which paranoid fantasies about the other side — Obama is a socialist, Democrats have totalitarian ambitions — are mainstream. And, as a result, it’s a party that fundamentally doesn’t accept anyone else’s right to govern.
In the short run, Republican extremism may be good for Democrats, to the extent that it prompts a voter backlash.
But in the long run, it’s a very bad thing for America.
We need to have two reasonable, rational parties in this country. And right now we don’t.
Profiteering From War and Disease, Corporate Owned "News" Media Deliberately Dis-Informs in Order to Further Its Own Agenda- PROFIT
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)