|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 31, 2015 17:18:02 GMT -5
Why is it that the Dems seem to fall for tricks like that, it proves your statement, too dumb to vote! The Pubs have a lot of dummies in their party, too. Think flyover state poor, who are somehow Republicans despite the fact their self-interest should put them squarely in the Democratic camp. The Dems, as far as I can tell, have refrained from attempting to disenfranchise them by trickery. The only people who's self-interest puts them in the Democrat camp are the identity politics fanatics, watermelons (green on the outside and red on the inside) and people who love abortion so much that they support unquestioned, taxpayer-funded, abortion on demand for underage illegal immigrants. Everyone else is a natural Republican.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 31, 2015 17:49:56 GMT -5
The Pubs have a lot of dummies in their party, too. Think flyover state poor, who are somehow Republicans despite the fact their self-interest should put them squarely in the Democratic camp. The Dems, as far as I can tell, have refrained from attempting to disenfranchise them by trickery. The only people who's self-interest puts them in the Democrat camp are the identity politics fanatics, watermelons (green on the outside and red on the inside) and people who love abortion so much that they support unquestioned, taxpayer-funded, abortion on demand for underage illegal immigrants. Everyone else is a natural Republican. ANY person who is really against abortion... is against abortion without regard to who will pay for it or who is getting one... those things are political... abortion itself is not a political issue... it is a moral issue... Hypocrites, you are... Personally, I believe abortion is wrong no matter who gets one... or who has to pay for it...
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Aug 1, 2015 7:40:21 GMT -5
The Pubs have a lot of dummies in their party, too. Think flyover state poor, who are somehow Republicans despite the fact their self-interest should put them squarely in the Democratic camp. The Dems, as far as I can tell, have refrained from attempting to disenfranchise them by trickery. The only people who's self-interest puts them in the Democrat camp are the identity politics fanatics, watermelons (green on the outside and red on the inside) and people who love abortion so much that they support unquestioned, taxpayer-funded, abortion on demand for underage illegal immigrants. Everyone else is a natural Republican. People thrown out of work by circumstances beyond their control. People who are disabled. The poor. These are the natural enemies of Republicans. That doesn't necessary mean they're the natural friends of Democrats. It does mean that when one party's policies (and let's fact it, the Republicans are about helping corporations and the wealthy) aren't helping you, the other party is where you look next.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 1, 2015 8:45:20 GMT -5
The only people who's self-interest puts them in the Democrat camp are the identity politics fanatics, watermelons (green on the outside and red on the inside) and people who love abortion so much that they support unquestioned, taxpayer-funded, abortion on demand for underage illegal immigrants. Everyone else is a natural Republican. People thrown out of work by circumstances beyond their control. People who are disabled. The poor. These are the natural enemies of Republicans. That doesn't necessary mean they're the natural friends of Democrats. It does mean that when one party's policies (and let's fact it, the Republicans are about helping corporations and the wealthy) aren't helping you, the other party is where you look next. This is completely wrong, and entirely misunderstands the purpose of government, which is to provide basic protections, not try to wipe out poverty. Wiping out poverty is an impossible task, and one that the government has done very badly. To the point where they've made the situation much, much worse by creating a dependent class.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Aug 1, 2015 11:14:35 GMT -5
People thrown out of work by circumstances beyond their control. People who are disabled. The poor. These are the natural enemies of Republicans. That doesn't necessary mean they're the natural friends of Democrats. It does mean that when one party's policies (and let's fact it, the Republicans are about helping corporations and the wealthy) aren't helping you, the other party is where you look next. This is completely wrong, and entirely misunderstands the purpose of government, which is to provide basic protections, not try to wipe out poverty. Wiping out poverty is an impossible task, and one that the government has done very badly. To the point where they've made the situation much, much worse by creating a dependent class. Can I respectfully add to your position? Poverty has effectively been removed from all the societies that have adopted the requirements established by western philosophers. Some may claim that "government" played No role in that but they would be wrong! Philosophers can only get us so far. It also requires a government that recognizes the existence of Rights, the importance of rule of law, the noble functions of the nation state, and the value of all the social technologies that prosperity must have. Government does get a bad "rap" when after a complex society prospers, citizens must not allow government to coop the benefits the people produced, in order to create and nurture a brand new socialist utopia, and spend down the capital created by generations of savings and diligence and plain Hard work. Just as capital can be corrupted and molded into fascism and other creative systems, so can government be tempted by the success of the fore-bearers.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Aug 1, 2015 11:52:16 GMT -5
People thrown out of work by circumstances beyond their control. People who are disabled. The poor. These are the natural enemies of Republicans. That doesn't necessary mean they're the natural friends of Democrats. It does mean that when one party's policies (and let's fact it, the Republicans are about helping corporations and the wealthy) aren't helping you, the other party is where you look next. This is completely wrong, and entirely misunderstands the purpose of government, which is to provide basic protections, not try to wipe out poverty. Wiping out poverty is an impossible task, and one that the government has done very badly. To the point where they've made the situation much, much worse by creating a dependent class. No political Party has ever tried, nor ever will try, much less succeed, in wiping out poverty... That's like the war on fire ants here in Mississippi... we aren't ever gonna wipe 'em out... we just want to control 'em...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 1, 2015 12:01:07 GMT -5
This is completely wrong, and entirely misunderstands the purpose of government, which is to provide basic protections, not try to wipe out poverty. Wiping out poverty is an impossible task, and one that the government has done very badly. To the point where they've made the situation much, much worse by creating a dependent class. Can I respectfully add to your position? Poverty has effectively been removed from all the societies that have adopted the requirements established by western philosophers. Some may claim that "government" played No role in that but they would be wrong! Philosophers can only get us so far. It also requires a government that recognizes the existence of Rights, the importance of rule of law, the noble functions of the nation state, and the value of all the social technologies that prosperity must have. Government does get a bad "rap" when after a complex society prospers, citizens must not allow government to coop the benefits the people produced, in order to create and nurture a brand new socialist utopia, and spend down the capital created by generations of savings and diligence and plain Hard work. Just as capital can be corrupted and molded into fascism and other creative systems, so can government be tempted by the success of the fore-bearers. Rentedmule: I don't disagree with you. Properly constituted government based on a capitalist, free market economic philosophy, and the rule of law is a necessity to wipe out poverty. However, when it strays into redistributionist economics and class warfare as ours has - particularly under Democrat influence - the resulting falling tide lowers all boats. The GOP has its own problems with this to be sure, but not nearly to the degree the Democrats do.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Aug 1, 2015 13:07:50 GMT -5
This is completely wrong, and entirely misunderstands the purpose of government, which is to provide basic protections, not try to wipe out poverty. Wiping out poverty is an impossible task, and one that the government has done very badly. To the point where they've made the situation much, much worse by creating a dependent class. This rebuttal covers one of the three groups I cited off the top of my head. And it's your opinion. Other enemies of Republicans include those who like safe products, those who like environmentally responsible stewardship, and those who believe the chief purpose of capitalism is not to help the wealthiest pick everyone else's pockets.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Aug 1, 2015 13:12:34 GMT -5
Can I respectfully add to your position? Poverty has effectively been removed from all the societies that have adopted the requirements established by western philosophers. Some may claim that "government" played No role in that but they would be wrong! Philosophers can only get us so far. It also requires a government that recognizes the existence of Rights, the importance of rule of law, the noble functions of the nation state, and the value of all the social technologies that prosperity must have. Government does get a bad "rap" when after a complex society prospers, citizens must not allow government to coop the benefits the people produced, in order to create and nurture a brand new socialist utopia, and spend down the capital created by generations of savings and diligence and plain Hard work. Just as capital can be corrupted and molded into fascism and other creative systems, so can government be tempted by the success of the fore-bearers. Rentedmule: I don't disagree with you. Properly constituted government based on a capitalist, free market economic philosophy, and the rule of law is a necessity to wipe out poverty. However, when it strays into redistributionist economics and class warfare as ours has - particularly under Democrat influence - the resulting falling tide lowers all boats. The GOP has its own problems with this to be sure, but not nearly to the degree the Democrats do. Thank you for your opinion... but the only concern for the poor as far as Republicans go... is how much of their $$$ is it going to take to help them move forward...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 1, 2015 16:02:50 GMT -5
This is completely wrong, and entirely misunderstands the purpose of government, which is to provide basic protections, not try to wipe out poverty. Wiping out poverty is an impossible task, and one that the government has done very badly. To the point where they've made the situation much, much worse by creating a dependent class. This rebuttal covers one of the three groups I cited off the top of my head. And it's your opinion. Other enemies of Republicans include those who like safe products, those who like environmentally responsible stewardship, and those who believe the chief purpose of capitalism is not to help the wealthiest pick everyone else's pockets. No, EY, it's absolutely NOT my opinion. No system has done more to lift people out of poverty than free-market capitalism with minimal government regulation. This is simple economic reality. Any time a government steps in and tries to move away from that model, people end up either impoverished or enslaved. Why? Because every other system operates on anti-economic principles and violates and distorts basic economic laws. Now it's true there is one other group that really are enemies of Republicans: people who are ignorant of economic realities.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Aug 1, 2015 18:03:18 GMT -5
No, EY, it's absolutely NOT my opinion. No system has done more to lift people out of poverty than free-market capitalism with minimal government regulation. Sure. Capitalism is the best wealth generator man has yet devised. It is also pitiless, and the Pubs like it that way.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Aug 1, 2015 20:43:21 GMT -5
Way to shoot the messenger, EY. Do you really believe the counties are properly maintaing their voter rolls? Or do you need to hear it from a liberal organization before you'll believe there's a problem? Some messengers deserve to be shot. I'm sure that there are all kinds of problems. In liberal controlled areas the voter registration is massaged to favor them; in conservative controlled areas the reverse is true. Unlike you and redleg, who appear to believe that there is no corruption on the right, I believe there's plenty to go around. Does it balance out? Who knows? I have read studies suggesting that voter fraud is not the problem conservatives claim it is. If those studies are accurate, it would suggest that the use of dead voters is the Democrat approach to rigging the game, while the disenfranchisement of live ones (through onerous qualification requirements) is the Republican approach. Why shouldn't voter registration be "onerous'? We have Democrats flooding the country with illegal Democrats, and one has to basically prove NAZI purity law regulations to buy a firearm. Why is the right to vote so much more sacrosanct than the right to own a firearm? Or freedom of religion? Both of which Democrats find obnoxious, and so ignore.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Aug 1, 2015 20:58:12 GMT -5
Why shouldn't voter registration be "onerous'? We have Democrats flooding the country with illegal Democrats, and one has to basically prove NAZI purity law regulations to buy a firearm. Why is the right to vote so much more sacrosanct than the right to own a firearm? Or freedom of religion? Both of which Democrats find obnoxious, and so ignore. I suggest you talk to the election authorities about creating some kind of test. I'm sure they're waiting for your suggesting with bated breath.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 1, 2015 23:56:23 GMT -5
No, EY, it's absolutely NOT my opinion. No system has done more to lift people out of poverty than free-market capitalism with minimal government regulation. Sure. Capitalism is the best wealth generator man has yet devised. It is also pitiless, and the Pubs like it that way. Again, simply not true. Capitalism, by it's nature, fosters charity. The alternative is socialism, where the government intervenes and attempts to take care of everyone. That approach gives people an excuse to look the other way, because then poverty is a problem that the government will solve. It's no longer a personal problem that individuals who have the means need to step up and address - government is using their tax money to solve it for them. So the government creates a dependent class and causes them to vote for ever larger government, taking a bigger piece of the economy, impoverishing more people and making them dependent on big government. That's not pitiless, it's a giant depraved maw that Democrats feed human beings into.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Aug 2, 2015 5:26:10 GMT -5
No, EY, it's absolutely NOT my opinion. No system has done more to lift people out of poverty than free-market capitalism with minimal government regulation. Sure. Capitalism is the best wealth generator man has yet devised. It is also pitiless, and the Pubs like it that way.So we get to the crux of the matter! I can understand why you may be so opposed to a democratically and collective means of the distribution of goods and services..... it's not value judgement based? Your issue may not be with the system used to distribute goods and services, but the society that surrounds you. The economic concept is quite flexible and adaptable to every society that brings the requirements to the table. Perhaps you really need to change your society?
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Aug 2, 2015 7:03:46 GMT -5
This is completely wrong, and entirely misunderstands the purpose of government, which is to provide basic protections, not try to wipe out poverty. Wiping out poverty is an impossible task, and one that the government has done very badly. To the point where they've made the situation much, much worse by creating a dependent class. This rebuttal covers one of the three groups I cited off the top of my head. And it's your opinion. Other enemies of Republicans include those who like safe products, those who like environmentally responsible stewardship, and those who believe the chief purpose of capitalism is not to help the wealthiest pick everyone else's pockets. I must say you tar with a broad brush just like those you argue with many times. That mindset travels all across all political persuasions Ive found.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Aug 2, 2015 7:06:48 GMT -5
Sure. Capitalism is the best wealth generator man has yet devised. It is also pitiless, and the Pubs like it that way. Again, simply not true. Capitalism, by it's nature, fosters charity. The alternative is socialism, where the government intervenes and attempts to take care of everyone. That approach gives people an excuse to look the other way, because then poverty is a problem that the government will solve. It's no longer a personal problem that individuals who have the means need to step up and address - government is using their tax money to solve it for them. So the government creates a dependent class and causes them to vote for ever larger government, taking a bigger piece of the economy, impoverishing more people and making them dependent on big government.That's not pitiless, it's a giant depraved maw that Democrats feed human beings into. Its called buying votes with other peoples money something that the Democrat party has become quite good at.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 2, 2015 7:37:59 GMT -5
Again, simply not true. Capitalism, by it's nature, fosters charity. The alternative is socialism, where the government intervenes and attempts to take care of everyone. That approach gives people an excuse to look the other way, because then poverty is a problem that the government will solve. It's no longer a personal problem that individuals who have the means need to step up and address - government is using their tax money to solve it for them. So the government creates a dependent class and causes them to vote for ever larger government, taking a bigger piece of the economy, impoverishing more people and making them dependent on big government.That's not pitiless, it's a giant depraved maw that Democrats feed human beings into. Its called buying votes with other peoples money something that the Democrat party has become quite good at. It goes beyond buying votes. At its core, it's about controlling people. Create the dependency on government support, attach conditions to that support, and tell people if you don't vote for me, the other guy is going to take away that support. That'll make someone do an awful lot of things that are actually not in their best interest. And it feeds on itself, because the government now has to take MORE out of the economy to support its dependents, and that crushes opportunities for people who might otherwise be able to support themselves. And EY thinks Capitalism is pitiless! It's probably reasonable to call it amoral. But the further away you get from it, the more amoral becomes immoral.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Aug 2, 2015 10:23:18 GMT -5
Capitalism, by it's nature, fosters charity. Hahahahahahahahahaha! That might be the funniest thing you've ever posted! Neither pure capitalism, nor pure socialism, is a workable answer. Regardless of what their adherents believe.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 2, 2015 10:40:15 GMT -5
Capitalism, by it's nature, fosters charity. Hahahahahahahahahaha! That might be the funniest thing you've ever posted! Neither pure capitalism, nor pure socialism, is a workable answer. Regardless of what their adherents believe. Which is why you didn't actually attempt to refute my point.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Aug 2, 2015 11:06:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Aug 2, 2015 11:21:53 GMT -5
Which is why you didn't actually attempt to refute my point. Flummery does not require refutation.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 2, 2015 11:45:32 GMT -5
Which is why you didn't actually attempt to refute my point. Flummery does not require refutation. Then why bother responding at all?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Aug 2, 2015 11:58:02 GMT -5
My earlier assessment of the ACRU as a collection of hypocrites was meant to call their motives into question. Usually when conservatives want voter rolls purged what they really mean is "of Democratic voters".
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Aug 2, 2015 12:20:54 GMT -5
My earlier assessment of the ACRU as a collection of hypocrites was meant to call their motives into question. Usually when conservatives want voter rolls purged what they really mean is "of Democratic voters". Look, we all know convicted felons, the dead, and people who've moved away all vote heavily for Democrats. But it doesn't mean they're eligible to vote for anyone.
|
|