What is a Conservative?

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#204 Feb 24, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>
Military guys earned their pensions. When I say this I'm speaking for the regular military folk, not generals, however generals earn their money as well.
Oh, we're not talking pensions. His claim was that ACTIVE military were government dependents because they were receiving paychecks for their work.

This shouldn't be news to you, though. This is how Romney got to his 47%. All postal workers, all cops, all firemen, all soldiers - all "takers".
We're not a part of the "Welfare" problem."
Let me air-lift your ass to the desert with a mchine gun first and then give your opinion.
Arguing with the wrong guy. I was the one who said it was bullsh1t to include the military in the 47%.

But what the hell do I know, I'm just a "crazy liberal". I don't really _understand_ how those "takers" in the military abuse the rich by demanding to be paid for their work.
OKAY

Houston, TX

#205 Feb 25, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
And I'm pointing out that the factory workers, coal miners, share croppers were only a step above slaves in that they "technically" had freedom, but were put in situations from which escape was nearly impossible.
Have you not heard the coal mining song about the Company Store?
Seriously? Anyone who works for another is 'just above slavery'.
OKAY

Houston, TX

#206 Feb 25, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, insisting that a 5 yr old child be forced to work a job for food while living in the fattest wealthiest country that has ever existed is "gawd awful".
What exactly do you expect this child to do? Work in a factor? Dig ditches? Repave streets?
<quoted text>
Hold up for a second.
First of all, you are lumping in people on social security, welfare recipients, retired 5 star generals on pensions and Senators as one large group of "dependents".
You can't claim that the woman who works at the DMV is "dependent on the Government" the same way that an out of work single mother is "dependent on the government".
By your OWN admission, your plan would do NOTHING to reduce this number.
If you take all the people on welfare and give them jobs working for the government, then there is ZERO change in the number of people getting paid by the Government.
<quoted text>
Perhaps that's because there is no such thing as a free market, and in 2011 people woke up to the fact that the system we living in is not a "free market" where people can succeed or fail. It's a market in which the wealthy can only succeed and the poor can only fail.
<quoted text>
Any yet NONE of them were in a free market system.
I bet if you asked, a majority of Americans would say they favor a democracy and that we shouldn't change our political system which (for the record) is NOT a democracy.
Polls which ask ignorant people for their opinions are worthless.
<quoted text>
That's not surprising, they are the ones more keenly aware that they don't live in a free market economy.
<quoted text>
Two things here:
#1) 2008 was the economic crash, so obviously more people have go on unemployment etc since the economy crash than directly before it.
#2) Comparing the amount spent without adjusting for inflation is meaningless. That's like saying any given movie this summer is more successful than Star Wars because ticket prices are now $12 whereas they used to be $3.
Find an adjusted for inflation index and compare today with the Great Depression.
<quoted text>
Running out of space to write.
Will address you link in new box.
Why would you even insinuate that I would want a 5yo working?
The welfare numbers were strictly welfare, nothing else.
Yours is pure speculation that polls are only of 'ignorant' people.
Adjusted for inflation is not 'real time' dollars.

Poor can only fail is a fallacy. Understood the odds are against them, but not impossible.

That's why I stated give them a job, get them some training, build their pride working and paying taxes and get them off the dole by working in the private sector.

And remember, even tho they work for the govt, they are still on the dole. For every dollar the Govt pays out, they may get 20% back.

Sadly, the excesses pumped into SSI has been squandered by Congress.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#207 Feb 25, 2013
OKAY wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? Anyone who works for another is 'just above slavery'.
Are you really this unaware of the situation coal miners found themselves in before the reforms?

People would get a job as a coal miner and be moved to the coal mining town. They would be paid a decent wage, however they lived in a house they had to rent from the company, the only store where they could buy food or clothing was also owned by the company.

The prices were outrageously high, so workers almost immediately found themselves in debt to the company.

Hence the song:
"I haul 16 tons and what do I get
Another day older and deeper in debt
St. Peter don't you call me, cuz I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store."

While they "technically" had freedom, they couldn't leave or quit until their debt was paid and the more they worked the worse the debt got.

That's essentially slavery even if its not technically slavery.

And that is the ultimate state of a purely capitalist society. It's why pure capitalism does not work. Without oversight, the rich abuse the poor because they can.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#208 Feb 25, 2013
Head of Tea Party and Rep Chairperson of Billings Montana posts a photo of a "president trap". A watermelon in a box.

... but the "liberals" are just conspiracy nuts to claim there is a deep seated bed of racism behind the GOP positions
Frank from Fayetteville

Four Oaks, NC

#209 Feb 25, 2013
Nuggin, again, for the last time.

--There are racists whom are conservatives

--Conservatism isn't racism

--racism exists amongst all people

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#210 Feb 25, 2013
Frank from Fayetteville wrote:
Nuggin, again, for the last time.
--There are racists whom are conservatives
--Conservatism isn't racism
--racism exists amongst all people
Yes, however these are people in charge of the party being OVERTLY racist in a public forum.

Look, there's inherent racism. There's hush hush racism. All that stuff exists.

But when a LEADER of the Party is tweeting racist stuff or printing out witch doctor Obama posters, the racism is moving from an internal issue to a platform position.

I'm not suggesting that racism can be stopped. I'm pointing out that the GOP's hatred of Obama is based largely on race which explains why they can't agree with him even when he takes positions which are more Conservative than Reagan.

If ANYONE in the Democratic party leadership had tweeted ANYTHING about Romney being a Mormon, it would have been the first, middle and last story on FoxNews every night for ALL of 2012
Frank from Fayetteville

Spring Lake, NC

#211 Feb 26, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, however these are people in charge of the party being OVERTLY racist in a public forum.
Look, there's inherent racism. There's hush hush racism. All that stuff exists.
But when a LEADER of the Party is tweeting racist stuff or printing out witch doctor Obama posters, the racism is moving from an internal issue to a platform position.
I'm not suggesting that racism can be stopped. I'm pointing out that the GOP's hatred of Obama is based largely on race which explains why they can't agree with him even when he takes positions which are more Conservative than Reagan.
If ANYONE in the Democratic party leadership had tweeted ANYTHING about Romney being a Mormon, it would have been the first, middle and last story on FoxNews every night for ALL of 2012
No, you're logic, like that of many liberals, is something along these lines:

Some GOP members are racists = therefore the GOP is racist = therefore conservatism is racism = therefore people of color should embrace the left and our wacky idealogy.

And while some may oppose Obama because he's black, that's obvious, I can guarantee you that the GOP would oppose a white democrat as well.

And I can't say that I really blame white guys for disliking Obama due to his ties with Jeremiah Wright. While I'm pro-black, I'm able to put myself in other people's shoes and look from their angle. Me, I wouldn't support the election of a white president with ties to the Christian identity movement or a Latino with ties to La Raza, ya know?
Frank from Fayetteville

Spring Lake, NC

#212 Feb 26, 2013
P.S

An the GOP can't be transformed unless people of color join them.

Like everything else, its inevitable that people of color will gradually become a part of it, regardless of whether the haters like it or not.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#213 Feb 26, 2013
Frank from Fayetteville wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're logic, like that of many liberals, is something along these lines:
Some GOP members are racists = therefore the GOP is racist = therefore conservatism is racism = therefore people of color should embrace the left and our wacky idealogy.
No, in fact the reasoning is this:

Some LEADERS of the GOP are racist and play on racial hatred to stir up hatred for people of color which they then use as a platform for their politic.

They use racial hatred of blacks to create the tea party movement which questions Obama's citizenship even though he CLEARLY is a US citizen.

They use racial hatred of hispanics to create an issue out of immigration but only along the south border. No issues with illegal immigrants here from Europe, Canada or Asia.

Supporting this sort of behavior within the GOP leadership condones the behavior.

You can be a Rep or not, but if you are going to be a Rep then you should be ACTIVELY TRYING to end this sort of sh1t. See: Colin Powell's recent statements.

As for the "wacky" ideology of liberals, it's basically this:

- Do what Jesus said to do.

Help the needy, feed the hungry, pay your taxes and don't start fights.

If THAT is "wacky", then maybe the Conservatives who spend so much time talking about Jesus might want to either stop talking about it or start acting like they've read the Bible.
And while some may oppose Obama because he's black, that's obvious, I can guarantee you that the GOP would oppose a white democrat as well.
Yes, but they would not start an entire wing of the party dedicated to trying to prove that the white president was born in a different country. They wouldn't accuse the white president of secretly being a member of a different (foreign in their eyes) religion.
And I can't say that I really blame white guys for disliking Obama due to his ties with Jeremiah Wright. While I'm pro-black, I'm able to put myself in other people's shoes and look from their angle.
Can you explain to me how they dislike Obama for his ties to Wright AND simultaneously claim that he's a secret muslim?

Either he belongs to a radical black church where once in a while the preacher says something outrageous (because lord knows that _NEVER_ happens in white megachurchs)-or- he's only going their to maintain his cover as a secret muslim and therefore isn't listening.

Can't have both arguments and be considered rational.
Me, I wouldn't support the election of a white president with ties to the Christian identity movement or a Latino with ties to La Raza, ya know?
Didn't you support Romney? He's a member of the Mormon church who's position on African Americans is FAR WORSE than anything Wright said about whites.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#214 Feb 26, 2013
Frank from Fayetteville wrote:
P.S
An the GOP can't be transformed unless people of color join them.
Like everything else, its inevitable that people of color will gradually become a part of it, regardless of whether the haters like it or not.
Again, I don't care if you join them or not.

The problem is that you are joining them AND accepting their position on race.

If you were ACTIVELY trying to get rid of people like the woman I just mentioned, that would be one thing. You aren't. You're defending them.
Frank from Fayetteville

Four Oaks, NC

#215 Feb 27, 2013
Firstly, your idealogy goes faaaar beyond anything Yeshuah taught.

And clearly you're not reading my posts or are either lying intentionally because you keep making accusations against me that aren't true.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#216 Feb 27, 2013
Frank from Fayetteville wrote:
Firstly, your idealogy goes faaaar beyond anything Yeshuah taught.
And clearly you're not reading my posts or are either lying intentionally because you keep making accusations against me that aren't true.
Do you seriously want to try and argue that Jesus wasn't in favor of charity?

Luke 3:11
And he answered them,“Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#217 Feb 27, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This is likely true, however it is also true that the Tea Party was created by the Koch Bros for the express purpose of opposing raising their taxes.
And that a large part of the Tea Party is based on racism.
It's not the normal Republicans who are claiming Obama was born in Africa. It's not the normal Republicans holding signs with Obama with a bone in his nose. Or claiming that he's a "secret muslim", etc.
Collin Powell is a normal Republican. Ask him about the party's problem with racism.
Yer funny. I know there are quite a few Democrats that are extreme racists. Both parties own them. You use the race card only because the guy you're defending is a Democrat, your preferred and party. I suspect the openly offensive people with racist signs were Obama plants to try and make the Republicans look unreasonable. It's not like he's above deceiving the public.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#218 Feb 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Yer funny. I know there are quite a few Democrats that are extreme racists.
Are they leaders of the democratic party? Or just people who are democrats?

No one is claiming that the average man-on-the-street's opinion is a factor here.

What I'm talking about are a number of PROMINENT Republicans in positions of power who openly display their racist ideology as part of the party platform _AND_ who claim that anyone pointing it out is "playing the race card".
Both parties own them. You use the race card only because the guy you're defending is a Democrat, your preferred and party. I suspect the openly offensive people with racist signs were Obama plants to try and make the Republicans look unreasonable. It's not like he's above deceiving the public.
Funny how every time the Republicans do something outrageously stupid it's always blamed on "Democrat plants" who were put there to make them look stupid.

You're basically claiming that Democrats make up all of the democratic party and HALF of the Republican leadership.

Does that sound rational to you?

Would that sound rational to a sane person?

Newsflash: The democrats don't need to use plants. They certainly don't have plants who are RUNNING for office as Republicans.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#219 Feb 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
I suspect the openly offensive people with racist signs were Obama plants to try and make the Republicans look unreasonable.
By the way, have you noticed that this charge only ever goes one way.

There are idiots that the news crews pick out of the crowd at liberal causes and the dems never accuse the republicans of putting them there. Why is that?

It's because even the most lunatic liberal is still saying something which is _NOT_ offensive or embarrassing to the movement.

Oh, you found some kid who thinks we should give everyone in Africa a million tons of food? Okay. He's an idiot. His idea is impractical. However, the idea of "give hungry people food" is not something the liberals need to excuse.

Meanwhile, the "fringe" Republicans (and by "fringe" I mean "leadership") are saying things like:
- Evolution is fake
- Obama is a secret Muslim
- Obama wasn't born in America
- Obama can be trapped by watermelon in a box
- Women are easy to rape
- Women who get pregnant from rape are lying and wanted it
- Tryvon Martin is lucky to have died, otherwise he'd be sucking dicks for drug money

And on and on and on...

anti-education, anti-equality, anti-minority, anti-voting rights, anti-climate, anti-middle class.

Is there anything the Republicans stand for other than "Tax break for the super wealthy"?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#220 Feb 27, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Are they leaders of the democratic party? Or just people who are democrats?
No one is claiming that the average man-on-the-street's opinion is a factor here.
What I'm talking about are a number of PROMINENT Republicans in positions of power who openly display their racist ideology as part of the party platform _AND_ who claim that anyone pointing it out is "playing the race card".
<quoted text>
Funny how every time the Republicans do something outrageously stupid it's always blamed on "Democrat plants" who were put there to make them look stupid.
You're basically claiming that Democrats make up all of the democratic party and HALF of the Republican leadership.
Does that sound rational to you?
Would that sound rational to a sane person?
Newsflash: The democrats don't need to use plants. They certainly don't have plants who are RUNNING for office as Republicans.
No, you said the tea party was racist just to invalidate their concerns.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#221 Feb 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>No, you said the tea party was racist just to invalidate their concerns.
No, the tea party is invalid because their positions on the issues are contradictory and poorly thought out.

Even if they weren't powering their movement with racism, their claims would be worthless.

The tea party positions can be described in four simple statements:
- Everything I get from the government, I'm entitled to.
- Anyone else who gets anything from the government is a moocher.
- Obama shouldn't be president because he's from Africa.
- Rich people are better than everyone else and shouldn't have to pay any taxes.
Frank from Fayetteville

Four Oaks, NC

#222 Feb 27, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you seriously want to try and argue that Jesus wasn't in favor of charity?
Luke 3:11
And he answered them,“Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”
Yes, freely given, not taken by force and distributed amongst everyone, including those whom don't deserve it.

Here's a little wisdom from proverbs.

Pr.20:4
A sluggard does not plow in season; so at harvest time he looks but finds
nothing.(NIV)

Pr.21:25
The sluggard's craving will be the death of him, because his hands refuse
to work.(NIV)

Pr.19:15
Laziness brings on deep sleep, and the shiftless man goes hungry.(NIV)

peace

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#223 Feb 27, 2013
Frank from Fayetteville wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, freely given, not taken by force and distributed amongst everyone, including those whom don't deserve it.
Here's a little wisdom from proverbs.
Pr.20:4
A sluggard does not plow in season; so at harvest time he looks but finds
nothing.(NIV)
Pr.21:25
The sluggard's craving will be the death of him, because his hands refuse
to work.(NIV)
Pr.19:15
Laziness brings on deep sleep, and the shiftless man goes hungry.(NIV)
peace
Which brings me back to the starving 5 yr old.

Who are you to say that that citizen does not deserve to eat because he's "too lazy" to get a job at age 5

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 13 min adelaide 1,359
Faith during hard times 1 hr Rand M Sutor 86
judgment coming to america 1 hr adelaide 110
False Teachings of Jews that defy their Holy Sc... 1 hr Big Al 53
Early Christianity (Dec '16) 1 hr adelaide 2,321
Israel is anti christ, literally 2 hr adelaide 112
What religion was Enoch, Noah, and Abraham? (Oct '12) 2 hr adelaide 1,549
More from around the web