What's your explanation of this?

othershoe1030 wrote:Just doesn't seem like a good move on many levels. None of the speakers at yesterday's event in DC commemorating the march on Washington for Jobs and Freedom held 50 years ago were Republicans.

Many were invited, none came/spoke. Google the phrase: "Republicans invited to 50th anniversary of march on washington" and see what you get. And they are mystified as to why nearly all Blacks and other non-white groups vote for the democrats.

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy wrote:the left has perverted MLK's dream.

I see where scott was invited as a spectator, not as a speaker. maybe he didn't want to be a spectator. so its unclear.

What about Justice Thomas?

either way, the movement has been hijacked and perverted into some social engineering tool for the left.

All the Dixiecrats are now Republicans, ca. 1980...when Ronnie Raygun was elected.  What part of that is so hard for you to understand?  You don't see Republicans supporting civil rights, nor voting rights.  That's because they don't like minorities and they can't afford to lose anymore voters.

Markle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Chrissy wrote:the left has perverted MLK's dream.
I see where scott was invited as a spectator, not as a speaker. maybe he didn't want to be a spectator. so its unclear.
What about Justice Thomas?
either way, the movement has been hijacked and perverted into some social engineering tool for the left.

All the Dixiecrats are now Republicans, ca. 1980...when Ronnie Raygun was elected.  What part of that is so hard for you to understand?  You don't see Republicans supporting civil rights, nor voting rights.  That's because they don't like minorities and they can't afford to lose anymore voters.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson July 2, 1964

By party
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:

The original House version:[16]
Democratic Party: 152–96   (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34   (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[17]
Democratic Party: 44–23   (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

The Senate version:[16]
Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35   (80–20%)

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Just doesn't seem like a good move on many levels. None of the speakers at yesterday's event in DC commemorating the march on Washington for Jobs and Freedom held 50 years ago were Republicans.

Many were invited, none came/spoke. Google the phrase: "Republicans invited to 50th anniversary of march on washington" and see what you get. And they are mystified as to why nearly all Blacks and other non-white groups vote for the democrats.

How come the only African American Senator in the US wasn't invited? Was it because there is an (R) after his name?

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:
When all the true job creators are gone and all you supposedly enlightened progressive liberals who only want more given to you for nothin' but there's nothin' left to give ya' all will still be wonderin' that.

Astonishing, only a permanent resident of Wingnutistan could take a march for JOBS and turn it into a call for a hand out.

Minimum wage is already to high.

If I'm expected to pay $15-$20 an hour the person I'm paying better be able to pretty much do everything I'm capable of doing and do it almost as fast.

Most high school students are barely capable of pushing a broom and most of them take almost four times as long to do it correctly.

So they're only worth about $5 an hour to me.  

Unfortunately for you there's a whole bunch of them on the out there who are in their twenties, thirties, forties, and up, who are only about that capable also.

.............

Workers in the U.S. earning the minimum wage are worse off now than they were four decades ago.

The economic depression I saw coming nearly two decades ago is here and it's going to be bad and long.

Nothing new here expect some friendly advise...

Learn to tighten your belt a little tighter.

What? Nothing to say here?

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:The CHART OF THE DAY shows that after adjusting for inflation, the federal minimum wage dropped 20 percent from 1967 to 2010, even as the nominal figure climbed to $7.25 an hour from $1.40, a 418 percent gain.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-28/minimum-wage-in-u-s-fails-to-beat-inflation-chart-of-the-day.html

I don't know many high paid types that would welcome a 20% pay cut but that's exactly what's happened to the minimum wage earners who don't have any/much slack in how they spend their money.

Cry me a river.

Really? What a piss poor response. I don't know many people who would want to function with a 20% reduction in their pay. I'm not crying you a river I'm telling you what the adjustment for inflation is and you can't see the difference.

I served in the military for twenty years with little to no compensation for inflation and decreasing medical benefits.

So yes my response is...

Cry me a river.

I still don't consider "Cry me a river." to be any kind of justification for not raising the minimum wage, but then you are free to take that position. I don't find it persuasive or even relevant.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:I thought the 50th anniversary celebration was a great display of unity.

I could care less about unity. I'd rather have someone who is capable of doing the job assigned.

Perhaps working together to improve our education system, job training, building and repairing our crumbling infrastructure, insulating our buildings and other non-out-sourcable jobs just might be a good productive way to go. It would do the economy a lot of good and provide thousands of private sector jobs for construction companies, etc. But the "go it alone" crowd represented by the congressional GOPer's resists any of this at every turn.  There are very REAL benefits to working together or unity and I see it as a good thing.

Most of them don't want an education or training in a job that requires them to do real work.

There will soon be no money for education or improving the infrastructure and all those other things you want to do...

Going to borrow for all these things?... It's pretty much all been borrowed... Welcome to the New Great Depression that will be worse than the last and last longer.

Here's that friendly advice one more time... Learn to tighten you belt a little tighter.

 What's with all the stupid "friendly advice and belt tightening? You are making no sense. It is neither friendly nor advice nor useful.

If that's the way you feel about it you're free to ignore it.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:As you know, many Republicans were invited but declined for various reasons.

No I don't know. I was busy working. How about you?

 

For crying out loud, I'm retired. I am still working on real estate projects so I don't exactly sit around all day twiddling my thumbs. I am a former union member and a good steward of my own money. I have invested wisely and spent carefully. I am a working democrat. Are you going to retire one day?

Gee... Then why don't you invest in your own business and provide these $15 an hour jobs for the people you feel so much empathy for instead of working a job someone else could do?

I do the work I am capable of doing and that I enjoy. It is like a hobby to me with investment rewards at the end. All the people I hire, plumbers, electricians, roofers make more than $15 so you can get off your preachy high horse on this issue where I am concerned. See, there you go assuming you know something about how I handle my workers and you are dead wrong so keep up the good work.

It still doesn't make you an owner of the business so it still makes you clueless as to the risks involved by an owner.

Until you quit living in your little security bubble provided by your employer don't presume to know how much someone can afford to pay for a untrained worker who may or may not be trainable.

Again, I have no employer. I am retired. I consider my real estate investing a business. I employ myself and subcontract others as needed. I am not in a  secure bubble. I risk my own money. I collect my own rent, maintain properties.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Oh! You're not willing to take the risk but you're more than willing to tell others who have taken the risk to pay more even though you have no clue as to whether it'll cause their business to go bankrupt.

(all wrong as pointed out above)

I see nothing I'm incorrect about as you post from your little bubble of employee safety.

I have no bubble of employer safety therefore your comments do not have merit.

What did you do with my Wally World paragraph?

Did it hit a tender spot?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I never follow the links you post.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:They like to claim the party of Lincoln but don't live up to his vision.

In your world view.

Most people, I think, see Lincoln as a symbol of unity and as an emancipator.

Like there's ever been unity.

There certainly has been a much more evident spirit of working together for a common goal than there is at this point in history. The government has done many impressive things when people figured out ways to work together building dams and bridges and creating national parks etc. etc.

Most of those things were done well over fifty years ago.

That's what "has been" means, a time prior to the present.


The only thing I see today is supposedly enlightened progressive liberals like yourself causing more and more division by screaming racism at the drop of a hat.

I recommend the movie The Butler.

Yet in turn when I ask questions and bring up points about those pressing social issues ya' all either shut up or start treating me like a bunch of prejudiced bigots.

Didn't mean to treat you like a bunch of prejudiced bigots, sorry.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:And they wonder why most moderates, 93% of blacks, 72% of Latinos, 74% of Asians, and 56% of women don't vote Republican.

Where'd you get those stats?

What happened last night was a demographic time bomb that had been ticking and that blew up in GOP faces. As the Obama campaign had assumed more than a year ago, the white portion of the electorate dropped to 72%, and the president won just 39% of that vote. But he carried a whopping 93% of black voters (representing 13% of the electorate), 71% of Latinos (representing 10%), and also 73% of Asians (3%). What’s more, despite all the predictions that youth turnout would be down, voters 18-29 made up 19% of last night’s voting population -- up from 18% four years ago -- and President Obama took 60% from that group.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/07/14993875-first-thoughts-obamas-demographic-edge?lite

The GOP's gender gap.

According to CNN's exit polls, 55% of women and 45% of men voted for Obama and 44% of women and 52% of men voted for Romney. That level of female support for the president made an especially big impact in swing states like Ohio where the gender breakdown mirrored the national figures.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/08/politics/women-election

If you think doing away with the Republican party because of all your pressing social issues, you have the various minorities convinced are important will solve all your woes, I'm pretty sure you'll be even more disappointed in the final outcome.

Good gravy DE it is rather a huge and illogical leap from stating the voting statistics for a recent election and "doing away with the Republican Party". What I did was collect basically the same data and posted it to answer your question as to the source of the figures.

If the trend continues it will spell doom for the R's but it is not cast in stone to continue this way. Unfortunately for the current crop of noisy folks in the GOP their minds seem to be cast in stone. They are grasping at ways to suppress the vote in an attempt to create a margin of victory but instead they are just showing themselves to be devoid of new ideas or supporters of any kind of policies that might appeal to the majority of the American public. They will likely see the error of their ways and eventually change course.  There will always be some sort of "conservative" party in this country.  It just can't look much like the one we have now given the recent statistics.  They are creating their own demise. It isn't me.

My statement stands... And your response only confirms it.

The statistics speak for themselves. Most people can grasp the concept that the numbers shown for these groups are trending democratic, not republican. That's all I'm saying. It is what it is. The conservatives will decide how to respond, if at all.



*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tna0Mmu1XlI

SeaBass wrote:othershoe, that last post of yours ay well be the longest quoted post of all message boards lol

let me ask you a simple question. pleas give a simple answer.

why does a political party need to do something special to attract minority votes if their message is equality for all?

othershoe1030 wrote:

SeaBass wrote:othershoe, that last post of yours ay well be the longest quoted post of all message boards lol

let me ask you a simple question. pleas give a simple answer.

why does a political party need to do something special to attract minority votes if their message is equality for all?

Actually, the R party does plenty to attract their special minority voters namely the 1% types. Their message is FAR from equality for all unless you mean all corporations. Another group they appeal to could be called the Flat Earth Society.

othershoe1030 wrote:

SeaBass wrote:othershoe, that last post of yours ay well be the longest quoted post of all message boards lol

let me ask you a simple question. pleas give a simple answer.

why does a political party need to do something special to attract minority votes if their message is equality for all?

Actually, the R party does plenty to attract their special minority voters namely the 1% types. Their message is FAR from equality for all unless you mean all corporations. Another group they appeal to could be called the Flat Earth Society.

othershoe1030 wrote:Well, I don't think I "go off" on you very often if ever so let's let that drop?

We just have different views of what the parties stand for a what their goals are. Special interests have too much power in both parties so it is hard for the ordinary citizen to have much meaningful effective input. Your list:
personal responsibility
smaller government
fiscal responsibility to not saddle our nations children with massive debt
free market capitalism
a strong national defense
constitutional defenders

Personal responsibility can also be read as 'you're on your own' which has its advantages but sounds to some of us like saying the government doesn't have a responsibility to create laws and infrastructure that benefit the economy and people as a whole, for example the highway system (federal, not state), and whatever input, tax support etc. the feds have in ports, banking, etc.
Smaller government, this sounds to my progressive ears like a recipe for disaster (see financial melt-down due largely to unregulated Wall Street) Those who have accumulated enough wealth to be in a position to invest and create more wealth don't need as much help outright from the feds as say a young student just graduating from college eager to make his/her place in the world unless he can (as Romney suggested) borrow money from his father. And of course many/most businesses would rather dump their toxic waste into the nearest river than to have the expense of conforming to environmental protection laws (very short sighted of them).

Fiscal responsibility is always a good goal for everyone when applied fairly across the budgetary landscape. Let's not forget the votes in congress that passed with lightning speed to lift the sequestration cutbacks for the air traffic controllers because it was inconvenient for them to have to be delayed leaving DC for the summer break.

Free market capitalism, doesn't exist so I don't know why that makes the list. I think having the strongest military on the planet sort of seals that deal. We are in excess in this regard although no one wants to be defenseless of course. And who is not a fan of the constitution?

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Well, I don't think I "go off" on you very often if ever so let's let that drop?

We just have different views of what the parties stand for a what their goals are. Special interests have too much power in both parties so it is hard for the ordinary citizen to have much meaningful effective input. Your list:
personal responsibility
smaller government
fiscal responsibility to not saddle our nations children with massive debt
free market capitalism
a strong national defense
constitutional defenders

Personal responsibility can also be read as 'you're on your own' which has its advantages but sounds to some of us like saying the government doesn't have a responsibility to create laws and infrastructure that benefit the economy and people as a whole, for example the highway system (federal, not state), and whatever input, tax support etc. the feds have in ports, banking, etc.
Smaller government, this sounds to my progressive ears like a recipe for disaster (see financial melt-down due largely to unregulated Wall Street) Those who have accumulated enough wealth to be in a position to invest and create more wealth don't need as much help outright from the feds as say a young student just graduating from college eager to make his/her place in the world unless he can (as Romney suggested) borrow money from his father. And of course many/most businesses would rather dump their toxic waste into the nearest river than to have the expense of conforming to environmental protection laws (very short sighted of them).

Fiscal responsibility is always a good goal for everyone when applied fairly across the budgetary landscape. Let's not forget the votes in congress that passed with lightning speed to lift the sequestration cutbacks for the air traffic controllers because it was inconvenient for them to have to be delayed leaving DC for the summer break.

Free market capitalism, doesn't exist so I don't know why that makes the list. I think having the strongest military on the planet sort of seals that deal. We are in excess in this regard although no one wants to be defenseless of course. And who is not a fan of the constitution?

Why don't you just tell us that you are for a government controlling every bit of your life because you aren't smart enough to govern your own life? That's what you are saying when you are against less government.

This is one very real complaint I have with most of the right wing people on this forum and it is that rather than ask a question to clarify a point you guys so often EXAGGERATE TO THE POINT OF ABSURDITY a statement made by one of us progressives. No where did I even slightly suggest that government should control every bit of our lives. I just didn't say that. I guess that's what you heard though.

I think government should be like the referee in a game (one of its functions) and make sure everyone follows the rules so that the people with the most power don't trample on the rights of the less fortunate.

We don't need Moochelle Obama telling us what to feed our kids or changing the menu at schools to the point where kids just won't eat what is offered period.

We don't need Barack Obama telling us that we didn't create our businesses (if we own one) by ourselves and that the price of being successful is getting taxed to death or told that we have to provide health insurance based upon the successes of our business (creating jobs in certain numbers that require health insurance just because of the numbers employed) or pay a huge fine.



We don't need more gun laws when we aren't enforcing the laws already on the books. Or how about the idea we are creating laws where the only impact they have is on law abiding citizens who aren't going to be an issue anyhow?

How about we stop giving away so much welfare and fully fund the mental health issues that have created most, if not all, gun crimes in the US that have recently made the news?

Why do we have to have the DHS buying up BILLIONS of bullets and personal defense weapons ( liberals call them assault weapons when used at Sandy Hook but not when they buy them ) with our tax dollars to artifically create a shortage for citizens and spending money that the government could be putting into other services?

The main difference in liberals and conservatives is that conservatives see the likenesses in both parties and agree that something needs to change in government for it to work again, while liberals are going to defend people like Anthony Weiner, the anti-soft drink Mayor of NYC Bloomberg, et al to the point of fault just to solidify their power base.

I have seen NO evidence that conservatives see the likenesses in both parties and agree that something needs to change. Can you give us some examples of this desire on the part of conservative to see government work again? Also, I know of no one who is defending Anthony Weiner. As for Bloomberg some information is in order:



Michael Rubens Bloomberg (born February 14, 1942) is an American business magnate, politician and philanthropist. He is the 108th and current Mayor of New York City, having served three consecutive terms since his first election in 2001. With a net worth of $27 billion, he is also the 7th-richest person in the United States.[1] He is the founder and 88% owner of Bloomberg L.P., the global financial data and media company most famous for its Bloomberg Terminal.[2][3]
Bloomberg began his career at the securities brokerage Salomon Brothers before forming his company in 1981 and spending the next twenty years as its Chairman and CEO.[4] He also served as chairman of the board of trustees at his alma mater Johns Hopkins University from 1996 to 2002.[1] A Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican. He defeated opponent Mark Green in a close election held just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Bloomberg won a second term in 2005 and left the Republican Party two years later.[4] He campaigned to change the city's term limits law in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and was elected to his third term in 2009 as an independent candidate on the Republican ballot line.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Republicans and fiscal responsibility? Don't make us laugh--they all talk the talk, but none of them walk the walk (except Ron Paul did, and the GOP marginalized him).

You cannot have a military (i.e., 'strong defense') the size of which most Republicans want and have fiscal responsibility.

Face it, ALL Republican politicians are just as in love with Big Government as all Democratic politicians are. You will never see GOP politicians (except for Ron Paul) advocate reducing the size of the Big Government programs that they love; i.e., a huge and burdensome military that fuels the MIC, handing fistfuls of money to corporate interests they favor, amongst many other facets of Big Government that GOP politicians slobber over, just as much as Democratic politicians slobber over their favorite items.

True fiscal responsibility means reducing all aspects of the government, including the parts of it that Republicans like, and the programs the Democrats favor, too.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Republicans and fiscal responsibility? Don't make us laugh--they all talk the talk, but none of them walk the walk (except Ron Paul did, and the GOP marginalized him).

You cannot have a military (i.e., 'strong defense') the size of which most Republicans want and have fiscal responsibility.

Face it, ALL Republican politicians are just as in love with Big Government as all Democratic politicians are. You will never see GOP politicians (except for Ron Paul) advocate reducing the size of the Big Government programs that they love; i.e., a huge and burdensome military that fuels the MIC, handing fistfuls of money to corporate interests they favor, amongst many other facets of Big Government that GOP politicians slobber over, just as much as Democratic politicians slobber over their favorite items.

True fiscal responsibility means reducing all aspects of the government, including the parts of it that Republicans like, and the programs the Democrats favor, too.

othershoe1030 wrote:Well, I don't think I "go off" on you very often if ever so let's let that drop?

We just have different views of what the parties stand for a what their goals are. Special interests have too much power in both parties so it is hard for the ordinary citizen to have much meaningful effective input. Your list:
personal responsibility
smaller government
fiscal responsibility to not saddle our nations children with massive debt
free market capitalism
a strong national defense
constitutional defenders

Personal responsibility can also be read as 'you're on your own' which has its advantages but sounds to some of us like saying the government doesn't have a responsibility to create laws and infrastructure that benefit the economy and people as a whole, for example the highway system (federal, not state), and whatever input, tax support etc. the feds have in ports, banking, etc.
Smaller government, this sounds to my progressive ears like a recipe for disaster (see financial melt-down due largely to unregulated Wall Street) Those who have accumulated enough wealth to be in a position to invest and create more wealth don't need as much help outright from the feds as say a young student just graduating from college eager to make his/her place in the world unless he can (as Romney suggested) borrow money from his father. And of course many/most businesses would rather dump their toxic waste into the nearest river than to have the expense of conforming to environmental protection laws (very short sighted of them).

Fiscal responsibility is always a good goal for everyone when applied fairly across the budgetary landscape. Let's not forget the votes in congress that passed with lightning speed to lift the sequestration cutbacks for the air traffic controllers because it was inconvenient for them to have to be delayed leaving DC for the summer break.

Free market capitalism, doesn't exist so I don't know why that makes the list. I think having the strongest military on the planet sort of seals that deal. We are in excess in this regard although no one wants to be defenseless of course. And who is not a fan of the constitution?

othershoe1030 wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Republicans and fiscal responsibility? Don't make us laugh--they all talk the talk, but none of them walk the walk (except Ron Paul did, and the GOP marginalized him).

You cannot have a military (i.e., 'strong defense') the size of which most Republicans want and have fiscal responsibility.

Face it, ALL Republican politicians are just as in love with Big Government as all Democratic politicians are. You will never see GOP politicians (except for Ron Paul) advocate reducing the size of the Big Government programs that they love; i.e., a huge and burdensome military that fuels the MIC, handing fistfuls of money to corporate interests they favor, amongst many other facets of Big Government that GOP politicians slobber over, just as much as Democratic politicians slobber over their favorite items.

True fiscal responsibility means reducing all aspects of the government, including the parts of it that Republicans like, and the programs the Democrats favor, too.

I agree. When Republicans say "Shrink Government spending" they really mean cut back on any kind of social spending, education programs, food stamps, etc. but when it comes to the military...

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:I don't know many high paid types...

Cry me a river.

Really? What a piss poor response...

I served in the military...So yes my response is...Cry me a river.

I still don't consider "Cry me a river." to be any kind of justification for not raising the minimum wage, but then you are free to take that position. I don't find it persuasive or even relevant.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:I thought the 50th anniversary celebration was a great display of unity.

I could...

Perhaps working together...

Most of them...

 What's with all the stupid "friendly advice and belt tightening? You are making no sense. It is neither friendly nor advice nor useful.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:As you know, many Republicans were invited but declined for various reasons.

No I don't know. I was busy working. How about you?

For crying out loud,...

Gee... Then why don't you invest...

I do the work I am...

It still doesn't...

Again, I have no employer. I am retired. I consider my real estate investing a business. I employ myself and subcontract others as needed. I am not in a  secure bubble. I risk my own money. I collect my own rent, maintain properties.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Oh! You're not willing...

(all wrong as pointed out above)

I see nothing I'm incorrect about as you post from your little bubble of employee safety.

I have no bubble of employer safety therefore your comments do not have merit.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:What did you do with my Wally World paragraph?

Did it hit a tender spot?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I never follow the links you post.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:They like to claim...

In your world view.

Most people,...

Like there's ever been unity.

There certainly has been...

Most of those things were done well over fifty years ago.

That's what "has been" means, a time prior to the present.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:The only thing I see today is supposedly enlightened progressive liberals like yourself causing more and more division by screaming racism at the drop of a hat.

I recommend the movie The Butler.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Yet in turn when I ask questions and bring up points about those pressing social issues ya' all either shut up or start treating me like a bunch of prejudiced bigots.

Didn't mean to treat you like a bunch of prejudiced bigots, sorry.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:And they wonder why most moderates, 93% of blacks, 72% of Latinos, 74% of Asians, and 56% of women don't vote Republican.

Where'd you get those stats?

What happened last night...

If you think doing away...

Good gravy...

My statement stands... And your response only confirms it.

The statistics speak for themselves. Most people can grasp the concept that the numbers shown for these groups are trending democratic, not republican. That's all I'm saying. It is what it is. The conservatives will decide how to respond, if at all.

SeaBass wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Well, I don't think I "go off" on you very often if ever so let's let that drop?

We just have different views of what the parties stand for a what their goals are. Special interests have too much power in both parties so it is hard for the ordinary citizen to have much meaningful effective input. Your list:
personal responsibility
smaller government
fiscal responsibility to not saddle our nations children with massive debt
free market capitalism
a strong national defense
constitutional defenders

Personal responsibility can also be read as 'you're on your own' which has its advantages but sounds to some of us like saying the government doesn't have a responsibility to create laws and infrastructure that benefit the economy and people as a whole, for example the highway system (federal, not state), and whatever input, tax support etc. the feds have in ports, banking, etc.
Smaller government, this sounds to my progressive ears like a recipe for disaster (see financial melt-down due largely to unregulated Wall Street) Those who have accumulated enough wealth to be in a position to invest and create more wealth don't need as much help outright from the feds as say a young student just graduating from college eager to make his/her place in the world unless he can (as Romney suggested) borrow money from his father. And of course many/most businesses would rather dump their toxic waste into the nearest river than to have the expense of conforming to environmental protection laws (very short sighted of them).

Fiscal responsibility is always a good goal for everyone when applied fairly across the budgetary landscape. Let's not forget the votes in congress that passed with lightning speed to lift the sequestration cutbacks for the air traffic controllers because it was inconvenient for them to have to be delayed leaving DC for the summer break.

Free market capitalism, doesn't exist so I don't know why that makes the list. I think having the strongest military on the planet sort of seals that deal. We are in excess in this regard although no one wants to be defenseless of course. And who is not a fan of the constitution?

Let me make this short.

It IS NOT the job of our government to insure we are fed, clothed, housed, have phones, have internet or have healthcare. It never was. It has ALWAYS been our jobs to provide those things for ourselves.

daddy gov can not baby sit us all and change our little diapers and wipe the slobber from our chins each time we cry. a system like that is doomed.

and free market capitalism should exist as it once did without gov interference. ie, bailouts, QE and interference in who gets a loan. etc etc etc

and no offense, but your puppets in the house right now have massacred the constitution. but I will be fair, the lousy bunch of repubs havnt had the back bone for a long time to stand up to what is going on for they themselves have learned the value of appeasing the hands out public over doing whats right for the country. in other words, we are in deep shit. I know youre not worried, because I bet in your mind all is needed is another program run by the gov....... 

othershoe1030 wrote:

SeaBass wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Well, I don't think I "go off" on you very often if ever so let's let that drop?

We just have different views of what the parties stand for a what their goals are. Special interests have too much power in both parties so it is hard for the ordinary citizen to have much meaningful effective input. Your list:
personal responsibility
smaller government
fiscal responsibility to not saddle our nations children with massive debt
free market capitalism
a strong national defense
constitutional defenders

Personal responsibility can also be read as 'you're on your own' which has its advantages but sounds to some of us like saying the government doesn't have a responsibility to create laws and infrastructure that benefit the economy and people as a whole, for example the highway system (federal, not state), and whatever input, tax support etc. the feds have in ports, banking, etc.
Smaller government, this sounds to my progressive ears like a recipe for disaster (see financial melt-down due largely to unregulated Wall Street) Those who have accumulated enough wealth to be in a position to invest and create more wealth don't need as much help outright from the feds as say a young student just graduating from college eager to make his/her place in the world unless he can (as Romney suggested) borrow money from his father. And of course many/most businesses would rather dump their toxic waste into the nearest river than to have the expense of conforming to environmental protection laws (very short sighted of them).

Fiscal responsibility is always a good goal for everyone when applied fairly across the budgetary landscape. Let's not forget the votes in congress that passed with lightning speed to lift the sequestration cutbacks for the air traffic controllers because it was inconvenient for them to have to be delayed leaving DC for the summer break.

Free market capitalism, doesn't exist so I don't know why that makes the list. I think having the strongest military on the planet sort of seals that deal. We are in excess in this regard although no one wants to be defenseless of course. And who is not a fan of the constitution?

Let me make this short.

It IS NOT the job of our government to insure we are fed, clothed, housed, have phones, have internet or have healthcare. It never was. It has ALWAYS been our jobs to provide those things for ourselves.

daddy gov can not baby sit us all and change our little diapers and wipe the slobber from our chins each time we cry. a system like that is doomed.

and free market capitalism should exist as it once did without gov interference. ie, bailouts, QE and interference in who gets a loan. etc etc etc

and no offense, but your puppets in the house right now have massacred the constitution. but I will be fair, the lousy bunch of repubs havnt had the back bone for a long time to stand up to what is going on for they themselves have learned the value of appeasing the hands out public over doing whats right for the country. in other words, we are in deep shit. I know youre not worried, because I bet in your mind all is needed is another program run by the gov....... 

Somehow you conflate government acting as a referee with cradle to grave snot wiping and that's not my vision. I would just like the little guy (most of us) to stand a snowballs chance in hell of being treated fairly in the economy. Every time the government bails out some high roller all the mom and pops who went under yell about how, gee, no one bailed us out.

The government should work for "we the people" and it now works more for "we the corporations" that's what I'm saying. I don't want a baby sitter I just want a more level playing field.

I don't like making blanket statements about bailouts because in some cases rescuing a company has so many positive consequences like the auto industry for example. Letting that go down the drain would have had a disastrous ripple effect throughout the economy. What really bugs me though is how Wall Street played all their complicated games to the point where no one could track down what was really going on and never yet has paid the price for it with no big wigs going to court much less prison. Too big to jail as they say.

othershoe1030 wrote:I'm not in favor of bombing anybody so I guess we agree.

SeaBass wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Republicans and fiscal responsibility? Don't make us laugh--they all talk the talk, but none of them walk the walk (except Ron Paul did, and the GOP marginalized him).

You cannot have a military (i.e., 'strong defense') the size of which most Republicans want and have fiscal responsibility.

Face it, ALL Republican politicians are just as in love with Big Government as all Democratic politicians are. You will never see GOP politicians (except for Ron Paul) advocate reducing the size of the Big Government programs that they love; i.e., a huge and burdensome military that fuels the MIC, handing fistfuls of money to corporate interests they favor, amongst many other facets of Big Government that GOP politicians slobber over, just as much as Democratic politicians slobber over their favorite items.

True fiscal responsibility means reducing all aspects of the government, including the parts of it that Republicans like, and the programs the Democrats favor, too.

I agree with you. I said I wsnt happy with how they have been. I said it already a few times. it doesn't change what the ideology of being a republican is supposed to be.

now what id like to know from you and I have asked before. how can you bash republicans so much on here and yet hardly a word to the liberals who have effectively put us on a fast track to ruin? Can you be fair and honest?  

Floridatexan wrote:

SeaBass wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Republicans and fiscal responsibility? Don't make us laugh--they all talk the talk, but none of them walk the walk (except Ron Paul did, and the GOP marginalized him).

You cannot have a military (i.e., 'strong defense') the size of which most Republicans want and have fiscal responsibility.

Face it, ALL Republican politicians are just as in love with Big Government as all Democratic politicians are. You will never see GOP politicians (except for Ron Paul) advocate reducing the size of the Big Government programs that they love; i.e., a huge and burdensome military that fuels the MIC, handing fistfuls of money to corporate interests they favor, amongst many other facets of Big Government that GOP politicians slobber over, just as much as Democratic politicians slobber over their favorite items.

True fiscal responsibility means reducing all aspects of the government, including the parts of it that Republicans like, and the programs the Democrats favor, too.

I agree with you. I said I wsnt happy with how they have been. I said it already a few times. it doesn't change what the ideology of being a republican is supposed to be.

now what id like to know from you and I have asked before. how can you bash republicans so much on here and yet hardly a word to the liberals who have effectively put us on a fast track to ruin? Can you be fair and honest?  

I just can't let that remark pass...WHO WAS IT that held the office of POTUS from 2001 through 2008?  Who put our economy in the toilet and our moral standing in the world at the bottom of the barrel?  "Fair" and "honest"?  Do you even know the meaning of those words?