Where Is The PROOF That The Conservative Agenda Works?

[Carthoris]

i've never fucked a bitch and had her end up pregnant with a dog.

please note that 'bitch' refers to a human female, not a canine.

i join with johnnyo in denying ALL canine fucking.

i'm barely surprised that this is the second time the distinction between fucking bitches and canines has been made on this forum.

You know full well what I mean. I stick my old lady whenever I want, and I don't have any kids. Why? Birth control. They invented it a long time ago, it still works. When we decide to have kids, we will stop using birth control. Why should the results of yours or anyone elses decisions be the responsibility of anyone else. You are responsible for your kids, not society.

 

[beardo]

The Amish seem to be doing quite well

 

[secretweapon]

It worked with bush... right?...

Lolz

 

[UncleBuck]

"so, by what logic am I responsible to cover the excesses of others"..... That sounds about what I say about taxing people differently depending on if they have kids, a house, or ect.

Denial. You deny that you had any part of the collapse? It is obvious you vote democrat, didn't the democrats add to the housing bubble bursting quite a bit? Isn't that what toppled the economy to begin with? Democrats created a demand for houses by passing laws that helped people who couldn't afford houses buy them. This raised the price on everyone and created more subprime loans. While 1 rich banker might impact the world more individually, there are a million of you to his 1.

so i lived within my means, worked, paid taxes, yet i am responsible to dig us out of this mess because i voted for the party that does not try to write discrimination against gays into the constitution?

weak sauce, brah.

and for your edification, i didn't buy a house i couldn't afford. also, you should recall bush bragging about our 'ownership society' during sotu speeches.

[video=youtube;QYvtvcBKgIQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ[/video]

so if i vote dem, i caused the recession. if i voted rep, i caused the recession. your logic is GRAND.

Words do have meanings. What makes them very different? You don't feel comfortable admitting you support the ultimate goal of communism, and that the leftist policies in the country are ultimately leading us towards communism. I understand that, I don't blame you for not wanting to be labeled communist. In theory, they may be different. In practice, they are different shades of the same color.

so because i believe in equal rights for everyone, that makes me a communist?

i hold the libertarian position that women should be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies. i guess that makes me, and you by extension, both COMMIES!

oh noes!

Yes, you look at both and you spend less than you make long term or you go bankrupt. Only a blithering idiot would do otherwise (points at the government)

I base my expenditures off of my income. Not spend all the money I want without a plan to pay it off. While income is an issue too, Spending is the 600 pound gorilla. We could increase tax revenues by 500 billion tops, but that money primarily comes out of the money people invest and start businesses with. That would be raising the taxes a lot on everyone over 200,000. We would still in the long run be underwater without spending cuts. I want both to be done, but the spending is the bigger issue.

so you've gone from "this is a spending issue" to "spending is the bigger part of it".

still the words of a partisan HACK.

it is an issue of spending AND revenue.

We haven't done anything productive there, only spend more money. The civil war would be over if we hadn't of gotten involved. They are still killing each other, and the death toll there was minor compared to many places in the world where we don't intervene. We haven't accomplished our goals, and we are only exchanging one brutal dictator for another. Obviously we didn't learn our lessons of the last 50 years. You must of supported the Iraq war whole heartedly! Saddam killed hundreds of thousands.

go tell the libyans not being bombed from above by their own government we did nothing.

if you bothered to read forward, i said i don't think we ought to have gotten involved. i only take issue with your assertion that our actions have produced no tangible results, because they have.

hooked on phonics may be an investment you'd do well to make.

So basically you are just a big touchy feely crybaby. Good to know. Hey, welcome to the thread

at least i am not a communist, like you are.

 

[Carthoris]

so i lived within my means, worked, paid taxes, yet i am responsible to dig us out of this mess because i voted for the party that does not try to write discrimination against gays into the constitution?

weak sauce, brah.

and for your edification, i didn't buy a house i couldn't afford. also, you should recall bush bragging about our 'ownership society' during sotu speeches.

[video=youtube;QYvtvcBKgIQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYvtvcBKgIQ[/video]

so if i vote dem, i caused the recession. if i voted rep, i caused the recession. your logic is GRAND.

Bill Clinton's presidency was the major cause of the housing bubble. Bill Clinton set the stage for a major housing collapse by driving up the prices up at an insane rate. He increased ownership sharply and the laws of supply and demand kicked in. Bill Clinton also changed regulations for sub prime lending, so that people who couldn't pay for houses could still buy them. Bush continued this. What is so hard to believe that Demo and Repubs both caused the recession?

so because i believe in equal rights for everyone, that makes me a communist?

i hold the libertarian position that women should be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies. i guess that makes me, and you by extension, both COMMIES!

oh noes!

While Communists do mostly support pro choice, it is because they don't see any inherent worth in people as individuals, so it isn't any different than throwing away a sandwich you don't want. As a Libertarian I see worth in the individual and not society. I consider the woman's ability to choose what she wants to do as the greatest and most important thing in the pro choice discussion. There are people who are communist and libertarian at the same time. During the Spanish rebellion for instance. I support freedom of choice, I would go to a pro-choice rally. I do not support abortion, but I do not have the right to take away your right to have one. (Whose is it by the way, haha) I have the ability to understand that because I do not agree with a right, it must be supported. It becomes a very important safeguard for every right of my own. Here is a variant of the Nolan chart that shows where different political views fall in relation to each other.

so you've gone from "this is a spending issue" to "spending is the bigger part of it".

still the words of a partisan HACK.

it is an issue of spending AND revenue.

I reiterate that the major issue isn't with revenue, it is with spending. Spending has gone up every year, revenues have too for the most part. However, we are spending faster than we are increasing revenue. That doesn't mean we need to increase revenue. It means we need to control our spending increases. As far as the deficit goes, if we just balanced the budget the debt to income ratio would change every year as the economy grows. We could almost grow our way out of debt. I think the liberals realize this, and that is why they saying things like 'running in debt isn't a bad thing'. It is like taking out student loans with the expectation of paying them back when you make more money. The big issue is we just keep taking out more loans instead of paying them back, and assume we will make more money next year. If we just spent this year based on this years income we wouldn't be in the mess we are in and you could still increase spending every year. Not that I agree with that, I just think if you are going to do it, you should do it responsibly.

go tell the libyans not being bombed from above by their own government we did nothing.

if you bothered to read forward, i said i don't think we ought to have gotten involved. i only take issue with your assertion that our actions have produced no tangible results, because they have.

hooked on phonics may be an investment you'd do well to make.

You justify the war, then turn around and say you don't support it in the next sentence. They only killed a few hundred people. Lets see... there is a rebellion, the government is dropping bombs and killed a few hundred people... Gosh gee.. maybe those people were Rebels? It is amusing how they went from being 'peaceful protesters' to a 'rebel army' overnight. Is it possible they were always an armed rebellion and that the deaths of the past few months were war casualties? Let them bomb themselves, not our problem.

at least i am not a communist, like you are.

What is this? Third grade? I know you are but what I am *rasberry*

 

[mame]

As far as the deficit goes, if we just balanced the budget the debt to income ratio would change every year as the economy grows. We could almost grow our way out of debt. I think the liberals realize this, and that is why they saying things like 'running in debt isn't a bad thing'. It is like taking out student loans with the expectation of paying them back when you make more money.

Now if only we were all on the same page.

 

[UncleBuck]

You deny that you had any part of the collapse? It is obvious you vote democrat, didn't the democrats add to the housing bubble bursting quite a bit? Isn't that what toppled the economy to begin with? Democrats created a demand for houses by passing laws that helped people who couldn't afford houses buy them.

Bill Clinton's presidency was the major cause of the housing bubble.... Bush continued this. What is so hard to believe that Demo and Repubs both caused the recession?

watching you debate is like watching a retarded puppy chase its tail.

you've gone from "you vote democrat, thus causing the recession"... to ... "both sides caused the recession".

you couldn't argue your way out of a paper sack.

i don't even care enough to address your verbal diarrhea about me being a communist because i vote in opposition to the party that wants to put amendments in the constitution for the sole purpose of discriminating against a minority of gay americans.

You justify the war, then turn around and say you don't support it in the next sentence.

i never said i supported the actions in libya. i only said your description of our actions was false.

nothing inconsistent there.

What is this? Third grade? I know you are but what I am *rasberry*

says the guy who called me a crybaby a few posts back.

just trying to stay on your level which, by your own admission, is that of a third grader.

*raspberry, by the way.

 

[Carthoris]

watching you debate is like watching a retarded puppy chase its tail.

you've gone from "you vote democrat, thus causing the recession"... to ... "both sides caused the recession".

you couldn't argue your way out of a paper sack.

My point was both sides are on the same level of douchebaggedness. I may have to vote for someone in the end, but at least I don't believe in them like they are the messiah. Anyone who thinks that both sides aren't systematically destroying our country is in denial.

i don't even care enough to address your verbal diarrhea about me being a communist because i vote in opposition to the party that wants to put amendments in the constitution for the sole purpose of discriminating against a minority of gay americans.

I believe discriminating against gays is wrong. If they want to fuck each other in the ass, more power to them as long as we don't have to subsidize their vaseline. I don't have religion holding me back from making rational decisions. Why are you bringing homosexuality up? That is the second time, and no one has said a peep about gay rights.

i never said i supported the actions in libya. i only said your description of our actions was false.

nothing inconsistent there.

Bombing Libya = Waste of Money on something that doesn't make a shitting bit of difference in the world, and accomplishes nothing at all. I would have to say it is totally correct. Whether we are blowing people up with airplanes or some dictator, it is still some people being blown up. You can't say it is wrong to blow people up and then go blow them up. They have a word for that. I think its 'asshole'. Hell, we don't even know what we are shooting at.
[video=youtube;S06nIz4scvI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=S06nIz4scvI[/video]

says the guy who called me a crybaby a few posts back.

just trying to stay on your level which, by your own admission, is that of a third grader.

*raspberry, by the way.

lol. Your first reply in this post.

it prompted me to send a big fat flying "FUCK YOU" in your direction

blithering fucktard

because i refuse to believe that anyone who does not live under a rock or is otherwise unable to see the light of day would take the time to spew the back-asswards projectiles of bullshit that you do.

That is why I called you a crybaby, you lurk in the shadows and then unleash a torrent of putrid hate because you feel so insignificant and hate the fact that your entire mindset is a sham. Maybe if you didn't lay around stoned all the time wishing for someone to come give you a better life you wouldn't be so full of hate and so unhappy. You might as well lay in the corner and flail your arms and scream at the top of your lungs for all the difference you make in the world. Thumbs up buddy. lol

 

[Carthoris]

Now if only we were all on the same page.

You mean stop spending more and more every year or that its ok to run a deficit forever? I understand borrowing money to pay for things you have to have, but borrowing it to give as foreign aid and for bombs to blow up the sand seems a bit stupid. 300 million people living in America. How much per person are we spending to play hide the salami in the desert? Maybe the people in charge have never heard of video games. Its ok to blow things up there and its a lot cheaper. Or maybe they just don't see the difference. I understand that feeling, human life means nothing right? hah.

 

[UncleBuck]

My point was both sides are on the same level of douchebaggedness. I may have to vote for someone in the end, but at least I don't believe in them like they are the messiah. Anyone who thinks that both sides aren't systematically destroying our country is in denial.

so, getting back on topic, how did i cause the recession? all you've managed to do here is backtrack on all previous statements, leaving us at step one.

and where did i say i envy the president 'like they are the messiah'?

the only thing you have proven here is that you have bought into the 'messiah' (alternatively, chosen one) narrative hook, line, and sinker.

kinda telling. not in a good way.

 

[beardo]

so, getting back on topic.

Q-?Where is the PROOF that the conservative agenda works?

A-New Hampshire

 

[londonfog]

Q-?Where is the PROOF that the conservative agenda works?

A-New Hampshire

Guess New Hampshire conservatives agree with President Obama ...he carried it by more then nine points....just saying

 

[Uncultivated]

If the rich actually paid their fair share I wouldn't have any problem with them. Why do you defend the rich when they of all people don't need your help? It is the poor who need help, why not defend them?

Its not a matter of defending rich people or poor people. It's trying to understand how the economy works. We can punish the rich for being rich, to the point where it hurts the middle class and the poor, but I don't see any good reasons to do so.

 

[Dan Kone]

Its not a matter of defending rich people or poor people. It's trying to understand how the economy works. We can punish the rich for being rich, to the point where it hurts the middle class and the poor, but I don't see any good reasons to do so.

Asking rich people to pay what is historically their fair share doesn't harm the middle class or poor.

The middle class and poor were considerably better off when they did.

It's also not a punishment. It's fair. Because of tax loopholes the wealthy end up paying a lower percentage of taxes than middle class folks. The middle class are the group being punished for conservatives insistence that the rich don't need to pay their taxes.

 

[canndo]

Its not a matter of defending rich people or poor people. It's trying to understand how the economy works. We can punish the rich for being rich, to the point where it hurts the middle class and the poor, but I don't see any good reasons to do so.

I don't see it as "punishing the rich" but expecting them to pay their fair share. The question is how one arives at that figure. I can't see how having the rich pay a higher percentage of taxes than the middle class harms the poor. I can see how overtaxing the middle class can hurt both the middle class and the poor. That is my point.

 

[BudMcLovin]

How much do you think is their fair share? How much should the government be allowed to take from one person? How about making the lowest 40% of income earners to pay something, anything toward federal income taxes? How about $1 a year, is that too much? How is it fair they pay nothing in federal income taxes but it’s the rich not paying their fair share?

We have about $1.6 trillion dollar deficit this year. All I’ve heard from Democrats is tax the rich do you really think the government can simple raise all that from taxing people more? Does government really need to spend all that money? Are they spending it in the right places?

 

[mame]

We have about $1.6 trillion dollar deficit this year. All I’ve heard from Democrats is tax the rich do you really think the government can simple raise all that from taxing people more? Does government really need to spend all that money? Are they spending it in the right places?

Democrats are saying that we can't solve the deficit issue without addressing both revenue and spending. The Republicans would rather we just cut spending. Get your facts correct please.

To your question, "does the government really need to spend all that money?" many cuts are to highly successful programs like WIC. Poor mothers rely on this money. Do you really think we should be taking food from a childs mouth so the rich can keep a tax cut they dont need(and that many of them dont even want... Warren Buffet for example)?

 

[BudMcLovin]

If Warren Buffet wants to pay more in taxes no one is stopping him. So why doesn’t he?

Does that “poor” mother on WIC have a cell phone or cable tv? Does she pay any federal income taxes? Why should the rest of society be force to pay for a child she couldn’t afford to have? Does she work 2 jobs? Does she have family that could help? Any private charities in the are that could offer her assistance? Did she even finish high school before she started having children? At what point is it her responsibility?

Oh and I haven’t seen the dems do anything but block spending cuts. Well the only place they want to cut is defense spending. So NPR is more important than national security, makes a lot of sense.

 

[mame]

If Warren Buffet wants to pay more in taxes no one is stopping him. So why doesn’t he?

Does that “poor” mother on WIC have a cell phone or cable tv? Does she pay any federal income taxes? Why should the rest of society be force to pay for a child she couldn’t afford to have? Does she work 2 jobs? Does she have family that could help? Any private charities in the are that could offer her assistance? Did she even finish high school before she started having children? At what point is it her responsibility?

Oh and I haven’t seen the dems do anything but block spending cuts. Well the only place they want to cut is defense spending. So NPR is more important than national security, makes a lot of sense.

There is a difference between spending for defense and spending for military; Cuts will not effect our national security.

Listen man, I was one of those children who's mother relied on WIC... She worked her ass off just to pay the bills she had (rent alone took two weeks pay) and needed the governments help to feed me and my brothers. It wasn't that she wasn't trying to do good for us it's more about the fact that it's nearly impossible for most households to live off of a single breadwinner these days(my dad did pay child support, my brothers dad did not... she was alone with two children). It didn't used to be like that.

incomes for the working class have barely kept up with inflation since 1973 (the last year of the post ww2 boom), workers at the 90th percentile (people making 150k-ish per year) have only seen something like a 17 percent increase in their wages. Workers in the top 1% have seen their wages double. The people in the top .1 percent have seen their wages increase by at least 5 times. As a result the middle class is effectively poorer in comparison to 1973.... But it's the poor's fault... (all of these statistics are as of 2007, source is a book, The Conscience of a Liberal by Paul Krugman, Chapter 7)

 

[BudMcLovin]

"The rich keep doing the things that make them rich and the poor keep doing the things that make them poor". I can't remember who said it but it wasn't me.
How about we offer economic and finance classes to the poor instead of a check?