The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[verbster]

-Civil rights: On a percentage basis, more than 80% of republican congressmen voted for the Civil Rights Act, while just over 60% of the Democrats voted for the Act's passage. I do wish liberals would get their facts right as to civil rights activism in the 60s. I know, the idea that republicans were more active than the democrats in civil rights issues does not fit snugly into the wacky liberal revisions of history, but you need to at least try to be objective. If not, the next thing you know, liberals will be saying Lincoln was a democrat.

( oh wait, my bad, that already happened: )

-Social Security: I would be rich now, if I could have put that same amount of money into a savings account and allowed it to accrue interest without the government screwing around with how much of it they think I deserve back. Seriously, I would not have worked a 23 hour day last Saturday, nor 16 hour days since. I would be retired, polishing my vintage wooden Chris Craft on a lake front cottage. But no, liberals want me to work until I am at least 70 so that their voting block can continue to whine about a lack of opportunity while not actually accomplishing anything in their lives. Then, of course, liberals want me to die immediately, so I do not actually get some modicum of revenue back from my vestment.

-Water: Given that Republicans drink water too, this is a fallacy to throw something like that out.

-Public Schools: Republicans obviously want public schools, but they also want those schools to actually teach students. Liberals are more interested in schools as a source of union revenue than they are in doing what is right for the children. Name an industry, other than teaching, where you can slack off for years and not get fired. -crickets chirping-

-Child labor laws: You mean like slavery, which a Republican led administration ended in our country.

Speaking of getting facts straight . . . . You are confusing the labeling of conservatives and liberals with party designations of Republicans and Democrats. Educate yourself on the difference and look up when Lincoln was a Republican; he was one of the strongest liberal presidents ever.

Yeah, it's a liberal conspiracy to keep you working until you die. And yes, it's another liberal conspiracy to somehow keep you from personally saving any money. Somehow, I'm not surprised that you also blame social security for your inability to put 100 bucks a month into an IRA.

You do a great job of insulting teachers. Guess yours were all slackers.

 

[RogueWriter]

I can't help it if you have Lincoln-envy. He was a republican, that's a fact, twist it any which way you can. 80%+ of republicans pushed for and passed the Civil Rights Act, while only 60% or so of Democrats did, again, a fact, something you cannot twist to your ends. It doesn't sit well with you, because it argues against the liberal lies about republicanism. Saying, "Lincoln was really a democrat at heart," is simply your opinion. The fact is, he was a republican, and nothing you can say or do will alter that fact.

 

[DU]

He was a republican, that's a fact, twist it any which way you can. 80%+ of republicans pushed for and passed the Civil Rights Act, while only 60% or so of Democrats did, again, a fact, something you cannot twist to your ends. It doesn't sit well with you, because it argues against the liberal lies about republicanism. Saying, "Lincoln was really a democrat at heart," is simply your opinion. The fact is, he was a republican, and nothing you can say or do will alter that fact.

Who cares what he was back then - it's just a label. Most Republicans now wouldn't have voted for him or agreed with his politics which were mostly "liberal". Most democrats wouldn't vote for the old southern democrats either - but a lot of Republicans would. There has been a progressive shift in politics over the last 40 years that can be fairly readily tracked. I can find a link if you want... you might be surprised to learn about the history of what is modern Republicanism. I seem to know more than most and I have not really studied American history at all. My significant other could give you a complete run down.

I can tell you that a bigger determining factor in 1964 was geographic location and whether you were in a territory or state that was in the confederacy or union... the shifts have been dramatic since.

Your argument is pointless really - Henry Ford made the best cars, made them affordable... I don't tell those who drive around in their Toyota they have Ford envy.

 

[RogueWriter]

Who cares what he was back then - it's just a label.

Of course it's just a label, because he was not a Democrat. Had he been a Democrat, though, it would be a major talking point against the cruel and heartless Republicans for centuries. Liberals only response is, "Well, he wasn't a REAL Republican," neatly sidestepping the issue of the post which is that he WAS, in fact, an actual Republican. That's not fufuland, that is a fact.

If Toyota said, well, those weren't really CARS back then, so they don't count, that would be a similar analogy. Or, perhaps, if Toyota were to say, "Henry Ford was really building Japanese cars," that would be similar.

Liberals seem to have issues with actual statements of fact, they can't just say, you know what, there is the slight chance that Republicans have contributed to society. There is no gray area, you are liberal or you are a heartless child killing racist animal eating polluter. Pointing out that Republicans or Conservatives have contributed to the greatness of this society is like fingernails on chalkboards to them.

 

[DU]

Seriously, I would not have worked a 23 hour day last Saturday, nor 16 hour days since.

You're living the American dream. We didn't build those candies, you did.

Republicans obviously want public schools, but they also want those schools to actually teach students. Liberals are more interested in schools as a source of union revenue than they are in doing what is right for the children. Name an industry, other than teaching, where you can slack off for years and not get fired. -crickets chirping-

Yawn. Anyone can turn any argument in anyone's favor. I could just as easily say that Republicans want to defund public schools through voucher programs which can be spent on private schools run by profit seeking corporations and their investors but often fail to consider the challenge of people living in poorer neighborhoods actually being able to get to those private schools because their mommy doesn't have a new Lexus to drop them off in (this last statement was to fit in with the vitriol and lay a simple "trap" I could walk into for myself so that you could say poor people buy Lexus' with my tax money and some rich people are because they invest wisely ;0)) .

Name an industry? All Civil Servants, most govt employees ....

All this conversation is tit-for-tat bullshit. No one actually talks about their own ideals too much because they're too busy dressing it up in some common denominator - I'm a Republican, I'm a Democrat - what does that mean? It's about as politically meaning ful as saying you like Bacon.

(save Theo who says whatever the f&ck he wants.... and Gilsan who seems to hate everything)

 

[DU]

Of course it's just a label, because he was not a Democrat. Had he been a Democrat, though, it would be a major talking point against the cruel and heartless Republicans for centuries.

Great, your personal ideals are so tight with the concept of a party that you're not interested in actual policy, meaning, or intent. It's the badge you wear that matters?

You see that Lexus? That ain't a Toyota, that company is shit.

 

[RogueWriter]

I suppose we could start saying, "Well, Nixon wasn;t REALLY a Republican. He was a liberal Democrat at heart, so we will put up a plaque at Northeastern Illinois University that reads 'Democrat'." Imagine the shrill wails of complaint emanating from the Democrats.

 

[RogueWriter]

Great, your personal ideals are so tight with the concept of a party that you're not interested in actual policy, meaning, or intent. It's the badge you wear that matters?

You see that Lexus? That ain't a Toyota, that company is shit.

See, it is impossible to get liberals to just say, yeah, Lincoln was a Republican. They just can't do it without saying, well, that doesn't really matter. I wonder if Lincoln would want entire generations of Americans to live off government funding without advancing their lives, just asking for more and more handouts. Because that is a liberal based agenda. Off hand my impression is that he would be for advancing a more conservative view. So maybe he is not the liberal that liberals try to embrace. It would just be so convenient for them if he were actually a Democrat, because that would blend in so well with the lie that only Democrats/Liberals care about the impoverished. But, maybe that's just me.

 

[RogueWriter]

No one actually talks about their own ideals too much because they're too busy dressing it up in some common denominator - I'm a Republican, I'm a Democrat - what does that mean? It's about as politically meaning ful as saying you like Bacon.

Given that Democrats have voted into office the worst 2 Presidents in the history of the country, whose inept guidance have consistently derailed American foreign,military, economic and social policies, I'd say that whether you identify yourself as a Republican or Democrat says quite a lot about you.

 

[Theo Goodman]

This whole lib vs. con discussion doesnt lead anywhere and doesnt help anyone.
What good family vales are is subjective and cant be proven, imho. Or we could ask wiki and then double check if someone from an capital hill IP or a Krimlin IP edited the entry, or we could go to a debunker forum where they have surely debunked what family values are and have no agenda in spreading link bait or attracting traffic since they are debunkers.

 

[DU]

See, it is impossible to get liberals to just say, yeah, Lincoln was a Republican. They just can't do it without saying, well, that doesn't really matter. I wonder if Lincoln would want entire generations of Americans to live off government funding without advancing their lives, just asking for more and more handouts. Because that is a liberal based agenda. Off hand my impression is that he would be for advancing a more conservative view. So maybe he is not the liberal that liberals try to embrace. It would just be so convenient for them if he were actually a Democrat, because that would blend in so well with the lie that only Democrats/Liberals care about the impoverished. But, maybe that's just me.

Firstly, I wouldn't ever class myself as something so broad brush as liberal, so I don't believe you should either.
Secondly, Abraham Lincoln was a member of the Republican party, I never said he wasn't.

Perhaps the idea that Abraham Lincoln was a liberal president needs to be put in the context of the time, place and manner in which he lived. Times, they have changed.

As for the impoverished - if we're going to make nonsense arguments like only Democrats care about the impoverished we should say that's because the Republicans think that they're just future rich people being too lazy?

I don't know how much clearer I can make the notion of partisan politcs as a root of evil be.

I know Republicans and Democrats who take state "handouts" in the form of mortgage interest deductions (which actually is similar in size to SNAP)... I know Republicans who lamented people that didn't "pay their way" live mortgage free when they realized that they couldn't afford the $500,000 home they were in.... I know Democrats who hate abortion. I know Republicans and Democrats who both have kids they want to be educated. I even know people that complain they are in debt because they're too proud to tell their children they can't afford to send them to college and people that thought buying investment homes was the golden paved road. I know people that hate the idea of affordable healthcare for all and then complain because Cobra cost too much..and why - what happens after that? Why does my medicine cost so much? And why can't I see the doctor I want? I know people that love how much money they've racked up in their stock market earnings but don't understand why their company just laid everyone off. I know people that hate income tax but don't even know what income is... how come Warren Buffet doesn't pay much tax? I know people that want a flat tax but then hate that the rich are getting richer. I know people that want a progressive tax but don't think they should pay more... shall I go on?

Let me simplify it. Party politics is all bullshit and if you want to think that it means something that you voted for Abraham Lincoln's party?
Go ahead. If you really think a President defines the path that a society takes go ahead... if you think Congress works now the way it used to? Fine. If you want to hate me? Hate me but I won't hate anyone back =)

 

[GILSAN]

.... and Gilsan who seems to hate everything)

1. Liberal Loonies
2. Liberal Governments
3. Liberal Media

Those are on top of my list of man made disasters

 

[DU]

1. Loonies
2. Governments
3. Media

Now you have mine

 

[RogueWriter]

What Does Warren Buffet Pay In Taxes? I know, $1.6 billion doesn't -seem- like a lot in the financial pools that liberals swim in, but.....

As for the rest, I gotta get back to work. I'll rip your post to shreds later. ;P

 

[DU]

What Does Warren Buffet Pay In Taxes? I know, $1.6 billion doesn't -seem- like a lot in the financial pools that liberals swim in, but....

Firstly, I'm not liberal and I don't know what financial pools they swim in.
Secondly, not sure what there is to rip apart but have at it.
Thirdly, where's your online candy store? Does it have the old stuff? That's really *IN* where I am - couple of stores have opened.

I was talking specifically about Warren Buffet's personal income tax. In 2010, adjusted gross income in 2010 of $62,855,038 with $6,923,494 paid in taxes. If we want to talk Corporate Tax then there are a number of other companies I can mention that are located in Belize, the Cook Islands, etc. etc. Yes it's a lot but I think he'll cope with take home income of $55,000,000

The thing is that the best way to get richer, is to start rich =)

 

[eyedomainous]

Even if $2-$4 billion of SNAP money is spent on snacks, that would be the smallest area of (alleged) waste of tax payer money when it comes to food... as half the food in the U.S. is wasted, and this waste cost US $165.6 billion a year? [http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/234-2425.pdf]

Add to that the cost of growing, manufacturing, transporting, and disposing of food -- where food waste is the largest % of all waste in landfills. And the largest generator of methane air pollution, and the largest generator of leachate -ground and water pollution... all of which taxpayers pay -from waste disposal to clean-up, in addition to health and other environmental costs.

Combine these costs and your in the $1 Trillion neighborhood. Yet, virtually all you, and the Republican Party whine about, and legislate against, is the alleged waste of food stamp money. This is even more striking when one considers an estimated 50 Million Americans do not have access to enough food.

BTW, as a fan of snack food I will remind you... chips are still potatoes. Doritos are made of corn... and virtually all snack food is fortified and enriched... so much so that people get fat if they eat to much. I will also say processed foods, by law, process out the toxins found in natural foods... and that is why you never hear about a snack food recall because of some foodbourne pathogen, etc..

Now why, exactly, does the $2-$4 billion of alleged food stamp 'abuse' command so much attention and legislation from Republicans when it is the single smallest area of (alleged) food waste in a country that makes up 5% of the world's population, consumes 25% of the world's resources... and wastes half of that on throw-away food production?

Part of this Democrat controlled congresses mismanagement would be the way they allow snack goods and soda pop to be purchased using SNAP funds, without statistical reporting. It would be very easy for the government to require any corporation that accepts SNAP money to generate a detailed report as to sales. Showing which items were purchased with these funds would end any question at all as to the usefullness of the program. But, our government does not do that. The argument used for not generating those reports is privacy concerns for the corporations; they suggest it would be an unfair advantage to their competitors to see what they are selling, even though the government could collate these reports anonymously.

The real reason, I suspect, is that lobby groups for the soda and snack industry does not want Joe Public to see that $2-$4 billion of SNAP money is being spent in their niches every year.

For some reason, the democrat controlled congress thinks it is important for them to know when someone looks at pollups in your intestines by sticking a hose up your butt, but they don't want to know if people are spending billions of government money on junk food and soda pop.

So no, government is not being responsible with SNAP money, or they would be generating analytical reports on how every user purchases milk, bread, fruits, vegetables and ground beef with the funds.

 

[verbster]

See, it is impossible to get liberals to just say, yeah, Lincoln was a Republican. They just can't do it without saying, well, that doesn't really matter. I wonder if Lincoln would want entire generations of Americans to live off government funding without advancing their lives, just asking for more and more handouts. Because that is a liberal based agenda. Off hand my impression is that he would be for advancing a more conservative view.

Good grief. What a silly thing to claim. Why makes you think anyone, liberals included, would find it hard to say Lincoln was a Republican? There is no question Lincoln was a Republican. In fact, Abraham Lincoln was a great Republican. He was also one of the two most popular presidents. Now let's finish the equation. Lincoln joined the new Republican Party in 1858, just four years after being formed mostly by the anti-slavery Liberals of the Whig Party (that became divided about slavery after the Kansas-Nebraska Act). That new party, Lincoln included, was the Liberal Party of the time, which you seem to have trouble acknowledging. You seem to think by saying Lincoln was a Republican that he stood for the same ideas, policies and ideas of current Republicans, which is just as delusional as creating your own theory of what Lincoln would be in favor of today and using it as though based on logic. I find it hard to believe you haven't Googled Lincoln and found out why even conservative historians agree he was a Liberal. He enacted some of the most Liberal acts in our history, including the Emancipation Proclamation, even if it did have some stipulation flaws. So now it's your turn to repeat after me: Lincoln was a liberal.

So maybe he is not the liberal that liberals try to embrace. It would just be so convenient for them if he were actually a Democrat, because that would blend in so well with the lie that only Democrats/Liberals care about the impoverished. But, maybe that's just me.

Show me what conservatives have done lately to show they care about the impoverished.

 

[verbster]

I will also say processed foods, by law, process out the toxins found in natural foods... and that is why you never hear about a snack food recall because of some foodbourne pathogen, etc..

You're a bit wrong on this. In fact, there's a pretty serious recall for salmonella going on right now for snacks and energy bars containing organic carob.

There's also a number of serious recalls involving processed foods containing peanuts

 

[verbster]

This whole lib vs. con discussion doesnt lead anywhere and doesnt help anyone.
What good family vales are is subjective and cant be proven, imho. Or we could ask wiki and then double check if someone from an capital hill IP or a Krimlin IP edited the entry, or we could go to a debunker forum where they have surely debunked what family values are and have no agenda in spreading link bait or attracting traffic since they are debunkers.

From my perspective, this kind of discussion helps many people, as once in a while stuff gets exposed for the BS it is. For example, when someone complains about good family values going out the window in the U.S., it immediately makes me want to know what good family values are. And if the person doing the complaining can't define what he's complaining about, that says a lot. Just like it does if someone's definition of good family values is based on religious teachings or even of the nuclear families of the 50's. It's not necessarily good or bad, but it gives some insight to the complainers. But when the statement is just tossed out there with nothing to reference it to, well, that says a lot, too.

 

[verbster]

Yet, virtually all you, and the Republican Party whine about, and legislate against, is the alleged waste of food stamp money. This is even more striking when one considers an estimated 50 Million Americans do not have access to enough food.

This is normally swept under the rug when conservatives speak in generalities about taking the benefits away from poor people because they are all lazy and undeserving. That kind of nonsensical statement includes kids with caring parents or just one parent, or older people. Unfortunately, there are always going to be attempts to scam the system and give people an excuse to condemn everyone at once. The irritating part is that no answers are offered beyond the usual cut the funding attitude. Even if cutting the funding did force changes, how far does it go before it gets cruel.