We have seen the enemy and it is *us*
Republicans? Democrats? Who endangers this country more?
It's us. From today's NH Union Leader: Quote:
|
What's scarier is that these folks are the majority of independants that can get hooked in with slogans like "Hope & Change" while never asking exactly what it meant.
|
I kind of like the phrase, "A Bridge to Nowhere" and the incumbent governor (at that time) was in favor of it. Of course, I am talking abut Sarah.
|
Oh the snow jobs are on all sides... I remember people thinking we could balance the budget by eliminating foreign aid (a miniscule portion of expenditures). There were cries about welfare spending from Republicans and defense increases from Democrats (and in the 80s both cases were wrong). I've heard Democrats blame Reagan for closing state hospitals in Massachusetts when it was Dukakis who did it years before Reagan came to D.C. Today Republicans think that cutting a few million from the CPB helps while ignoring cuts that the Air Force wants to voluntarily make. The Democrats, on the other hand, can't make up their mind from minute to minute WHAT they want to do.
A person is smart. "People" are dumb. |
Apples and Oranges
Quote:
|
Thinking on her feet
Another great Palin-ism,
"Well, let's see. There's ― of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ―" from her interview with Katie Couric |
Oh, are we back to Palin again? Tired of Bachmann bashing already? Switching back and forth now just to keep things fresh?
One thing the libs hate I guess more than a conservative is a conservative woman. Maybe they'd gain favor with the left if they aborted a child or two and wanted to raise taxes on the rich... Anyway, I tend to agree with the title of this post. We don't like debt but we keep electing the same people over and over who put us into debt. Now they want to fix social security all the while they have been robbing it blind. Lock box was it? No doubt people know so little about our country or even have an ounce of common sense anymore (well, some do). They don't teach the truth in schools anyone. The dumbing down of America in the immortal words of Jeremiah Wright is "coming home to roost." |
As a favor to Lassen, here is a Michele Bachmann quote:
''If we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.'' Almost makes Palin sound like she could have gotten through community college, doesn't it? |
In case you haven't thought of it, posting dumb quotes from people doesn't mean a thing. I can post just as many from long time democratic congressmen... and woman. Some you may have even voted for.
So what's your point? Palin and Bachmann are stupid? Geeeeeeee, I've never seen a stupid politician before. I'm shocked. |
I believe the point is that THEY are getting the press. THEY (and Trump) are being portrayed as the voice of the party instead of someone like Romney.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
At least these two women are honest to God America loving patriots instead of the blame America first nation devolutionists who are at the forefront of the once great Democrat Party of Truman and Kennedy. |
There's certainly nothing wring with being patriotic - they're just in WAY over their heads. What's worse is that their ignorance gets ignored by their fan base - much in the way that Obama's inexperience was largely glossed over.
I mean, if you really look at Palin's record, it's not that impressive because being mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska are, comparatively speaking EASY jobs. Governing Massachusetts is FAR more difficult than governing Alaska, which is why Romney gets more respect from me than Palin. That's where I have the mental disconnect. Palin, Bachman and Trump getting the press. Pawlenty is, technically speaking, the front-runner (in that he's the only actually DECLARED candidate) and Romney is mostly ignored - though he's run before and is most likely to run again. |
Using the same perspective and scale of measurement
Obama would not have even been on the ticket.
Measurements such as in over their heads..."qualified"...intelligence...capable... are all words used to denounce the opposition, especially the women. That same microscope applied to the current incumbents including Obama would not qualify any better. All that is needed is a smooth talker/speech reader/glad hander and the gullible we the people buy it hook line and sinker. You want proof...just look at the same dunces that continually get re-elected. How about some real qualities required of a TRUE, BUSINESS EXPERIENCED, ACCOUNTABLE, PERFORMANCE, ACCOMPLISHMENT BASED, SAY IT AND DO IT..... LEADER? Washington would be vacant!!! As well as most candidates not qualified. We the people are quite content with the mediocre (at best!!!) business as usual in Washington. btk btk |
Richie,
Me, a bomb thrower? Me, try to get a rise out of people? Would I ever stoop to that just for a smile? However, to portray Sarah Palin as an American Patriot is going just too far, in my opinion. Richie, she has handlers who will not let her speak on her own. Interviews have to be pre-approved for questions by her handlers. If Palin was a true patriot like you stated, she would not have quit her term as Alaska governor. She quit in order to sell herself and make money. Her ghost-written books have made millions of dollars and she commands big money for her canned speeches - written by speechwriters (and I do know all politicians have speechwriters). Well, off my Palin soapbox now and off to the golf course. Hope you have a good day in The Villages today. Enjoy an ice-cold Yeungling when you can. |
Quote:
The difference is these "ignorant" people who are "way over their heads" are saying things the party faithful relate to, and would like to hear your "front-runners" articulate. Who cares if Bachman get a inconsequential history fact wrong. She'd like to dump a cold bucket of whoop-a** on Obama's head, and we'd like to see her do it. We're tired of these "front-runners" going along to get along attitude and their willingness to compromise principles. Screw compromise; people want someone with a will strong enough to take these progressives on, beat them, and give them a big kick in the backside on their way out the door. That's why Trump, Palin and Bachman are connecting with the base. The Republican RINO leadership better be paying attention, because this latest capitulation to Obama just got everyone madder than ever. |
How about a novel approach? Measure them all the same
way?
The current discussions sound like it's OK to have the incompetence we have in the current herd of space taker uppers in Washington, and that anybody new, of the opposition that is, that is far and away better than most incumbents is flawed is ......:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: btk |
Quote:
Quote:
Can you name me a case where sloganeering solved a problem? And I'm not sarcastic here - can you point me to any Tea Party legislator statement that proposed legislation to punish the unelected people who drove our economy ito the ground - the bankers we bailed out and who are now back to their old ways? *Believe me* I understand the frustration. But time and time again, the polls show that Americans are fundamentally ignorant about where the money comes from and goes to when it travels through Washington. Never mind the fact that you can play with numbers that show whatever you want. Want to keep taxes low on 'the rich'? Point out that the top 10% of earners pays over a third of the taxes - the top 50% paying 99%. Want to hike taxes on 'the rich'? Point out that taxes are lower than they have been since the 1950s. Want to stop development of commuter rail in New Hampshire (to take a local example)? Point out that an annual subsidy of $6M might be needed and make a claim that it should pay for itself. Want to continue that development? Point out that highways do NO pay their way, they're subsidized just like airports and airlines (Gas tax took in $30B and highways cost $50B - guess where the difference comes from). It's all 'spin' these days. |
Quote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...fe-american-ev http://www.plannedparenthood.org/fil...P_Services.pdf Quote:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/20...-liberals.aspx Quote:
What this country needs is a Conservative candidate who can articulate what this country stands for, and what it needs to do to save itself, in the manner of Ronald Reagan. If just one person could do that and has even the slightest bit of charisma he would overwhelm the devolutionist, secularist, socialist, progressive liberals who have their hands around the throat of America. The proof of what I say is in the public's eagerness to grab onto anyone who has the nerve to stand up and proclaim America's greatness to the world and the desire to bring it back from the edge of the precipice where the current leadership has dragged us. You need to look at the public's fascination with Trump, Palin, Bachman, etc. and deduce why these figures are garnering so much prestige. If someone could do as I wish, and avoid being caricatured, he/she would move mountains. |
Quote:
A little research indicates that Planned Parenthood gets about 1/3 of it's funding from the government. Their income from clinics was about the same dollar amount and the rest seem to come from donations. Think for a moment - NINETY SEVEN PERCENT of Planned Parenthood's activities are things I would imagine you agree with. Cancer screenings, affordable contraception (30 years ago it was the only affordable source for birth control pills that my wife took), etc. In 2009, government grants and contracts provided $360M of Planned Parenthood's income. I don't have handy how much of that is local versus federal. All I can find at the moment was that, in 2004, $100M came from 2 federal programs - Medicaid and Title IX, the rest from local/state sources. Now. Consider how much in taxes General Electric WOULD have paid on their $14.2B in profits at the corporate rate. (close to $5B) Consider how little even $300M is compare to the over $3.5T budget. You have to get to $35B to even get to 1%. It's less than 1/100th of 1%. And remember, it's less than three percent of the services that are 30% funded by less than 0.001% of the federal budget. And, as a side note, Kyl's office clarified his statements form the other day. I'm not making this up. They said in a statement they released that his comments were "not intended to be a factual statement". In other words, his comments were intended to be a lie. Quote:
Quote:
I don't agree with all your conclusions, though. I believe there's a middle ground that would make the overwhelming majority of people happy - especially if they didn't have blowhards like Beck on one side and that Ed guy on MSNBC for the other side fanning the flames of hyperpartisanship just to get ratings at the expense of a national dialog. |
DJ; we'll see soon enough who is right about this. I'm betting the people are sick and tired of the "middle ground". I've had enough "middle ground" to last me a lifetime.
You argue with Gallup if you want, but not with me. You said there were more liberals/progressives and centrists (moderates) that conservatives, and that is not what the polling data show. Now you want to change your premise when confronted with the numbers. Besides, I'm betting if the candidate I'm hoping for is there at the right time, the Independents will flock to him/her over the current mistake in the Oval Office. I'm sure you can argue all day with John Kyle and me, but in the end 320,000 taxpayer subsidized abortions a year is going to be a horrifying reality to us no matter how you present it. Please don't equate this destruction of human life with other government contracts. It's unseemly to me and any other believing Christian. |
I rarely trot this out because it's such an unpleasant memory.
Have you ever had to clean up a miscarriage? I have. I've had to console my wife, burying my own feelings at the time, and clean up the mess when she miscarried some 3+ months into a pregnancy. To equate that 'level of development' with a full-formed child is a matter of opinion. Was it alive? Yes. Was it human? Call it a "work in progress" - all the ingredients were there. Technically speaking, the medical term is "spontaneous abortion". Was it the same as a child at birth? No. Was it the same as a fetus at 8 months? 7? No. If memory serves, something over 98% of all abortions occur in the first trimester. Once you get past that, there are usually complications, medical reasons and other extenuating circumstances. Someone spoke of when the heart beats - yeah, and it's a single chamber heart at the time with more in common with a frog than a FULL-DEVELOPED human. Again, the ingredients are there and, in 2 out of 3 cases, if properly nourished through it's *technically* parasitic stage you get a baby in the end (estimates are that 1 out of 3 pregnancies end in miscarriage, very often with the woman barely knowing she was pregnant or perhaps mistaking a 'heavy period' for an early term miscarriage). I'm betting that people are more sick and tired of the hyper-partisanship. The "I want everything on my list or I take my ball and go home" attitude. That's the attitude of spoiled children, not mature adults who realize they have to live in a world with people who do not share all their beliefs or priorities. |
Quote:
I still think it's hypocritical for anyone who believes in the definition of the end of life, as in the ending of brain function, to not also believe in the start of brain function as the beginning of life. That would be about 40 days gestation. I don't hold this view as a Christian who believes in life at conception, but it should be held by any honestly intellectual student of life science. There really is no point in continuing this discussion because obviously we have different ideas on what is human life and the value of it. I will continue to comment if I feel the need to, but to what end, I do not know. |
Everybody just tries to get under everyone else's skin. And the irrational discussion is never-ending....full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
|
Quote:
My mother use to say that if you have nothing interesting to add to a conversation, silence is a good option. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
DP, While this is a complicated discussion, the idea that only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s budget went for abortions is patently false. Your figures for Planned Parenthood income and the government’s share of that income are accurate – approximately one third of PP’s one billion dollar income comes from the National Government.
PP’s figures show that it performed 332,278 abortions in 2009. If you do the math it shows that Planned Parenthood claims the total cost of an abortion is $10 including medical personnel, facilities, disposable supplies, insurance, facility construction and maintenance together with its share of overhead costs. Planned Parenthood’s own figures place the average cost of an abortion at $650 in the first trimester. Second trimester abortions are more expensive averaging around $2.100 each. If we assume that one-half of the abortions are performed in the first trimester and one-half in the second trimester then the cost for the first trimester abortions is 180 million dollars – the cost for the second trimester babies totals 349 million dollars. The total costs for abortions performed by Planned Parenthood, using their own numbers, exceeds $500,000,000 or approximately one-half of the organization’s total budget. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
question answered
Quote:
"Are you forgetting that liberals, progressives and, more importantly CENTRISTS make up more of this country?" |
You can't make an assumption on those abortions statistics.
Firstly, I'll have to do some research but the last time I read up on it, first-trimester abortions consisted of something over 90% of all abortions. Mind you, this was during the "debate" over a particularly nasty-sounding form of third-trimester abortion. I don't remember the number for 2nd trimester but I *do* remember that 3rd trimester abortions are almost always done sue to complications because the Supreme Court ruling DOES allow restrictions in that time frame. What you can't know is how much RU-486 factors into those costs. There are also a lot of regional differences. At one time, up here in NH, an abortion cost $250 but you had to be able to go to Concord NH - so getting there would have added to costs. But in other parts of the country, AT THAT TIME (1991) I'd heard average costs were in the range of $500 (usually more rural areas like the midwest or great plains). |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by
DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.