Originally Posted by RichieLion

Hey Richie.

Originally Posted by villa2

Hey.

Originally Posted by pauld315

Hey Paul.

Originally Posted by Lou Card

One only need to read my post, then your reply and anyone with reason will see that you are simply trying to bait me into your mud slinging discussion. If all you got out of my post was that I am ate up with myself, there is no need for me to reply to you.
I do agree with one statements. IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT ME. It is all about our country and you just can't seem to grasp that point. I love America and I think you love to argue. I am devoting my time on this site to bridge the gap between left and right. It is far to important that we begin to talk in a civil manor and stop the crazy mud slinging. Please don't widen the gap so far it becomes impossible to build a bridge over our differences. Could it be that to stop mud slinging would take away your entertainment. Give peace a Chance.

We are going broke and you think I am self absorbed.
The races are dividing and you think I feel more important than you.
Unemployment is through the roof and your main concern is how I write my Threads.

Bucco, we need to talk so please stop the personality bashing.

I have been ignoring your posts but could not ignore your continuing talking about yourself and others on here as if you were our saviour. I am sorry..that is how I see it.

And you NEVER EVER LECTURE me on my love of country of my involvement with this country by making comments like...."It is all about our country and you just can't seem to grasp that point. I love America and I think you love to argue." You have no idea of my background or what I have done. You may THINK you have been sent here to straighten everyone out but you have not.

As far as the board is concerned I have been posting here since the beginning without your help, and as I told you before..you may have served our country but so did I and MOST who post on here.

You take any post and make it all about you....that is my point and stop PLEASE acting as if you invented this board, invented patriotism or poltical discussion. This board was here LONG BEFORE you got here....political discussion existed before you, and I (and I can only speak for myself) do not need lectures from you on what to do.

To actually say " I am devoting my time on this site to bridge the gap between left and right." to people who have been around longer than you here and in life...who do you think you are...are you shooting for Chris Matthews to have one of those "tickle moments" because of you great work in The Villages.....were you sent here to lead us all out of the dark ?

There are MANY..MANY folks on here who support both left and right, who have spent their lives defending or otherwise helping this country, who are well educated and understand the world, who are great americans whether left or right, Democrat or Republican and frankly they dont need you to "devote your time to bridge the left and right".

You surely are welcome to post here and everyone wants other opinions, but your self absorbed, "holier than thou" attitude just wears on me. I am speaking for myself but trust me LOU....this board and The Villages is crammed full of folks who are better educated than you or I....did many more things that you or I, understand what is going on better than you or I.....I have lived here for 11 years and have met many of them. Don't lecture them ! They are on both sides of the political debate...they oppose and they support the President....they supported and opposed the last President. They present their views in a strong manner and will continue to do despite it offending you when they disagree with you. You have the right to present your views in the same manner, but make your posts about the ISSUE, and not you and how YOU are above some and give kudos to those who "get it" as you say.

I apologize for the rant to you and anyone else who reads this, but you come on here and tell me how you love america and I love to argue implying something that I take great offense to and you are going to "bridge the gap" .....just too much !

I am devoting my time on this site to bridge the gap between left and right.

Why would we want to bridge a gap between right and wrong. Liberalism must be defeated, not bridged.

If it is a bridge built by liberals, it would be called the bridge to nowhere.

The problem with those who are totally self-absorbed is that a critique on their behavior is only going to be understood by them if that person can look outside of themselves and see what others see.
Of course, the self-absorbed will not consider that this post could apply to them and will probably think that I just validated their behavior.

Originally Posted by Bucco

I have been ignoring your posts but could not ignore your continuing talking about yourself and others on here as if you were our saviour. I am sorry..that is how I see it.

And you NEVER EVER LECTURE me on my love of country of my involvement with this country by making comments like...."It is all about our country and you just can't seem to grasp that point. I love America and I think you love to argue." You have no idea of my background or what I have done. You may THINK you have been sent here to straighten everyone out but you have not.

As far as the board is concerned I have been posting here since the beginning without your help, and as I told you before..you may have served our country but so did I and MOST who post on here.

You take any post and make it all about you....that is my point and stop PLEASE acting as if you invented this board, invented patriotism or poltical discussion. This board was here LONG BEFORE you got here....political discussion existed before you, and I (and I can only speak for myself) do not need lectures from you on what to do.

To actually say " I am devoting my time on this site to bridge the gap between left and right." to people who have been around longer than you here and in life...who do you think you are...are you shooting for Chris Matthews to have one of those "tickle moments" because of you great work in The Villages.....were you sent here to lead us all out of the dark ?

There are MANY..MANY folks on here who support both left and right, who have spent their lives defending or otherwise helping this country, who are well educated and understand the world, who are great americans whether left or right, Democrat or Republican and frankly they dont need you to "devote your time to bridge the left and right".

You surely are welcome to post here and everyone wants other opinions, but your self absorbed, "holier than thou" attitude just wears on me. I am speaking for myself but trust me LOU....this board and The Villages is crammed full of folks who are better educated than you or I....did many more things that you or I, understand what is going on better than you or I.....I have lived here for 11 years and have met many of them. Don't lecture them ! They are on both sides of the political debate...they oppose and they support the President....they supported and opposed the last President. They present their views in a strong manner and will continue to do despite it offending you when they disagree with you. You have the right to present your views in the same manner, but make your posts about the ISSUE, and not you and how YOU are above some and give kudos to those who "get it" as you say.

I apologize for the rant to you and anyone else who reads this, but you come on here and tell me how you love america and I love to argue implying something that I take great offense to and you are going to "bridge the gap" .....just too much !

WOW. You are one scary paranoid person.

Originally Posted by dklassen

Why would we want to bridge a gap between right and wrong. Liberalism must be defeated, not bridged.

If you truely feel that way, you are

http://www.insidebayarea.com/california/ci_15995785

Are they not in tune with the will of the people?
Obviously not. They know they have gotten away with doing nothing for we the people and still get re-elected.

It just shows their stupid self centered, me first mentality when in the current environment they think all they need to do is throw money at the public, play and say nice nice.

Well I hope they spend it all and still get their hat handed to them.

Of course they have the advantage of the media, but I hope and pray the current ground swell maintains it's momentum and the voters toss 'em out and then gloat over it the next day.

I wanna see Nancy cry!!!!!!!!!!

btk

Originally Posted by dklassen

Why would we want to bridge a gap between right and wrong. Liberalism must be defeated, not bridged.

Yoda

Originally Posted by Lou Card

I picked out some of the top Republican issues:

1. Support a robust version of federalism with greater limitations based on federal power and a larger role reserved for the states. Disagree.
2. Strongly believe that making law is the prerogative of the legislature and that judiciary should not legislate from the bench. Agree.
3. Favor lower income tax rates and believe that graduated tax rates (higher income tax rates for high income earners) unfairly target those who create jobs and wealth. Disagree.
4. They do agree that a 'safety net' should be provided for those who are needy and less fortunate but believe that the private sector would be more effective than the government in meeting these objective. Towards this end, they have been trying to privatize 'social security funds management'. Terrible Idea.
5. A 'single-payer universal health care system' as found in other developed countries labeling it as 'socialized medicine'. They favor the current personal- or employer-based insurance system complimented by the Medicare and Medicaid programs of the government. Not sure yet.
6. As a general rule, they oppose strict environmental regulation as they believe it hurts businesses. They have made several notable contributions to the field of environmental protection but are not taking a consistent and clear stand on this major issue. Agree.
7. Oppose same-sex marriage and gay rights. Agree because Gays and Lesbians have the right to form a contractual marriage agreement.
8. Oppose racial quotas. Agree.
9. Agree.
10. Advocate a strong national defense and strongly support unilateralism in matters of national security and insist on their right to take any action in their own self-interest. Agree.

Now, this is the reason I continue to say, talk to me and you may have a supporter, slam me and I will vote straight Left. Childish way to think, YES it is, but so is insulting the other party for their convictions.

For the Negative 5. NO OFFENSE y'all.

First, I apologize to all for the length of this post and the many grammatical and punctuation errors along with the misspellings. I caught as many as I could.

Lou, I believe the reason that no one has commented on your assertions, in depth, is they in large part lump two or more of your beliefs together and credit ‘The Republicans’ as having this confused belief.

To provide some examples:

3. Favor lower income tax rates and believe that graduated tax rates (higher income tax rates for high income earners) unfairly target those who create jobs and wealth.

This is two beliefs:
(1) Favor lower tax rates and
(2) Favor elimination of graduated tax rates. Two entirely different ideas and a person can support one and oppose the other.

4. They do agree that a 'safety net' should be provided for those who are needy and less fortunate but believe that the private sector would be more effective than the government in meeting these objective. Towards this end, they have been trying to privatize 'social security funds management'.

Three/four separate ideas.
(1/1 & 1a) They do agree that ‘a safety net’ for those who are needy (1) and less fortunate (1a).
(2) Believe the private sector could be more effective than government in meeting these objectives;
(3) Towards this end, they have been trying to privatize 'social security funds management'.
All of these are separate ideas. Terms such as needy and less fortunate need definition. Idea (3) is clearly false. A person can support (1) without supporting (2).

5. A 'single-payer universal health care system' as found in other developed countries labeling it as 'socialized medicine'. They favor the current personal- or employer-based insurance system complimented by the Medicare and Medicaid programs of the government.

You accredit three separate beliefs to Republicans:

(1) Oppose a single-payer health care system. This is certainly correct for most Republicans.
(2) Single-payer health care systems are found in other developed countries. This is a broad generalization. Certainly not true for all developed countries.
(3) Favor the current system. Most Republicans favor careful and incremental changes to the existing system rather than the massive jump called Obamacare.

6. As a general rule, they oppose strict environmental regulation as they believe it hurts businesses. They have made several notable contributions to the field of environmental protection but are not taking a consistent and clear stand on this major issue.

You have multiple purported beliefs jammed together:
(1) Republicans oppose ‘strict environmental regulations.
(2) Republicans do this because they believe it hurts business.
(3) Republicans are not taking a consistent and clear stand on this major issue.

I have no idea of what ideas you are describing in each of these beliefs. You need to clarify and provide clear examples before such assertions can be understood.

7. Oppose same-sex marriage and gay rights. Agree because Gays and Lesbians have the right to form a contractual marriage.
This paragraph is unclear. However two asserted beliefs are clear.

(1) Republicans oppose same-sex marriages.
(2) Republicans oppose gay rights.

Same-sex marriage is a clearly understood issue and is opposed by the majority of the American people as demonstrated through numerous elections. ‘Gay rights’, as you use it, is undefined. You have to clarify what you mean by this, as separate from same-sex marriage. Republicans have championed civil rights for all people through the years.

9. Strongly favor capital punishment as a means to prevent crimes while, at the same time, strongly supporting gun ownership rights.

Again, two separate beliefs:
(1) Republicans favor capital punishment.
(2) Republicans support gun ownership rights.
Any person: Democrat/Liberal/Republican/Conservative may ascribe to one of these beliefs without supporting the other. In my case. I oppose capital punishment for both moral and practical reason while supporting gun rights.

About the "liberalism must be defeated" I have to comment - Liberalism may stand for a lot of things that I don't like - HOWEVER - "Liberalism" brought us universal suffrage, a 5-day, 8-hour-per work week, and end to child labor and a LOT of other things. Yes, I agree, it's Gone Too Far in some cases but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Now, as far as Lou's List goes, I'm going to assume that he had a source similar to mine. During an election campaign, I've been known to ask the pollsters who call me (and they call - I live in NH - they call a LOT) to send me copies of their platform (when the pollster is affiliated with a party). Usually I get something. One time (when the first George Bush was running) I got a huge manila envelope in the mail a few days later with enough material in 'position statements' to keep me reading for quite a while.

Sadly, going to the RNC website and entering "platform" into their search engine returns the following:

Your search - platform - did not match any documents

Read more: http://www.gop.com/Search/search_pag...#ixzz0yhKmdHCi

To be honest, I find that depressing.

Now, what the heck, I'll chime in on Lou's List.

1. It's a bit vague so I can't really comment on it. Where do you draw the 'federalism line'?

2. Yes, the legislature makes the laws. The judiciary is supposed to interpret the law and that's what they do. Now, the definition of "interpret" seems to have stretched a bit in the past few years but I think it's more because the people (read: advocates of any particular position) are trying to use the judiciary as their tool, right wrong or indifferent. Remember, a judge can't rule on something that hasn't been brought before him or her.

3. I favor a flat, fair tax with exemptions providing the "progressivity". That way the myth of rich tax-dodgers (as opposed to the *fact* that the top few percent of wage earners pay over HALF the taxes) would go away. It would stop the arguing and pitting one group against another.

4. Perhaps block grants to the states are better ways to handle this. (with fewer strings attached)

5. I favor looking at other countries as seeing WHAT WORKS. We pay the most - far more than any other country for our health care. Regardless of whether you believe we're 37th in 'results' or not, one cannot argue that we are NOT the best overall system (unless you're independantly wealthy). This does NOT automatically mean that single-payer systems like in Canada and the UK are the answer. In fact, the report that said we were 37th? It said France's public/private system got the best results overall.

6. We have to draw a line on 'environmental law' to say "this much and no more". You can't just "make s#!+ up" and claim it's real - and then find out YEARS later you were wrong (read: 1970s impending ice age).

7. I favor same-sex marriages (with all the same DISadvantages as well) because the benefits that 'they' (people like my aunt) are looking for are alredy covered under 'marriage'. Inventing another classification means that a hospital in Utah could say "we allow spouses but not civil union partners" when it comes to visiting your s/o who was just in a skiing accident. It's wrong. A federal study showed there were over 1600 benefits (granted many of them are pretty narrow) that 'married' couples may enjoy.

8. We're supposed to have 'equal protection under the law'. As such, quotas are Just Plain Wrong.

9. I favor capital punishment, though I would hold it to a different standard. Civil cases are a "preponderance of the evidence". Criminal cases are "beyond a resonable doubt". Capital punishment should be "beyond a shadow of a doubt". And I don't favor it as a deterrence. You can never prove it. What you CAN prove is that criminals who are executed have an extremely low redecivism rate! I just don't like how it seems that too many innocents (actually ONE is too many) are in this category. One story I read had a deputy sheriff chasing a suspect through a swamp yet, at the end of the chase, the guy who was arrested had pants that were bone dry (even though the deputy saw and heard splashing during the chase). That being said, I *do* believe that some crimes are *so* heinous that you forfeit your right to life.

Originally Posted by djplong

About the "liberalism must be defeated" I have to comment - Liberalism may stand for a lot of things that I don't like - HOWEVER - "Liberalism" brought us universal suffrage, a 5-day, 8-hour-per work week, and end to child labor and a LOT of other things. Yes, I agree, it's Gone Too Far in some cases but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Now, as far as Lou's List goes, I'm going to assume that he had a source similar to mine. During an election campaign, I've been known to ask the pollsters who call me (and they call - I live in NH - they call a LOT) to send me copies of their platform (when the pollster is affiliated with a party). Usually I get something. One time (when the first George Bush was running) I got a huge manila envelope in the mail a few days later with enough material in 'position statements' to keep me reading for quite a while.

Sadly, going to the RNC website and entering "platform" into their search engine returns the following:



To be honest, I find that depressing.

Now, what the heck, I'll chime in on Lou's List.

1. It's a bit vague so I can't really comment on it. Where do you draw the 'federalism line'?

2. Yes, the legislature makes the laws. The judiciary is supposed to interpret the law and that's what they do. Now, the definition of "interpret" seems to have stretched a bit in the past few years but I think it's more because the people (read: advocates of any particular position) are trying to use the judiciary as their tool, right wrong or indifferent. Remember, a judge can't rule on something that hasn't been brought before him or her.

3. I favor a flat, fair tax with exemptions providing the "progressivity". That way the myth of rich tax-dodgers (as opposed to the *fact* that the top few percent of wage earners pay over HALF the taxes) would go away. It would stop the arguing and pitting one group against another.

4. Perhaps block grants to the states are better ways to handle this. (with fewer strings attached)

5. I favor looking at other countries as seeing WHAT WORKS. We pay the most - far more than any other country for our health care. Regardless of whether you believe we're 37th in 'results' or not, one cannot argue that we are NOT the best overall system (unless you're independantly wealthy). This does NOT automatically mean that single-payer systems like in Canada and the UK are the answer. In fact, the report that said we were 37th? It said France's public/private system got the best results overall.

6. We have to draw a line on 'environmental law' to say "this much and no more". You can't just "make s#!+ up" and claim it's real - and then find out YEARS later you were wrong (read: 1970s impending ice age).

7. I favor same-sex marriages (with all the same DISadvantages as well) because the benefits that 'they' (people like my aunt) are looking for are alredy covered under 'marriage'. Inventing another classification means that a hospital in Utah could say "we allow spouses but not civil union partners" when it comes to visiting your s/o who was just in a skiing accident. It's wrong. A federal study showed there were over 1600 benefits (granted many of them are pretty narrow) that 'married' couples may enjoy.

8. We're supposed to have 'equal protection under the law'. As such, quotas are Just Plain Wrong.

9. I favor capital punishment, though I would hold it to a different standard. Civil cases are a "preponderance of the evidence". Criminal cases are "beyond a resonable doubt". Capital punishment should be "beyond a shadow of a doubt". And I don't favor it as a deterrence. You can never prove it. What you CAN prove is that criminals who are executed have an extremely low redecivism rate! I just don't like how it seems that too many innocents (actually ONE is too many) are in this category. One story I read had a deputy sheriff chasing a suspect through a swamp yet, at the end of the chase, the guy who was arrested had pants that were bone dry (even though the deputy saw and heard splashing during the chase). That being said, I *do* believe that some crimes are *so* heinous that you forfeit your right to life.

Since you found your visit to the GOP site so "sad", just for the record...

The Democratic party site has no search engine at all..this is the site...http://www.democrats.org/ ! However it does give you the ability to click on a number of tabs to see positions.

Now this will really make you happy since you were so "sad"....if you click on the tab titled ISSUES at the GOP site...guess what....stands on issues EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS PRESENTED ON THE DEM SITE.

Hope this cheers you up....http://www.gop.com/

a 5-day, 8-hour-per work week

LOL, I wish.