Originally Posted by villa2

You are right, of course, but if the left insists on blaming everything on President Bush, well, the right can dish it out too.

Examples:

Left-Bush dumb= ratings drop
Right-Obama not citizen=ratings drop.


See how it works?

OK.

Originally Posted by Lou Card

I know it is very unpopular but I support redistribution of wealth to a point. Not near what most understand it to be, but rather Distribute the top 2 % of wealth to the top 20 % of current earnings and they unlike the top 2 % of earners will put the money to good use in hiring and jobs creation etc.

You support redistribution of wealth to a point...what point? The point that it isn't your wealth being taken and redistributed. Where did that comment come from anyway?

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

You support redistribution of wealth to a point...what point? The point that it isn't your wealth being taken and redistributed. Where did that comment come from anyway?

Don't kid yourself, its not yours either.

Originally Posted by Lou Card

Don't kid yourself, its not yours either.

Regardless of whose it is Lou, it isn't mine or yours to take from anyone else.

EXODUS 20:15: You shall not steal.

EXODUS 20:17: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Originally Posted by Lou Card

Don't kid yourself, its not yours either.

Not sure I even understand this,and don't you think we are REDISTRIBUTING the wealth through the myriad of social programs already in place ?

Originally Posted by Bucco

Not sure I even understand this,and don't you think we are REDISTRIBUTING the wealth through the myriad of social programs already in place ?

Yes we are, but there is so many more people that need our help. Should we not have a little guilt when we are doing so well and so many of Gods children are hungry, homeless and in need of mental and medical assistance. If we that have give more, they can have a better life.

Originally Posted by Lou Card

Yes we are, but there is so many more people that need our help. Should we not have a little guilt when we are doing so well and so many of Gods children are hungry, homeless and in need of mental and medical assistance. If we that have give more, they can have a better life.

You see, THAT Lou is the constant liberal answer to make others feel guilty or less than you who care opposed to us who do not.

This is a very giving country...those with already do give and I get very miffed when I hear someone say what you say. Of course, I think the greatest majority of us give much....more in percentage than many of those who judge us who oppose redistribution as NON CHARITABLE.

Please dont judge me or anyone else...it is not fair and you have absolutely no idea of what I, or any other person on this earth does for charity ! And to be against redistribution is not an indication of less caring than you so it should not even be part of the discussion

Originally Posted by Lou Card

Yes we are, but there is so many more people that need our help. Should we not have a little guilt when we are doing so well and so many of Gods children are hungry, homeless and in need of mental and medical assistance. If we that have give more, they can have a better life.

It has been proven many times that capitalism will raise the standard of living for everybody. Communism has been a dismal failure every where it has been tried.
If this system,in the USA fails, the whole country will be in poverty. We are bankrupting the country right now by redistributing the wealth. How much more can we stretch???
If business doesn't get a break soon, more jobs will be lost. The real key to prevent poverty is employment, not handouts.

You feed a person a fish, he eats for the day

You teach a person to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

Originally Posted by Lou Card

Yes we are, but there is so many more people that need our help. Should we not have a little guilt when we are doing so well and so many of Gods children are hungry, homeless and in need of mental and medical assistance. If we that have give more, they can have a better life.

Lou, I think it is admirable you want to give to those less fortunate than you. Honestly, I really do think it is great of you to do that. Since you are so well off and feel guilty that "so many of Gods children are hungry, homeless and in need of mental and medical assistance." I say, give my friend. Tithes, give to charities, hand it to them on the streets. What ever means you decide. You give to your heart's delight.

I remember you talking about the beggers in TV. Quote from Lou, "I drove up and down 14th street through Washington DC for 6 years. There was one begger that was there on the same corner only in the morning, but at about 6:30 am when I went thru, he was more reliable than my workers. He only had a very small sign that said HELP PLEASE. For six years, every morning, and I would see maybe one out of every 5 or 6 cars had him something. Never a bag of food or a blanket, but hand to hand most likely change. Lights changed at about 3 minute intervals. Figure if he only got 50 Cents in Change per donation, 20 times per hour, thats 10.00 dollars tax free per hour. I feel it was probably a lot more than 10 dollars. Why work for min wage with that kind of take for just standing up with your hand out."

Back to the subject of the thread....this from a man who is often times a supporter of the current President....Richard Cohen in today's Washington Post...

an excerpt...actually the final sentences speaking of the speech...

"The love of troops has become the mindless trope of our times. It squelches both thought and criticism. And while the troops do deserve support, surely the best way to support them is to make sure that they are used wisely. This was not the case in Iraq, and Tuesday the president did not convince that it is in the case in Afghanistan. This was a bad speech, lacking both content and emotional wallop. The best that can be said for it is that it suited the Iraq war itself. Like the war, it should not have been undertaken."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...office_ad.html

I found myself searching for the subject of the speech myself last night....as this writer mentioned, a speech from the oval office normally carries some messages and not sure what this message was.

And again...when will this President hold an open press conference instead of the staged ones where he preaches ??

To understand the importance placed on this speech, I suggest the following sites: The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/. No mention of the speech in the lead section. Obama did get mentioned for his calls to Israel and Palestine.


The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/ Again, no mention of the speech, but the Middle East Conflict again got a major story.

The Chicago Tribune - http://www.chicagotribune.com/ No mention of the speech.

The Wall Street Journal - http://www.chicagotribune.com/ No mention. The print version did have a small front page under World Wide News. Small print, no headline.

It as if the President threw a party and nobody came. The first three papers/syndicates listed have a distinct liberal bent. The WSJ has a center/right position in its editorial pages, but is scrupulously objective in its news coverage. This accounts in part for its growth and profitability when contrasted to the other three that are shrinking and losing money.

Without any of the papers out, I will go out on a limb and say, Steve Jobs will get more coverage in tomorrow’s news than Obama received in today’s coverage. Why? Steve Jobs has real news about Apple’s new products. Obama took prime time to announce that he had no news. A good maxim is, “If you have nothing to say, say nothing.” The classic line for this is attributed to George Better – “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” Barack Obama would have been better off if he had remained silent.

The people want Bush back for third term.

http://dailymail.com/blog.html

OK OK OK. So we give to much already. I could use a second golf cart. What about slowing down the growth of the population. Lets encourage more young women and men to get sterilized. We know that the majority of people on government programs come from second, third and fourth generation welfare families. We could have neutering clinics that bring em in the front door, perform the procedure and give them about $5,000 on the way out the back door for the contribution to help lower taxes. That would be a lot cheaper and humane than allowing them to continue to breed and bring more government dole recipients into the world. The next generation would be slimed down and everyone could find a job and get off the street corner. Then the fine conservative folks could keep all their money and I would see a lot less suffering in the world. You would cut down on abortions dramatically. Sounds like a win win to me.

Originally Posted by Lou Card

OK OK OK. So we give to much already. I could use a second golf cart. What about slowing down the growth of the population. Lets encourage more young women and men to get sterilized. We know that the majority of people on government programs come from second, third and fourth generation welfare families. We could have neutering clinics that bring em in the front door, perform the procedure and give them about $5,000 on the way out the back door for the contribution to help lower taxes. That would be a lot cheaper and humane than allowing them to continue to breed and bring more government dole recipients into the world. The next generation would be slimed down and everyone could find a job and get off the street corner. Then the fine conservative folks could keep all their money and I would see a lot less suffering in the world. You would cut down on abortions dramatically. Sounds like a win win to me.

I find your implication absolutely INSULTING...your implication that in your mind conservatives want to keep all their money and liberals are the giving folks is just so whacko and out of touch but so very typical of liberals.

"Then the fine conservative folks could keep all their money..."

I really wonder about folks like you who use a tag...conservative in this case....to determine the good in someones heart. Who are you to pass judgement on any group ?

Originally Posted by Bucco

I find your implication absolutely INSULTING...your implication that in your mind conservatives want to keep all their money and liberals are the giving folks is just so whacko and out of touch but so very typical of liberals.

"Then the fine conservative folks could keep all their money..."

I really wonder about folks like you who use a tag...conservative in this case....to determine the good in someones heart. Who are you to pass judgement on any group ?

Nothing is definite and I did not mean all conservatives, but conservatives tend to lean to the its all mine side of money handling and liberals tend to be more kind and giving. Thats all I meant bucco. No offense meant. Please don't take this the wrong way. I do not even know which party is right on this issue. I may be way off the mark on this one. Its just that I would give it all away to help the needy and that does not include the guy on 14th street that would not work if you handed it to him on a silver platter. He was probably a conservative since he wanted a lot of money and did not pay any taxes.