The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='UncleBob']My guess is, those who commonly find themselves on the opposite side of the Democratic Party know well enough not to attempt to take outrageous examples of stupid behavior and pin it on an entire large group of people.[/QUOTE]

As you've aptly demonstrated many times, no one side is intellectually or morally superior. To claim one side does something bad that the other side doesn't do isn't honest.

The best case I can see is that a thread hasn't been created devoted to that one cause, but it isn't enough to convince me the other side is too smart to do it...broad strokes aren't unique to any 'side'.

I think the Democrat case I pointed to above is obviously specific to those Democrats running. Don't even think it's tongue in cheek. I obviously mean every single Democrat is guilty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='IRHari']As you've aptly demonstrated many times, no one side is intellectually or morally superior.[/QUOTE]

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill
Click to expand...
.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying one side is "superior" to the other - I'm merely saying, those of us here who seem to take issue against the Democratic Party aren't the type to often take comments or events around a handful of Democrats and attempt to apply blame to the entire party.

For example, I wouldn't take Debbie Wasserman Schultz's quote:
I'm from a state, as Mr. Rooney is, that includes and represents the districts that include real victims. I represent a very large -- one of the largest gay populations in the United States of America. One of the largest Jewish populations in the United States of America. My region -- our region has a very large African-American population. It really is belittling of the respect that we should have for these groups to suggest that members of the armed services have somehow systematically been the victims of hate crimes.
Click to expand...

Then end it with "Stay classy, Democrats." - because I know there are some Democrats that aren't that stupid. It's Debbie's quote and Debbie can take the blame for it - not the entire Democratic party.

That's not to say we won't ever have a "Stay Classy, Democrats" thread on here - but, personally, I'd prefer to hold individuals responsible for individual actions instead of trying to generalize them onto entire groups.*

(*Except for politicians as a whole. They all suck. :D)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you think when we say 'Stay classy GOP chairwoman who depicted Obama as a chimp', and we follow it with 'stay classy Republicans', we literally mean we are attributing the act of that one woman to the entire Republican party? When we say 'stay classy R's' we mean that every Republican is responsible for the idiotic act?

I know if even you really think we mean it literally.
 
[quote name='Strell']Wherein we chronicle their hatred, domestic terrorism, racism, and other everyday actions.
[...]
Stay classy, Republicans.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps it's just how I'm reading the OP of this thread, but it really seems the idea of this thread is to collect stupid things members of the (R) team have done in an attempt to make everyone on the (R) team look bad.
 
Yeah you're definitely seeing what you want to see. That's kind of a horrible accusation. Why would you presume to know what our intentions are?

[quote name='UncleBob']I wouldn't presume to know. I tend to not jump on accusing complete strangers of horrible things with little to no knowledge of their lives.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='IRHari']I know if even you really think we mean it literally.[/QUOTE]

UB takes everything literally. He does not understand shades of grey. He does not understand nuance. He does not understand that we are poking fun, not wholly condemning an ideology based on the actions of a few nutjobs.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Yeah you're definitely seeing what you want to see.[/quote]

[quote name='IRHari']I didn't know the economy was turning around until I saw Republicans trying to take credit for it:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensm...ship_takes_credit_for_job_growth.html?showall
stay classy
[/QUOTE]

One aid to one Republican = "Republicans".

[quote name='IRHari']This is what they think bipartisanship is:

Once again, stay classy.[/QUOTE]

One guy = "They".

[quote name='IRHari']This is how they deal with facts:
http://www.starkreports.com/2011/02/04/rush-limbaugh-chats-wme-about-ronald-reagans-legacy/[/QUOTE]
And one guy = "They".
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Wasn't sure where to post this: Gay rights protester dumps glitter on Newt Gingrich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSb3kTA6vVI[/QUOTE]

Saw that last night and thought it was hilarious. Was going to post it but did not want to create a new topic just for it! That shit sucks though, do you know how hard it is to get glitter off? That shit is there the rest of the day!
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Saw that last night and thought it was hilarious. Was going to post it but did not want to create a new topic just for it! That shit sucks though, do you know how hard it is to get glitter off? That shit is there the rest of the day![/QUOTE]
I thought that the dude made a lame attempt, but Newt's guard was even lamer when he said that people on the right don't do anything as "distrupting." There's another video of the guard escorting the dude into the elevator. I LOLOLOLOLOLOL'd cause you can tell how much the guard wanted to call the guy a f****t.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I thought that the dude made a lame attempt, but Newt's guard was even lamer when he said that people on the right don't do anything as "distrupting." There's another video of the guard escorting the dude into the elevator. I LOLOLOLOLOLOL'd cause you can tell how much the guard wanted to call the guy a f****t.[/QUOTE]

The guy kind of stuttered his lines and did not have enough to say nor acted like it was of any importance. I agree that because of that it was a lame attempt. However come on...gay guy tossing glitter..HILARIOUS!
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']The guy kind of stuttered his lines and did not have enough to say nor acted like it was of any importance. I agree that because of that it was a lame attempt. However come on...gay guy tossing glitter..HILARIOUS![/QUOTE]
Meh...I expected something crazier cause it was so hyped. Not to say it wasn't a good attempt, I'm sure he'll do better next time. Needs less calm and a little bit of swearing. Something like "Taste the rainbow motherfucker!" while throwing some glitter with a lot of sassyness would be pure pwnage...justsayin...:lol:
 
[quote name='dohdough']Meh...I expected something crazier cause it was so hyped. Not to say it wasn't a good attempt, I'm sure he'll do better next time. Needs less calm and a little bit of swearing. Something like "Taste the rainbow motherfucker!" while throwing some glitter with a lot of sassyness would be pure pwnage...justsayin...:lol:[/QUOTE]

And a snap at the end. Dont forget the snap.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']The guy kind of stuttered his lines and did not have enough to say nor acted like it was of any importance. I agree that because of that it was a lame attempt. However come on...gay guy tossing glitter..FABULOUS![/QUOTE]

fixed that for ya.
If that isn't wife #4 sitting next to him, she may think he hoped down to the Deuce for a spell when he comes home...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']One aid to one Republican = "Republicans".[/QUOTE]
You're right, it's not like the House leadership tried to take credit or anything.

[quote name='UncleBob']And one guy = "They".[/QUOTE]
Again, I guess I'm wrong. Only Rush Limbaugh believes that. His audience doesn't believe what he says.

But do you think when I say that 'they' means every single Republican in the U.S.? I'm sad that you were willing to give the GOP Chairwoman the benefit of the doubt and not cast any aspersions, but do you think I believe every single Republican in the U.S. is guilty when one Republican does stupid shit? For all intents and purposes I'm a complete stranger, and you have little to no knowledge of my life....:(
 
[quote name='dmaul1114'] Wasn't sure where to post this: Gay rights protester dumps glitter on Newt Gingrich.[/QUOTE]

That person should be thrown in prison. There is nothing more despicable then throwing glitter on someone. That shit NEVER COMES OFF. He's still going to be shiny when he delivers his inaugural address.
 
[quote name='IRHari']That person should be thrown in prison. There is nothing more despicable then throwing glitter on someone. That shit NEVER COMES OFF. He's still going to be shiny when he delivers his inaugural address.[/QUOTE]

Damn. So hell freezing over won't even get the glitter off?

;)
 
“The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding,” Tyler wrote. “Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles.
“But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.”
​
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot lamestream media. Keep in mind the most vocal critics of what Gingrich said are from the right, including Krauthammer, Limbaugh, and Paul Ryan himself.

Stay classy every single Republican ever.
 
Hot Christ, I think whoever wrote that sprained his metaphor.

I did that once. I had to do everything left-handed for, like, three days. It sucked.

Also, I like how Gingrich apparently isn't "political elite".
 
Rand Paul is doing some pretty epic stuff filibustering the PATRIOT Act this week. Not only are his amendments gumming up the PATRIOT Act (he's actually getting some cons against it by packaging it as a gun grab - that's some skillz), they'd be the opening salvos in ending the War On Drugs.

Good to see that Reid and Obama are trolling for the police state.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Rand Paul is doing some pretty epic stuff filibustering the PATRIOT Act this week. Not only are his amendments gumming up the PATRIOT Act (he's actually getting some cons against it by packaging it as a gun grab - that's some skillz), they'd be the opening salvos in ending the War On Drugs.

Good to see that Reid and Obama are trolling for the police state.[/QUOTE]

So, Liberals/Progressives/Democrats of the Vs. forum... Lesser of two evils - Rand Paul or PATRIOT Act? Go! :D
 
Rand Paul may have done a bunch of idiotic and wrong things, but this is hardly the first good thing he has done in congress. Him and his dad both seem to be men of extremes and you can just never tell which way that extreme will go. Will he try and dismantle a program that has done a bunch of social good, or will he try and tear down something that has done a bunch of bad...you just never can tell.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Lesser of two evils - Rand Paul or PATRIOT Act? Go!
icon_biggrin.gif
[/QUOTE]Fukcin sophies choice brah.

I'd take Rand Paul. Know why? I'm hoping for consistency.

You could have Harry Reid, who will oppose the P Act when proposed by Bush, and push it through when it's Obama. That kinda suxorz.

Or you could have Rand Paul who will have some crazy ass policies on the economy. BUt I'm hoping he'll be consistent....he'll (HOPEFULLY) oppose the Patriot Act when President Huntsman wants an extension of it.

I really am crossing my fingers here. Already there isn't too much evidence he'll be completely consistent. He won't reduce Medicare big gummint reimbursements to doctors because 'they need to make a comfortable living'. Big gummint for me, none for you.

Similarly, I'm sure there will be a few freshman GOP who voted against it will switch their votes when President Palin wants the Patriot Act.
 
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/26/allen-west-congressmen-shot/

Allen West Suggests Anti-War Congressmen Should ‘Get Shot At A Few Times’

In the wake of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the House came closer than it ever has to voting for an end to the war in Afghanistan today when a bipartisan amendment that would have required President Obama to submit a timetable for withdrawal failed by just 12 votes, netting approval from 26 Republicans.

But some Republicans were not pleased with the vote. Tea Party firebrand Rep. Allen West (R-FL) — a retired Army officer who was discharged after shooting at an unarmed detainee in Iraq — denounced the amendment, telling the Miami Herald that his anti-war colleagues should “get shot” to understand the true threat of the Taliban:

“Is the Taliban still fighting? I spent 2.5 years in Afghanistan. Just because you kill Osama bin Laden does not mean that the Taliban has stopped fighting,” he said. “Now can we fight a little smarter? Absolutely.”

Asked about efforts to curb U.S. involvement, West said, “I would take these gentlemen over and let them get shot at a few times and maybe they’d have a different opinion.”

With the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) still fresh in Americans’ minds, West’s comments are especially irresponsible. But perhaps this should be expected from West. In January, he criticized Obama for traveling to Afghanistan with a security detail, saying, “f I’m asking my young men and women to go out there and put their lives on the line, I should be willing and able to do the exact same thing.” West also had no problem hiring right-wing Florida radio host Joyce Kaufman to be his chief of staff, even after she proclaimed at a Tea Party rally, “if ballots don’t work, bullets will.”
Click to expand...


You first, Mr. West.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Fukcin sophies choice brah.

I'd take Rand Paul. Know why? I'm hoping for consistency.

You could have Harry Reid, who will oppose the P Act when proposed by Bush, and push it through when it's Obama. That kinda suxorz.

Or you could have Rand Paul who will have some crazy ass policies on the economy. BUt I'm hoping he'll be consistent....he'll (HOPEFULLY) oppose the Patriot Act when President Huntsman wants an extension of it.

I really am crossing my fingers here. Already there isn't too much evidence he'll be completely consistent. He won't reduce Medicare big gummint reimbursements to doctors because 'they need to make a comfortable living'. Big gummint for me, none for you.

Similarly, I'm sure there will be a few freshman GOP who voted against it will switch their votes when President Palin wants the Patriot Act.[/QUOTE]

Rand voted against Paul Ryan's budget, for what it's worth. Rand doesn't feel that Medicare and SS are proper functions of government, but his budget cutting priorities lie elsewhere. I hated his Senate general election campaign and was worried he was going off the rails, but he's turning out to be Ron Paul with a conservative filter. Depending on the issue, Ron can sound like an extreme liberal, and on others an anarchist, and as such, he's a lost cause for the GOP derpy derps. Rand, however, has a chance to reach that crowd with some of the rhetoric he uses. A paradigm shift would ensue if he succeeds. Of course, if he keeps up his antics, the GOP will turn on him quickly.

If Ron is Goldwater, Rand might be Reagan. Well, the revered version of Reagan, at least. Not the empty suit that can only be described as a complete failure and fraud.
 
Strange thought that I had with a buddy last night.
Are people of the Religious Right just incredibly confused, or actually stupid to the point of being dangerous? I mean really, your Jesus is all about helping the sick and the poor which is essentially the opposite of the (R) economic platform of supply side/free market that bleeds dry the sick and the poor. Now, my biblical knowledge is fairly limited but to me, Jesus seems like a filthy communist. Then there's that whole turn the other cheek thing which is seemingly the last thing on the mind of our foreign policy.
Now, I know that there are divisions within the (R) party where you're not necessarily a crazy christian but still a neo-con and vice versa, but as a platform it seems that (R) policies go against the principle of the people that want to vote for them. Well, aside form the gun whackos who jack off to Ammo Magazine and the NRA newsletter...
So how does that work? How can you convince someone whole hog that their policies which aren't aren't in your best interests, are in fact in your best interests? I seriously can't understand that.
 
[quote name='nasum']I mean really, your Jesus is all about helping the sick and the poor which is essentially the opposite of the (R) economic platform of supply side/free market that bleeds dry the sick and the poor. Now, my biblical knowledge is fairly limited but to me, Jesus seems like a filthy communist.[/QUOTE]

Disagree. Jesus was out there doing the charity work and helping the poor himself. He did not advocate for simply giving your money to the government (or anyone else) and letting them do all the work. Additionally, while Jesus preached charity and good will, he never forced anyone to take part in his activities. Charity is just that - charity. You can't force someone to give to charity - then it's not charity.

This is the direct opposite of the Democratic platform. "Elect us and we'll force money out of other people (don't worry, we won't raise your taxes - "$250,000") and we (Us, not You) will solve all the problems you poor folk have.
 
[quote name='nasum']Are people of the Religious Right just incredibly confused, or actually stupid to the point of being dangerous?[/quote]

I doubt that any of the leaders of the Religious Right believe their own fundamentalist spiel.

It is about grifting, either by duping the rubes outright or stroking their prejudices about race, gays or loose women.

I mean really, your Jesus is all about helping the sick and the poor which is essentially the opposite of the (R) economic platform of supply side/free market that bleeds dry the sick and the poor. Now, my biblical knowledge is fairly limited but to me, Jesus seems like a filthy communist. Then there's that whole turn the other cheek thing which is seemingly the last thing on the mind of our foreign policy.
Now, I know that there are divisions within the (R) party where you're not necessarily a crazy christian but still a neo-con and vice versa, but as a platform it seems that (R) policies go against the principle of the people that want to vote for them. Well, aside form the gun whackos who jack off to Ammo Magazine and the NRA newsletter...
Click to expand...

The vast majority of people (even those who consider themselves devout) have little knowledge of what Jesus said about anything, although there is over 1500 years of practice of twisting that for the service of power.

So how does that work? How can you convince someone whole hog that their policies which aren't aren't in your best interests, are in fact in your best interests? I seriously can't understand that.
Click to expand...

There isn't much to understand, many are just abjectly stupid and have been lied to their whole lives.

Some are actively engaged in lying to themselves and others, the aforementioned grifting class.

Understanding the above is the key to understanding basically all of contemporary America.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Disagree. Jesus was out there doing the charity work and helping the poor himself. He did not advocate for simply giving your money to the government (or anyone else) and letting them do all the work. Additionally, while Jesus preached charity and good will, he never forced anyone to take part in his activities. Charity is just that - charity. You can't force someone to give to charity - then it's not charity.

This is the direct opposite of the Democratic platform. "Elect us and we'll force money out of other people (don't worry, we won't raise your taxes - "$250,000") and we (Us, not You) will solve all the problems you poor folk have.[/QUOTE]

When conservatives start showing up at banks and flipping over tables vs giving the rich big hand outs you will have a point. I have heard this line of reasoning far too many times...yet its all too rare we see these people put their money(literally)where their mouth is.

On the subject of money and charity and again showing what is more the typical Republican thing to do...I am really sick of hearing about how Newt Gingrich and his wife have credit at Tiffanys and how the wife wears this sickenigly expensive jewelry. While I do think it displays the concept of conservative charity(hey buying diamonds puts sick African kids to work! Thats charity)I dont think its a campaign issue. The media needs to lay off it because its his own personal business and has nothing to do with if he would make a good president or not, especially if he really is debt free.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']When conservatives start showing up at banks[...][/QUOTE]

You got that story a little mixed up.

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Click to expand...

His issue wasn't that people were making money - or even that people were scamming, etc.
The issue was that they were doing it inside of the Temple of Jerusalem. This would be akin to sitting up tables, selling stuff at the church down the corner. Not at a bank.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You got that story a little mixed up.



His issue wasn't that people were making money - or even that people were scamming, etc.
The issue was that they were doing it inside of the Temple of Jerusalem. This would be akin to sitting up tables, selling stuff at the church down the corner. Not at a bank.[/QUOTE]

I would argue it was the straw that broke the camels back. When taken in context with all the other lessons in the bible on the rich I hardly think it was the sole factor nor does it change the biblical view of the rich.

Edit - Besides again look at the way America is turning religion ever more in to a money making machine. Between mega churches and pastors essentially pimping for money over god...again its easy to ask the question...where are the conservatives flipping over tables and how can anyone believe you will take over caring for people in place of the government.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Edit - Besides again look at the way America is turning religion ever more in to a money making machine. Between mega churches and pastors essentially pimping for money over god...again its easy to ask the question...where are the conservatives flipping over tables and how can anyone believe you will take over caring for people in place of the government.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I completely agree - most modern, organized religions are a complete and total joke. Some of what you state is some of why I truly believe it's past time to remove the religious tax exemption status.

And I'm not saying that the Republican line of thinking is in line with the Christian line of beliefs either - don't get me wrong. In truth, it lies somewhere in the middle. But the idea that "Let's force other people to give money to the government so the government can take care of the poor" does /not/ align with Christian doctrine.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus'].where are the conservatives flipping over tables and how can anyone believe you will take over caring for people in place of the government.[/QUOTE]

There are perfectly sound moral arguments for taking care of the least among us without involving religion.

Rationally it is the smart thing to do.

Right wingers are against it mostly due "welfare queen" rhetoric they have been stewing in for 30 years and various mental and moral defects.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Oh, I completely agree - most modern, organized religions are a complete and total joke. Some of what you state is some of why I truly believe it's past time to remove the religious tax exemption status.

And I'm not saying that the Republican line of thinking is in line with the Christian line of beliefs either - don't get me wrong. In truth, it lies somewhere in the middle. But the idea that "Let's force other people to give money to the government so the government can take care of the poor" does /not/ align with Christian doctrine.[/QUOTE]

It would not be the government forcing us if we as a collective society recognized that we need to take care of our sick, elderly and needy. It also would not be the government forcing us to do anything if people recognized the cost savings in much of this. A society built around taking care of its weakest citizens would be aligned with Christs teachings.

@msut your preaching to the Choir. Personally I could give two squats less what the bible says. I am for it both because of the savings we would make taking care of these people properly vs waiting for them to get to critical mass and more importantly because its just the right/humane thing to do. I think there are conservatives out there that are not douchebags that just do not care about the poor and legitimately believe that we should take of ourselves and have charity for those that cant. However...I also think those people are naive and in love with a concept that while appealing is simply not realistic. Humans are too stupid, greedy and self absorbed to ever truely care for the billions in the world that need the help.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']It would not be the government forcing us if we as a collective society recognized that we need to take care of our sick, elderly and needy. It also would not be the government forcing us to do anything if people recognized the cost savings in much of this. A society built around taking care of its weakest citizens would be aligned with Christs teachings.[/QUOTE]

I'd say that we, as a society, already recognize the need to take care of the sick, elderly and needy.

It's just that we, as individuals, lack the will and resources to do anything about it on a large scale.

Those that have the resources don't have the will to give. Those who have the will to give, don't have the resources. Both parties want someone else to do it.

But, if we, as a society, were to pool our will and our resources and actually take care of the sick, elderly and needy - you are correct, it wouldn't be the government forcing us to do anything. Because we could do it on our own. We wouldn't need the overhead, red tape and administration fees/pay that our government has. We could do it more efficiently and more effectively, targeting the areas and individuals within our own communities that actually need help, while being able to do a better job at weeding out those who don't *need* help and merely abuse the system.

But, because we, as individuals, are not a collective, we'll never reach that point. Which is why we do need a government. We just need a more efficient and more effective one. One that doesn't sell out to a big corporation for campaign donations, yet also doesn't attempt to create laws built upon pillaging the "haves" to get the votes of the "have-nots". There's a happy medium.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'd say that we, as a society, already recognize the need to take care of the sick, elderly and needy.

It's just that we, as individuals, lack the will and resources to do anything about it on a large scale.

Those that have the resources don't have the will to give. Those who have the will to give, don't have the resources. Both parties want someone else to do it.

But, if we, as a society, were to pool our will and our resources and actually take care of the sick, elderly and needy - you are correct, it wouldn't be the government forcing us to do anything. Because we could do it on our own. We wouldn't need the overhead, red tape and administration fees/pay that our government has. We could do it more efficiently and more effectively, targeting the areas and individuals within our own communities that actually need help, while being able to do a better job at weeding out those who don't *need* help and merely abuse the system.

But, because we, as individuals, are not a collective, we'll never reach that point. Which is why we do need a government. We just need a more efficient and more effective one. One that doesn't sell out to a big corporation for campaign donations, yet also doesn't attempt to create laws built upon pillaging the "haves" to get the votes of the "have-nots". There's a happy medium.[/QUOTE]
Why do cons always call it "theft." It's fucking stupid. You talk about corporate influence on one hand and then talk about creating laws to "steal" from the rich. What fucking laws? Taxes are at a record low for the "rich." It's not like labor gets fair value so why should "management" get more than fair value? Isn't that in itself pillaging the have-nots? Isn't that also abusing the system? Some person living in a project getting $30k with six kids doesn't equal some executive getting multi-million dollar bonuses paid for with tax dollars after sinking the economy. Isn't that another abuse? I'd rather have 100 "welfare queens" than 1 wall st CEO. At least those 600 people on welfare will have some help as opposed to one fucker living in mansions with country club memberships and boats.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Why do cons always call it "theft." It's fucking stupid. You talk about corporate influence on one hand and then talk about creating laws to "steal" from the rich. What fucking laws? Taxes are at a record low for the "rich." It's not like labor gets fair value so why should "management" get more than fair value? Isn't that in itself pillaging the have-nots? Isn't that also abusing the system? Some person living in a project getting $30k with six kids doesn't equal some executive getting multi-million dollar bonuses paid for with tax dollars after sinking the economy. Isn't that another abuse? I'd rather have 100 "welfare queens" than 1 wall st CEO. At least those 600 people on welfare will have some help as opposed to one fucker living in mansions with country club memberships and boats.[/QUOTE]

"fuck the Poor" is the cons religion.

Look at their evolving views on the deficit.

They give away the Clinton surplus, were gung ho when we became the only country to ever cut taxes during a war. Cheney said verbatim "deficits don't matter", Paul Ryan voted for prescription drug plan which was a blatant giveaway and not offset or funded in anyway.

The only thing they are consistent on is giving rich people more money, they used to pretend the rich would turn around and give the rest of us unicorns. Now they just don't give a fuck.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'd say that we, as a society, already recognize the need to take care of the sick, elderly and needy.

It's just that we, as individuals, lack the will and resources to do anything about it on a large scale.

Those that have the resources don't have the will to give. Those who have the will to give, don't have the resources. Both parties want someone else to do it.

But, if we, as a society, were to pool our will and our resources and actually take care of the sick, elderly and needy - you are correct, it wouldn't be the government forcing us to do anything. Because we could do it on our own. We wouldn't need the overhead, red tape and administration fees/pay that our government has. We could do it more efficiently and more effectively, targeting the areas and individuals within our own communities that actually need help, while being able to do a better job at weeding out those who don't *need* help and merely abuse the system.

But, because we, as individuals, are not a collective, we'll never reach that point. Which is why we do need a government. We just need a more efficient and more effective one. One that doesn't sell out to a big corporation for campaign donations, yet also doesn't attempt to create laws built upon pillaging the "haves" to get the votes of the "have-nots". There's a happy medium.[/QUOTE]

Your crazier then I thought if you think we as a society already take care of our sick and elderly. We half ass it at best and the care we do give gets passed back to the government which is then essentially based back to us. Again I love the idea of conservative beliefs. Small government, personal freedom and a society that takes care of itself.....but thats all it is..an idea. Its like Santa Claus. A romantic idea I would kill to be real, but in reality its a fairy tale and nothing more.
 
Our society is just never going to change to be like Asia and much of Europe where kids and/or other extended take in their parents, grandparents etc when they get elderly and sick.

We just don't have that type of family values in the US. Kids don't want to do that, and most parents would be ashamed to burden their kids with caring for them in old age. Our culture is based on people saving up for retirement and having money to pay for their care ideally, and if not there's the social safety nets there with social security and medicare.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Our society is just never going to change to be like Asia and much of Europe where kids and/or other extended take in their parents, grandparents etc when they get elderly and sick.

We just don't have that type of family values in the US. Kids don't want to do that, and most parents would be ashamed to burden their kids with caring for them in old age. Our culture is based on people saving up for retirement and having money to pay for their care ideally, and if not there's the social safety nets there with social security and medicare.[/QUOTE]

From my statement above I obviously agree. I volunteered at a hospice for awhile(would have stayed longer, but they told me not to come back after I dyed my hair)and I rarely saw people there for the elderly we cared for. The staff also really did not care that much either. Again as I said before as someone that has lived at the bottom of the barrel for years and also worked with those people before I was one of them...conservatives have a horribly romantic/fairy tale view of charity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top