FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Republicans and the destruction of freedom (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Republicans and the destruction of freedom
SteveRogers
Member
Member # 7130

 - posted      Profile for SteveRogers           Edit/Delete Post 
Booth- I appreciate that very much.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ricree101
Member
Member # 7749

 - posted      Profile for ricree101   Email ricree101         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head
:
[Laugh]

What, exactly, were you laughing at here?
[Laugh]
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mistaben
Member
Member # 8721

 - posted      Profile for mistaben           Edit/Delete Post 
Having been a pretty loyal Republican, I now feel like I've taken a few steps towards the exit of Plato's cave. Everything seems so clear now. I'm amazed that I used to delight so much when someone on "their" side screwed up or was caught red-handed, and yet I'd consistently ignore it when people on "our" side did the same.

Politicians on both side of the aisle are primarily about one thing: numero uno. The world of lobbyists, favors, intrigue, parties, etc seems to attract power-hungry people.

Both sides now share a paternalistic view of government. "Don't you worry your little head about:

airplane terrorists - just stand in line all morning so the people you made fun of in junior high can go through your luggage and touch your body.

retirement - just give us a little somethin' every paycheck over 40 years, and we'll pay you back when you're old (since you don't understand Future Value of money or interest and can't manage your own finances (since you went through Big Brother's dumbed-down school system)).

ports - Did we say 6 ports? We actually were gonna tell you that it's 22. And just look at the great job UAE does with their own ports! (Besides, it was only a little bit of nuclear material that that Pakistani scientist sent through UAE to North Korea. And Iran. And, oh yeah, Libya.)

arms - just let us and the criminals have all the guns. We'll take care of you (except, of course, that the police are in no way legally obligated to protect an individual citizen, and sometimes simply don't)."

I don't like it. Here's for independents, constitutionalists, libertarians, and (why not?) greens!

PS I'm too tired to find good links. If you want 'em Google 'em or call me on something.

Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Boothby171:
StarLisa,

Examples, please, of how Democrats have done their part in "undermining the basic concept of individual rights in this country"??

More than anything, by pushing the government into our lives. The horrid New Deal. The horridder Economic Bill of Rights [sic]. The creation of social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools.

The "safety net" created primarily by Democrats has robbed the American citizenry of any sense of personal responsibility. Idiotic warning labels have replaced simple common sense. When people don't control what they eat and get fat, it becomes an "obesity epidemic", rather than one more facet of the irresponsibility epidemic created by a monster government, and litigation is seen as a legitimate method of dealing with it.

Shall I continue?

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Considering that starLisa hasn't been back since you asked for examples, you're jumping the gun with your proclamation there, Boothby.

Let's start with the right to life for very young human beings and go on from there.

For the record, that's Dag, and not me. I don't consider the unborn to be human beings. Not that I'm in favor of abortion except in rare and extreme cases.

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Then we get to the right of professional conscience.

The right to control ones own property.

The right to own the means of personal self defense.

All excellent examples.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Tiberius Kirk
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for James Tiberius Kirk           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by smitty:
[Self editing comments about talking dog running on Democrat ticket]

Some wear the sign of the elephant,
And some wear the sign of the mule;
But we'll hold the sign of the Beagle high
And love will shine right through.


/sorry

--j_k

Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
First time I ever heard that the Democrats were responsible for people getting fat.

And "social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools"??? You mean, the Dems are responsible for madrassas, right here in our own country!?!

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think she was directly blaming Democrats for people getting fat, she's saying it's their fault that people have a mentality of "it's someone else's fault" when something bad happens to them. People get fat, blame the fast food industry. It's the elimination of personal responsibility for problems that should be solved by yourself and not by the government that she blames Democrats.

And I've never thought about it like that, and I'm not sure one way or the other who is to blame, but she raises a very good point.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I can personally attest that my taxes went down with Bush's tax cuts, and I don't make anywhere close to $250,000 per year.

I agree, and I have not seen any corresponding increase in state or local taxes that offset it. I do have more money available because of those tax cuts and my family has used it primarily to eliminate our debt. It's definitely been a good thing for us.

And no, we don't make anything near $250,000 or even $100,000 for that matter.

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
My family got something like $500 from the tax cuts. Huzzah. That doesn't really make much of a dent in anything. It's nothing to shake a stick at, but nowhere near enough to seriously affect my family's finances.

And it's certainly nowhere near the thousands and thousands garnered by the super rich from the tax cuts.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
But were those thousands and thousands enough to seriously affect the finances of the super rich?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Depends on what you mean. Being tossed enough extra chump change to buy a Lexus might not be enough to seriously affect their finances, but then, they weren't really suffering to begin with were they? When you're that rich, can ANYTHING seriously affect your finances for the better, short of becoming Bill Gates or the Sultan of Brunei?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
romanylass
Member
Member # 6306

 - posted      Profile for romanylass   Email romanylass         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm largely liberal, but the Dems are much more likely to work against school choice vouchers, to push for mandatory vaccination,and to place restrictions on home schooling and home birth.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
And are you considering, Lyrhawn, the continued nature of the tax cuts? You may have received $500 from that check that was sent out, but some of the cuts affect your taxes going forward so you should continue seeing a benefit from them.

I am not super-rich but my husband works for them. By super-rich I mean people who think nothing of sitting down and writing $50,000 checks from their personal accounts to pay for a new bathroom. Yes, we have had clients who spent that much on one room of their house.

It would take a monumental tax cut for them to seriously change their finances or lives.

I know everyone hates it when a conservative brings up how much the rich do pay in taxes, but there is some validity to that. When we were figuring our finances to see if it was worth it for me to stay home, that was one thing we had to take into account. There was a point, if my husband's business had a good year, where my salary would have pushed us into the next tax bracket. It was such a huge jump that it actually worked out better for us financially not to have my salary at all - the tax savings plus the savings on childcare were put us in a better place than if I continued working. And I was a professional, not a minimum wage worker. The tax implications were the turning point in our decision.

I know on the surface it sounds crazy - that it's better financially for us to bring in less money, but believe me it was true. If you've ever gotten a raise that resulted in you bringing home less money because the raise pushed you into the next bracket then you've experienced the same thing.

Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
You're saying that people never blamed their problems on anything other than themselves ever in history until the New Deal? Seriously?

I'd blame that atmosphere more on lawyers looking to drum up some tasty fees. Let's see, are more lawyers Democrats or Republicans?

What Dems do, though, is to protect the rights of people to make such silly claims by fighting tort reforms so that corrupt corporations can't insulate themselves from lawsuits. In theory, anyway.

And starLisa, while The New Deal certainly has plenty of problems and ramifications, it's hard to fault the intentions of a program that put food in people's mouths when they desperately needed it.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The creation of social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools.
From the Massachusetts constitution:

quote:

Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.


Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
estavares
Member
Member # 7170

 - posted      Profile for estavares   Email estavares         Edit/Delete Post 
I wonder if our foreign trade relations, especially in the wake of the WTO and NAFTA, would be different if the Dems continued to rule the White House. I'm not sure if it would (I wish it would) as we're dealing with politics being trumped by economics––and money always seems the be the primary factor in how the world turns.

As for losing/gaining rights, if you think about it, our system of laws or policies really depends on A) how much they cost the government and B) how much they make for the government. IMHO, this is why abortions are legal but pregnant women can be punished for drinking alcohol––children born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome cost the taxpayers a good deal more $$.

We might say differently, but money talks in the end.

Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
Do we have any solutions for the whole lawyers thing? I mean, the so-called torte reform measures that are getting put forward basically say that if I'm using your product in exactly the way I'm supposed to and it turns around and maims me, the company responsible may get a penalty so light it won't even have to consider halting production of the product, let alone a recall. We're getting lobbyists putting a cost (a lower cost) on the lives of children and the elderly for terms of class action settlements. Personal responsibility doesn't mean the rich and powerful get to do whatever they want and the little guys can go hang.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Let's see, are more lawyers Democrats or Republicans?
How sure are you of whatever answer you have to that question, Chris? Because you stated it as if the answer should be obvious, and it's not, at least to me.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not, although on second read I can see it looks like I thought I did. I was trying to make the point that such lawyers aren't acting as Reps or Dems, they're acting as lawyers.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Ah, got you.

Thanks for the clarification. I've spent the last 10 minutes trying to figure out party affiliation for lawyers and haven't been able to do it.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
And are you considering, Lyrhawn, the continued nature of the tax cuts? You may have received $500 from that check that was sent out, but some of the cuts affect your taxes going forward so you should continue seeing a benefit from them.

Considering a law was just passed recently that in some cases almost doubled a large amount of our credit card bills, we're still in the hole. A yearly 500 dollars doesn't cover the doubling of a monthly credit card bill. So I really don't see how we're supposed to see any savings from that big fancy tax cut. Besides, you're assuming that tax cut will survive past its expiration date and long enough to realize any lifelong savings.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
estavares
Member
Member # 7170

 - posted      Profile for estavares   Email estavares         Edit/Delete Post 
Lyrhawn: I know we've been butting heads elsewhere, but I'm curious––isn't this credit card issue like unto starLisa's earlier contention on obesity?

Republicians might have sponsored this law for a rise in the minimum payment, but it's American consumers who chose to get a card, spend the money, and now cannot afford to pay back what they owe. Especially since we're talking "minimum payment." We put ourselves in debt then blame the government for making us pay it back?

We do agree on one thing––that those tax cut were very silly. Bush makes it seem like I'm now financially viable thanks to him. [Wink]

Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd love to hear about the credit card law that just thrust double your credit card debt onto your bill without you having spent that money...

Furthermore, I'm wondering in what world $500.00 is 'chump change'. If spent wisely, that's a nice hunk of change indeed. None of this is to say I agree with the tax cuts-I think they were very unwise and still are-but I don't think it's reasonable to assume they're not really helping anyone.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by estavares:
Lyrhawn: I know we've been butting heads elsewhere, but I'm curious––isn't this credit card issue like unto starLisa's earlier contention on obesity?

Republicians might have sponsored this law for a rise in the minimum payment, but it's American consumers who chose to get a card, spend the money, and now cannot afford to pay back what they owe. Especially since we're talking "minimum payment." We put ourselves in debt then blame the government for making us pay it back?

We do agree on one thing––that those tax cut were very silly. Bush makes it seem like I'm now financially viable thanks to him. [Wink]

You're right and wrong. Yes, it is the fault of the consumer for spending so much and incurring such a high debt. But, in the case of my family, we didn't spend more than we had, we only spent to what we could afford. We were getting by before, but with many in the lower end of the middle class, or upper end of the lower class, debt and "just getting by" is an extremely careful balance. Having every credit card payment unceremoniously doubled upsets that balance rather violently. It's one thing to say "you have to pay back your debts" it's entirely another to say "Oh hey, we're going to double all your payments, have at it!"

This isn't just about the government making people pay back the debts they've incurred it's about forcing them to upset a balance in their finances and giving them little to no time to fix that balance for themselves. And yes, such a blatent lack of regard for that balance is the government's fault.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I'd love to hear about the credit card law that just thrust double your credit card debt onto your bill without you having spent that money...

Furthermore, I'm wondering in what world $500.00 is 'chump change'. If spent wisely, that's a nice hunk of change indeed. None of this is to say I agree with the tax cuts-I think they were very unwise and still are-but I don't think it's reasonable to assume they're not really helping anyone.

You misunderstood/I didn't type it right. They didn't double the total debt, they doubled the amount you have to pay on the principle part of your debt over what you pay on interest.

And you dont think someone who makes a million dollars a year would think of 500 dollars as chump change? Because that's what I was referring to.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If you've ever gotten a raise that resulted in you bringing home less money because the raise pushed you into the next bracket then you've experienced the same thing.
Wait a sec. That's not how taxes work. If you EVER find yourself bringing home less money after being bumped into another bracket -- as opposed to simply becoming ineligible for a tax credit -- then you're doing your taxes incorrectly.

Tax brackets don't apply retroactively to all income. They apply only to the amount of income earned within that bracket. That's why it's called a bracket, in fact. It's a tiered system.

If you earn, for example, just $300 over the cutoff for the 15% tax bracket, the REST of your income is taxed at the lower 10% bracket; only the $300 over that level is taxed at the higher 15% rate.

There is, as I understand it, no actual way for you to bring home less money by bumping up a tax bracket. It IS possible for you to suddenly cease to qualify for various tax credits, but these credits aren't generally available to anyone but the poorest of the poor, anyway.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
prolixshore
Member
Member # 4496

 - posted      Profile for prolixshore           Edit/Delete Post 
Gah. I was typing what Tom said. So yeah.

--ApostleRadio

Posts: 1612 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
They didn't double the total debt, they doubled the amount you have to pay on the principle part of your debt over what you pay on interest.
This was done over the protests of the banks and is considered a consumer protection measure.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I understand the INTENT of the legislation.

But quite frankly I don't think legislators in Washington really gave a lot of thought to the negative aspects. And given their financial status, I'm really not surprised.

Such a measure should have been instituted in stages to give people a chance to adjust their finances to the new reality, rather than a sudden and massive increase in the payment amounts.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
estavares
Member
Member # 7170

 - posted      Profile for estavares   Email estavares         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with the gradual increase, speaking as a consumer, but I don't think Republicans should be blamed for making us pay less interest in the long run and encouraging us to actually pay down the debt we incurred ourselves.

(It stilll stinks, I agree. But we get as fat with debt as we do with cheeseburgers, if you undertand my meaning.)

That being said, I DO think there should be laws on the miss-one-payment-and-interest-rate-jumps-to-thirty-percent policy. I think this bait-and-switch behavior of luring people with low interest rates then killing them with outrageous rates when they're late is crossing a line.

Why do services declare their work is "AS IS" (so my internet provider, for example, can be out for three days yet I get charged the same price) yet customers are shafted the minute they don't deliver as promised? The government acts much the same way.

Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Boothby171:
First time I ever heard that the Democrats were responsible for people getting fat.

And "social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools"??? You mean, the Dems are responsible for madrassas, right here in our own country!?!

Actually, yes. It's just that instead of training people for fanaticism, they're training them for mediocrity and cowlike apathy. And an utter unwillingness to judge.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with the intent of the legislation, I personally have very little in the way of credit card debt, and I'm glad that future credit card users will start off using cards this way, and be used to the higher principle payment so they don't have to pay the higher interest. But the Republicans did oversee the vote, and while many Democrats supported them, there should have been something in place to help people who weren't ready for the increase.

And I do agree with you on the "bait and switch" tactics that many credit card companies use. Raising interest rates and using hidden fees to charge people is killing unsuspecting lower income families who don't understand these things. At least they can't send credit cards "cold calling" so to speak to young people with no credit. But there should be some sort of protection against consumer abuse.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
You're saying that people never blamed their problems on anything other than themselves ever in history until the New Deal? Seriously?

Oh, no. Not at all. In fact, Tyrant Abe might have been worse on this count by a lot than FDR, and he was a Republican (of sorts).

But that's not how the US started off. We were so fiercely independent that it scared the heck out of the Europeans. I am not blaming the Democrats only for any of the stuff I mentioned. Boothby very childishly insisted that I needed give examples of Democratic incursions into freedom, otherwise no such examples existed. So I gave examples. But just as the Republicans aren't alone in the nasty stuff they've done, neither are the Democrats alone in their badness.

I consider these two parties to be wings of a single, monolithic, political party. Coercive Statists. Some want to steal from us to give goodies to the poor and to the arts that they like. Others want to steal from us to give goodies to their cronies. I prefer that they stop stealing from me to give anything to anyone. That's not their job.

quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
I'd blame that atmosphere more on lawyers looking to drum up some tasty fees. Let's see, are more lawyers Democrats or Republicans?

Good question, there, Chris. I wonder if the answer is as obvious as you seem to think it is.

quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
What Dems do, though, is to protect the rights of people to make such silly claims by fighting tort reforms so that corrupt corporations can't insulate themselves from lawsuits. In theory, anyway.

Heh. In theory.

quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
And starLisa, while The New Deal certainly has plenty of problems and ramifications, it's hard to fault the intentions of a program that put food in people's mouths when they desperately needed it.

Actually, the New Deal extended the Great Depression by years. And that's completely aside from the fact that the Depression was caused by the games played by the Federal Reserve, itself an unjustified infringement on the rights of American citizens.

One of the biggest games played by the Coercive Statists is to meddle in our lives in a way that's guaranteed to be inefficient and cause problems. That way, they can introduce more meddling in our lives in order to "fix" the results of the previous meddling. It's the closest thing in existence to perpetual motion.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Boothby171:
First time I ever heard that the Democrats were responsible for people getting fat.

And "social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools"??? You mean, the Dems are responsible for madrassas, right here in our own country!?!

Actually, yes. It's just that instead of training people for fanaticism, they're training them for mediocrity and cowlike apathy. And an utter unwillingness to judge.
I think lately the Republicans are worse at the moment, but probably just because they are the party in power.

Bush, as a leader of the Republican party, and the Republicans in Congress are no better. Bush is helping to oversee the education of the masses so they will believe that the government has an unending supply of cash to solve all their problems, and that they will never have to personally sacrifice for the good of themselves or their nation.

edited because I posted this before I saw Lisa's last post.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:
The creation of social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools.
From the Massachusetts constitution:

quote:

Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.


Cool. So FDR said that recreation is a right, and the Peoples Republic of Massachussetts says much the same about "good humor". Presumably not the ice cream.

The rest of it sounds like Steve Martin's "Grandmother's Song".

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sterling:
Do we have any solutions for the whole lawyers thing?

King Henry VI, Part II, (Act IV), Scene 2.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Boothby171:
First time I ever heard that the Democrats were responsible for people getting fat.

And "social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools"??? You mean, the Dems are responsible for madrassas, right here in our own country!?!

Actually, yes. It's just that instead of training people for fanaticism, they're training them for mediocrity and cowlike apathy. And an utter unwillingness to judge.
Pretending Democrats are the only ones doing this doesn't help solve the problems.
True. And if you can point me to where I said anything about it "only" being the Democrats, I'll retract it with full apologies. But you can't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
estavares
Member
Member # 7170

 - posted      Profile for estavares   Email estavares         Edit/Delete Post 
(Slow strumming of banjo.)

Be courteous, kind and forgiving...
Be gentle and peaceful each day...
Be warm and human and grateful...
And have a good thing to say.

Be thoughtful and trustful and childlike...
Be willing and happy and wise...
Be honest and love all your neighbors...
Be obsequious, purple and clairvoyant.

Be pompous, obese and eat cacti...
Be dull and boring and omnipresent...
Criticize things you don't know about...
Be oblong and have your knees removed.

***

I know there's more about live chickens in your underwear, sucking eggs, and getting excited to go to a yawning festival, but that was from memory.

What doesn't Steve Martin know?

Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Boothby171:
First time I ever heard that the Democrats were responsible for people getting fat.

And "social indoctrination under the guise of government controlled schools"??? You mean, the Dems are responsible for madrassas, right here in our own country!?!

Actually, yes. It's just that instead of training people for fanaticism, they're training them for mediocrity and cowlike apathy. And an utter unwillingness to judge.
Pretending Democrats are the only ones doing this doesn't help solve the problems.
True. And if you can point me to where I said anything about it "only" being the Democrats, I'll retract it with full apologies. But you can't.
I edited my post to remove that part before you made your post, because I was typing my post while you posted the one before it and missed what you said. You must have still been in the thread and hadn't refreshed the page before you saw it and jumped on it.

Regardless, it's retracted.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So FDR said that recreation is a right, and the Peoples Republic of Massachussetts says much the same about "good humor."
Do you think that John Adams was being facetious?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by estavares:
(Slow strumming of banjo.)

Be courteous, kind and forgiving...
Be gentle and peaceful each day...
Be warm and human and grateful...
And have a good thing to say.

Be thoughtful and trustful and childlike...
Be willing and happy and wise...

Really? I always thought it was "witty".

quote:
Originally posted by estavares:
Be honest and love all your neighbors...
Be obsequious, purple and clairvoyant.

Be pompous, obese and eat cacti...
Be dull and boring and omnipresent...
Criticize things you don't know about...
Be oblong and have your knees removed.

***

I know there's more about live chickens in your underwear, sucking eggs, and getting excited to go to a yawning festival, but that was from memory.

Be tasteless, rude, and offensive,
Live in a swamp and be three dimentional,
Put a live chicken in your underwear,
Go into a closet and suck eggs.

And then he gets the audience to do it line by line, and for the last line, he changes it to:

Get all excited and go to a yawning festival.

I think.

quote:
Originally posted by estavares:
What doesn't Steve Martin know?

The wisdom of the ages. Fur sinks and gasoline powered sweaters. The impossibility of putting a Cadillac in your nose. Richard Nixon playing banjo. "Oh death, and grief, and sorrow, and murder."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Pretending Democrats are the only ones doing this doesn't help solve the problems.

True. And if you can point me to where I said anything about it "only" being the Democrats, I'll retract it with full apologies. But you can't.
I edited my post to remove that part before you made your post, because I was typing my post while you posted the one before it and missed what you said. You must have still been in the thread and hadn't refreshed the page before you saw it and jumped on it.

Regardless, it's retracted.

Thanks.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm confused. Why would "facetious" come up? I don't think either of those things is an example of facetiousness. Just lunacy.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mistaben
Member
Member # 8721

 - posted      Profile for mistaben           Edit/Delete Post 
Lisa, you nailed it:

quote:
I consider these two parties to be wings of a single, monolithic, political party. Coercive Statists. Some want to steal from us to give goodies to the poor and to the arts that they like. Others want to steal from us to give goodies to their cronies. I prefer that they stop stealing from me to give anything to anyone. That's not their job.

It seems like the 2 parties play differences of opinion on (predominantly) social issues into this polarization game (red vs. blue) to keep the masses from realizing that in some important ways, the parties are identical. See my previous post.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boothby171
Member
Member # 807

 - posted      Profile for Boothby171   Email Boothby171         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
she's saying it's their fault that people have a mentality of "it's someone else's fault"
Lyrhawn,

Do you find that as funny as I do?

Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't think either of those things is an example of facetiousness. Just lunacy.
I guess I'm a lunatic, then, because I agree with a large swath of that section of the constitution.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Boothby171:
quote:
she's saying it's their fault that people have a mentality of "it's someone else's fault"
Lyrhawn,

Do you find that as funny as I do?

Hey I never said whether or not I agreed with it, and I'm still not saying one way or the other.

Lisa can correct me if I was wrong, I was just trying to help clarify. [Smile]

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:
I don't think either of those things is an example of facetiousness. Just lunacy.
I guess I'm a lunatic, then, because I agree with a large swath of that section of the constitution.
What section of the Constitution would that be? We weren't talking about the US Constitution.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, but the reference was to the Massachusetts State Constitution.

Also, I'm pretty sure it's Commonwealth, not People's Republic, of Massachusetts.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2