Vote Present

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I believe they actually think that by raising the taxes, on top 2%, that it's going to solve the budget problems; but once those taxes get passed on to everyone, they're going to scream and hollar.
The only reason they're for it now; is because they actuallly think that they are immune from seeing more money come out of their own paychecks.

Most of them don't have paychecks. Romney was right about the 47%, except that it actually translated to 51% of the vote. I mean, do you honestly think the morons of the left who are posting here night and day, have legitimate jobs? What kind of damn job can you have, that would allow you stay on a message board all day, every day? Most of them are on the dole, they get a nice little check from the government, and don't have to worry about a thing. They continue to support the liberal agenda because it means they get nice fat increases in their checks, and they believe this will come at the expense of the "wealthy" people out there. The problem is, the "wealthy" have already checked out, taken their money and split the country with it, opting to invest in foreign enterprise, and so they don't really pay that much tax. We can increase their rates to 100%, it won't ever be enough to pay for what the liberals want to do.

One of these days, it will all come crashing down. We won't be able to borrow any more, there will be no military left to cut, and no more rich people to raise taxes on, and we'll have to face the music. These people are like the spoiled upper-class housewife, who can't face reality, she has maxed out all the credit cards and can't stop herself from excessively spending. Sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost. I think it's time we step aside and let these 'geniuses' show us how the government is going to take care of a nation full of non-producers with no incomes. Unless liberals learn to shit golden eggs, it ain't going to work.

 

[cawacko]

Most of them don't have paychecks. Romney was right about the 47%, except that it actually translated to 51% of the vote. I mean, do you honestly think the morons of the left who are posting here night and day, have legitimate jobs? What kind of damn job can you have, that would allow you stay on a message board all day, every day? Most of them are on the dole, they get a nice little check from the government, and don't have to worry about a thing. They continue to support the liberal agenda because it means they get nice fat increases in their checks, and they believe this will come at the expense of the "wealthy" people out there. The problem is, the "wealthy" have already checked out, taken their money and split the country with it, opting to invest in foreign enterprise, and so they don't really pay that much tax. We can increase their rates to 100%, it won't ever be enough to pay for what the liberals want to do.

One of these days, it will all come crashing down. We won't be able to borrow any more, there will be no military left to cut, and no more rich people to raise taxes on, and we'll have to face the music. These people are like the spoiled upper-class housewife, who can't face reality, she has maxed out all the credit cards and can't stop herself from excessively spending. Sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost. I think it's time we step aside and let these 'geniuses' show us how the government is going to take care of a nation full of non-producers with no incomes. Unless liberals learn to shit golden eggs, it ain't going to work.

No dude, Reagan and George W. passed tax cuts that made a good number of Americans not have to pay federal taxes. Republicans passed the income credit you get for having kids. Romney was stupid to make his 47 percent comment. I know I live in SF so all I hear is the liberal point of view. But I know we are not victims either. We need to step up dude.

 

[apple0154]

Nope.. WRONG thing to do. This is what Republicans have been trying to do since Reagan. Before Obama came along and blew everyone off the charts, George "Dubya" was the president who had spent more taxpayer money on social entitlement than any other president in history. John McCain did everything but sacrifice an evangelical before each campaign speech, to attract the non-evangelic vote. Mitt Romney kicked off his campaign in front of a stem cell research facility. And the more Conservatives have watered down what the message should be, the more liberals have clobbered them at the ballot box. Jim DeMint is 100% correct, core conservative principles include social conservatism, and there is no 'alternative' version of conservatism which will work.

Change the message to what? Something more LIBERAL? What purpose would that serve Conservatism? Why don't all Republicans just abandon Conservatism and the Republican party in a giant recanting, like the Democrats had over civil rights? Yeah, I guess you DO think that's what Conservatives should do, that or the bullet in the head idea I mentioned earlier.

But that's not what needs to happen here.

The world changes, Dixie. The conservatism of the pre-freedom revolution of the 60s is not coming back. While many things can be attributed to the "freedom revolution" in my view the "Hell no, we won't go" anti-war chant was pivotal. Such a thing was unheard of in civilized countries. Openly defying ones government in a time of war, whether considered monumentally heroic or monumentally hideous, occurred. It was a paradigm shift, to use a well worn expression even though the "pill" has been blamed for society's fall into lasciviousness . HA!

There is no reason why fiscal conservatism can not flourish and DeMint was wrong. Very wrong. Social conservatism is nothing more than the old power structure. His comment, "The more we depend on government the less we depend on God" is just another way of saying to hell with helping your neighbor. God will provide for him if he's worthy.

Paying taxes so another can eat and get medical care is nothing more than helping ones neighbor. Our mobile lifestyle does not permit us to get to know our neighbor personally but the government knows him/her. The government knows their financial situation, their needs, and by contributing through taxes we help our neighbor if they are in need.

It's not a case of conservative principles having to include social conservatism if that means opposing social programs. The conservative's time would be better spent on fine tuning the social programs and an opportunity has been dropped in their lap. ObamaCare. Send reps 'hither and thither' to check out the best ways to run a government medical plan. Everyone will benefit. The citizens, the Repubs and the Dems. Not only will it produce a good, solid health plan but it will show the people both parties can work together.

Eliminating ObamaCare will not be a topic in '16 but improving it will always be a topic. Here is a chance for the Repubs to do something good while building up their political capital.

 

[apple0154]

Most of them don't have paychecks. Romney was right about the 47%, except that it actually translated to 51% of the vote. I mean, do you honestly think the morons of the left who are posting here night and day, have legitimate jobs? What kind of damn job can you have, that would allow you stay on a message board all day, every day? Most of them are on the dole, they get a nice little check from the government, and don't have to worry about a thing. They continue to support the liberal agenda because it means they get nice fat increases in their checks, and they believe this will come at the expense of the "wealthy" people out there. The problem is, the "wealthy" have already checked out, taken their money and split the country with it, opting to invest in foreign enterprise, and so they don't really pay that much tax. We can increase their rates to 100%, it won't ever be enough to pay for what the liberals want to do.

One of these days, it will all come crashing down. We won't be able to borrow any more, there will be no military left to cut, and no more rich people to raise taxes on, and we'll have to face the music. These people are like the spoiled upper-class housewife, who can't face reality, she has maxed out all the credit cards and can't stop herself from excessively spending. Sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost. I think it's time we step aside and let these 'geniuses' show us how the government is going to take care of a nation full of non-producers with no incomes. Unless liberals learn to shit golden eggs, it ain't going to work.

"These people are like the spoiled upper-class housewife".

And what about the spoiled upper-class househusband? The gals are going to give you an ass-kickin', Dixie. :lol:

 

[Althea]

No, I don't need to pose that question to anyone, I know the answer. It didn't do Republicans one bit of good. They allowed the left and the media to spin their obstruction into a major negative and got their butts kicked, plain and simple. Voting "present" is not obstructing anything. Trying to spin "present" votes into obstruction, will be a daunting task. Trying to lay blame for massive policy failures the Republicans voted "present" on, will not work. You will own every bit of this, because the Republicans will not have supported or opposed any of it. Then we will let the people decide if they want to continue living in a Liberal Dictatorship, or if they maybe would like to again have two-party bipartisan government.

Spin their obstruction? Are you saying it didn't happen? Are you saying that they didn't refuse to vote yay on issues that were historically republican?

That's the best way to help their constituents. They weren't elected to go along with liberals, that's for sure. They aren't getting re-elected by opposing liberals, and that's for sure as well. So the best way to represent their constituents is to not take a side, and vote "present" on everything. Now back when we had bipartisan government and a two-party system, they could go out there and tell their constituents they supported this or that, or they opposed this or that, but now we have the media in cahoots with the liberals, spinning their opposition into "obstruction" and making them the bad guys. There's no way to win when you're the bad guy.

There it is again. Attaching the Keystone Pipeline to every bill, is counterproductive. They did it for a reason. There's no 'spin' involved.

And the best way to help their constituents, is to compromise in order to fairly represent said constituents. Democrat policies are aimed at low income republicans, as well as low income democrats. There was a gross lack of participation, which essentially wasted 4 years.

But they aren't concerned with legislating. They're scared to death of a primary challenge, so they narrow the scope of what is deemed acceptable, and act accordingly.

Your problem is that there are too many factions waiting to attack any conservative that doesn't meet certain criteria. They've made it impossible for a conservative to find the perfect platform, because the criteria begin to contradict each other. Social issues on one side, with fiscal issues on the other.

Nope.. WRONG thing to do. This is what Republicans have been trying to do since Reagan. Before Obama came along and blew everyone off the charts, George "Dubya" was the president who had spent more taxpayer money on social entitlement than any other president in history. John McCain did everything but sacrifice an evangelical before each campaign speech, to attract the non-evangelic vote. Mitt Romney kicked off his campaign in front of a stem cell research facility. And the more Conservatives have watered down what the message should be, the more liberals have clobbered them at the ballot box. Jim DeMint is 100% correct, core conservative principles include social conservatism, and there is no 'alternative' version of conservatism which will work.

The sooner conservatives learn to keep their social hangups in the closet, the sooner they'll stop losing elections. Apple already told you that society changes. Keeping up with these social changes is key to being a good representative of the people. By pandering to religious loons, you allow them to believe that they have the right to govern someone else's moral beliefs.

Change the message to what? Something more LIBERAL? What purpose would that serve Conservatism? Why don't all Republicans just abandon Conservatism and the Republican party in a giant recanting, like the Democrats had over civil rights? Yeah, I guess you DO think that's what Conservatives should do, that or the bullet in the head idea I mentioned earlier.

But that's not what needs to happen here.

And that's your party's problem. Democrats did the right thing with civil rights. Clinging to a failed policy won't get you elected. It'll cause you to become extinct. Society changes.

BINGO... Which is exactly why Republicans can't support it. If they vote "present" it means they also haven't opposed it. Good luck with spinning "present" votes into opposition. You'll look like a bunch of petulant idiots.

We can go back to the housing bubble crisis, which ultimately led to the economic calamity we are presently in. Democrats wanted too tinker with Freddy and Fanny, and they convinced enough Republicans (including Bush) to go along with them, and when it all went to shit, who got the blame? If they had simply voted "present" they could have said, "not us, we didn't have a thing to do with any of that, it was ALL the Democrats!" But the media and the liberals were successful at hanging at least some of the blame on Republicans, who capitulated to democrats and went along with the scheme.

So democrats convinced Bush to increase home ownership in '02? You might want to check the Congressional makeup for the years prior to, and after Bush's speech on Oct. '02 re. housing.

Exactly, or worse yet, turn it around and claim it was the fault of the Republicans and not the Democrats who proposed it, like the Dodd-Frank tinkering with F&F and the housing bubble burst. If Republicans vote "present" they ostensibly wash their hands of the whole thing, they can't be blamed or credited for anything. We already know the liberal ideas will fail, they always do. So all we need to do is give them the rope they need to hang themselves, and they will oblige.

!

Can you clarify this?

No dude, Reagan and George W. passed tax cuts that made a good number of Americans not have to pay federal taxes. Republicans passed the income credit you get for having kids. Romney was stupid to make his 47 percent comment. I know I live in SF so all I hear is the liberal point of view. But I know we are not victims either. We need to step up dude.

Child tax credit was passed under Clinton.

 

[Howey]

I mean, do you honestly think the morons of the left who are posting here night and day, have legitimate jobs?

Actually, it appears you and some of your right wing kook Father O'Diddle's (Conservative, FRS, USF, et al) spend an inordinate amount of time on this forum with posts at all times of the day.

What, exactly do you do for a living, Dixie, that allows that? Are you sitting at home with your "bad back" like US Freedom? Sucking off the gubmint tit too? Or are you cheating your employer by posting on an internet forum while you're supposed to be working?

I'll admit I don't work, how 'bout you? Of course, I served my country and get a nice, big income in exchange for that. Just so you have the freedom to sit at home and post nonsense all day.

 

[Howey]

Oh, shit!





How stoopid of me! I forgot Dixie doesn't have to work because he's got six million monopoly bucks stashed away in Deutschland!

​

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Can you clarify this?

No, but I can tell you how to do it. Just highlight the part you bolded, and copy it. Then paste it into a google search bar. Read the results of your search.

Democrats did the right thing with civil rights.

Really? George Wallace and Lester Maddox did the right thing?

No dude, Reagan and George W. passed tax cuts that made a good number of Americans not have to pay federal taxes. Republicans passed the income credit you get for having kids. Romney was stupid to make his 47 percent comment. I know I live in SF so all I hear is the liberal point of view. But I know we are not victims either. We need to step up dude.

Step up? Fucking step up and do what, exactly? Step up and pay 70% instead of 50% of what we earn in taxes? With jobs that continue to vanish or become more demanding of our time and productivity, due to their own ballooning tax liability?

Reagan's tax policy actually widened the base, which means MORE people became tax payers. He lowered the rates and widened the base, and this resulted in a huge tax windfall, which our congress promptly spent as a "surplus" instead of paying down the debt.

 

[Pointgold]

Sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost. I think it's time we step aside and let these 'geniuses' show us how the government is going to take care of a nation full of non-producers with no incomes. Unless liberals learn to shit golden eggs, it ain't going to work.

+1

 

[Althea]

No, but I can tell you how to do it. Just highlight the part you bolded, and copy it. Then paste it into a google search bar. Read the results of your search.

Perhaps I should've made myself clearer. D/F is legislation that occurred after the meltdown of the economy. Unless you were addressing something else?

Really? George Wallace and Lester Maddox did the right thing?

Oh, I didn't realize that you were referring to these two when you referenced a "change" by dems? That makes no sense.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie: like the Dodd-Frank tinkering with F&F and the housing bubble burst.

Can you clarify this?
..
Perhaps I should've made myself clearer. D/F is legislation that occurred after the meltdown of the economy. Unless you were addressing something else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Original act passed in 1977

Legislative changes 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2008

Regulatory changes 1995, 2005, 2007

Dodd & Frank had more to do with legislative and regulatory changes than the 2008 Dodd-Frank legislation you are referencing. Specifically, the regulatory changes made in 2005, under President Bush. Those sweeping reforms were indeed signed into law by Bush, who gladly paraded them around with the claim of making first time home owners for more minorities in history, but John McCain warned that the measures would result in catastrophe, and they did. Spearheading these reforms, were Senators Dodd and Frank, ironically, the same two clowns who Congress allowed to "fix" the problem in 2008.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh, I didn't realize that you were referring to these two when you referenced a "change" by dems? That makes no sense.

Here's what I said: Why don't all Republicans just abandon Conservatism and the Republican party in a giant recanting, like the Democrats had over civil rights?

You claimed the Democrats "did the right thing" over civil rights. Prior to the massive "recanting" of the Dixiecrats, they certainly were not considered "in the right" on civil rights, unless you've suddenly turned into Trent Lott.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Can I ask a question, has there ever been a time when you, Althea and Bijou have ever disagreed? Just asking?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Actually, it appears you and some of your right wing kook Father O'Diddle's (Conservative, FRS, USF, et al) spend an inordinate amount of time on this forum with posts at all times of the day.

What, exactly do you do for a living, Dixie, that allows that? Are you sitting at home with your "bad back" like US Freedom? Sucking off the gubmint tit too? Or are you cheating your employer by posting on an internet forum while you're supposed to be working?

I'll admit I don't work, how 'bout you? Of course, I served my country and get a nice, big income in exchange for that. Just so you have the freedom to sit at home and post nonsense all day.

If you feel I've represented my disability falsely; then prove it.
Unless you're just a whiney little sperm recepticle that has a habit of opening your pie hole, at the wrong moment.

 

[Howey]

If you feel I've represented my disability falsely; then prove it.
Unless you're just a whiney little sperm recepticle that has a habit of opening your pie hole, at the wrong moment.

You are a blood sucking pitiful leech.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You are a blood sucking pitiful leech.

So I was correct; you are just a whiney little sperm recepticle that has a habit of opening your pie hole, at the wrong moment.

That and your own site must really suck, seeing as how you spend so much time here.

 

[Althea]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Original act passed in 1977

Legislative changes 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999, 2008

Regulatory changes 1995, 2005, 2007

Dodd & Frank had more to do with legislative and regulatory changes than the 2008 Dodd-Frank legislation you are referencing. Specifically, the regulatory changes made in 2005, under President Bush. Those sweeping reforms were indeed signed into law by Bush, who gladly paraded them around with the claim of making first time home owners for more minorities in history, but John McCain warned that the measures would result in catastrophe, and they did. Spearheading these reforms, were Senators Dodd and Frank, ironically, the same two clowns who Congress allowed to "fix" the problem in 2008.

I'm aware of the history of CRA. Did Dodd/Frank write it in '77?

I'm also aware that low income lending didn't cause the crash of the housing market. So what was the correlation between D/F, and the crash?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm aware of the history of CRA. Did Dodd/Frank write it in '77?

I'm also aware that low income lending didn't cause the crash of the housing market. So what was the correlation between D/F, and the crash?

No, they did not write the 1977 CRA, and I never stated they did. Read my post again, see what I actually said and find how you have misinterpreted it.

The correlation is the reforms made to regulatory measures in 2005, under President Bush.