George bush...
- Thread starter bongspit
- Start date
medicineman
New Member
That drug addicted pompous ass. Maybe two or three, but that was two or three too many. And you don't call what he preaches hate. you are so deluded. In point of fact, you preach hate towards liberals every day on this site. What makes you right and liberals wrong. Aren't they just opposite points of view? I only hate pompous asses, mostly rich pompous asses, remind you of anyone?
bongspit
New Member
Rush announced his adopt a solider program. This amounts to soliciting money from listeners to buy Rush 24/7 and Limbaugh Letter subscriptions to be "given" to the active troops. Of course the obvious question becomes how generous is Rush really being with this? Rush and Premiere Radio stand to reap millions from the pockets of listeners. Do the troops really benefit? They need things such as flack jackets and up-armored humvees. It is for certain that Limbaugh and Premiere Radio Networks are profiting from the feeling of generosity and patriotism of the listening audience. A real patriot.....
ViRedd
New Member
Med ...
There is no one on this site that spews as much hate as you do. In fact, for you to call Rush a hate monger, is like the ocean calling a dripping faucet a flood.
And ... you have admittedly only listened to Rush a couple of times ... and yet, you know exactly what he says on a daily basis. ~lol~ You are so typical of those on the left ... all opinions based upon feelings and hearsay ... and no facts.
Vi
ZenMaster
Well-Known Member
Maybe more impassioned but you are incorrect in the term "hate monger".
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Actually I'm not... Neither party has the right answer, Conservative policies have made the infrastructure a shambles, The Dems can't get anything done because the Republicans have set the record for filibusters. (yet they wanted to kill that process last session)
Not to mention that it only took them 12 years to mess up things and it took the Democrats 50 years to accomplish that. If you ever try to call into Limbaugh's show you'll notice that they only pick opposing viewpoints for listeners that are how you say, DOLTS and when someone does get through and makes a valid viewpoint he talks over them so that they can not express that viewpoint and prove him wrong....
Let's face it, when faced with facts he cuts people off.
Not to mention that it only took them 12 years to mess up things and it took the Democrats 50 years to accomplish that. If you ever try to call into Limbaugh's show you'll notice that they only pick opposing viewpoints for listeners that are how you say, DOLTS and when someone does get through and makes a valid viewpoint he talks over them so that they can not express that viewpoint and prove him wrong....
Let's face it, when faced with facts he cuts people off.
ViRedd
New Member
Dank ...
With all due respect, its not conservative policies that are ruining the country ... its the policies of statism. You are making a common error, in that, you are thinking that Republicans are conservatives. The Democrats and Republicans are two rival gangs fighting over the same territory. They both want the reigns of power, not for the betterment of the country, but to satisfy their own demented power lust. A true conservative would be calling for the reduction of government agencies ... and the bureaucratic mess they've caused.
Thomas Jefferson was a conservative. A limited central government with the majority of government power residing in the states. Does this sound like Republican or Democrat to you?
Vi
With all due respect, its not conservative policies that are ruining the country ... its the policies of statism. You are making a common error, in that, you are thinking that Republicans are conservatives. The Democrats and Republicans are two rival gangs fighting over the same territory. They both want the reigns of power, not for the betterment of the country, but to satisfy their own demented power lust. A true conservative would be calling for the reduction of government agencies ... and the bureaucratic mess they've caused.
Thomas Jefferson was a conservative. A limited central government with the majority of government power residing in the states. Does this sound like Republican or Democrat to you?
Vi
We TaRdED
Well-Known Member
hmmm, that makes me ponder a notion. as you all might know, im kinda new to political talk but in this day and age i think its more important than ever to know whats actually going on(maybe im just growing up....
... idk if thats a good thing or bad thing)ok, so heres my notion- make a new party that is strictly constitutionalists, neither democratic nor republican.. than we can have people like RON PAUL running for office all the time. maybe it would last a little while before corruption set in, right? lmao......
i know its easier said than done, but do you guys think that the majority of america would support this new party? after all, it would be based on the lovely principles that our forefathers set for us 200 years ago..
anyones ideas on that??? thanks in advance
ViRedd
New Member
Very good insights.hmmm, that makes me ponder a notion. as you all might know, im kinda new to political talk but in this day and age i think its more important than ever to know whats actually going on(maybe im just growing up....
ok, so heres my notion- 1. make a new party that is strictly constitutionalists, neither democratic nor republican.. than we can have people like RON PAUL running for office all the time. maybe it would last a little while before corruption set in, right? lmao......
i know its easier said than done, but 2. do you guys think that the majority of america would support this new party? after all, it would be based on the lovely principles that our forefathers set for us 200 years ago..
anyones ideas on that??? thanks in advance
1. There already is a party whose members are strict constitutionalists. In fact there are two parties like that. 1. The Libertarian Party. 2. The Constitution Party.
2. No ... Americans have become a dependent class of citizen. The vast majority of Americans honestly believe that their government owes them something. It never occurs to them that, that "something" is derived by violating the rights of one, or more, of their fellow citizens.
Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee
Constitution Party Platform
Vi
</IMG>
ViRedd
New Member
Sorry, Dank. Tax cuts have increased revenue to the federal coffers ... every time. But that's beside the point. Taxes to pay for infrastructure are taken out of our gasoline tax. Oh ... and that gasoline tax? ... it's syphoned off and placed into the general fund to pay for pet projects.
The problem with government isn't that taxes are to low ... the problem is that government spending is out of control. Can you say ... "Bridge to nowhere"?
Vi
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Vi one of the most dangerous bridges in the Nation is the bridge that spans the Cimarron River on interstate 40 in Oklahoma. This bridge has been neglected ever since the republicans took over congress back in the early 90's (remember the contract with America?) But it's not just the Highways and Bridges you have to worry about.
Now you do not have any (real) proof that tax cuts benefit anyone except the rich. Please don't pull up any bullshit right wing pages as they are skewed to make right wingers look good and have little actual fact in them.
Now you do not have any (real) proof that tax cuts benefit anyone except the rich. Please don't pull up any bullshit right wing pages as they are skewed to make right wingers look good and have little actual fact in them.
ViRedd
New Member
Red Herring Alert! Red Herring Alert!
Where did I say anything about who benefits? I said that tax cuts bring in more money to the treasury. What the politicians do with the money is a different matter now, isn't it?
Vi
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
go debate on the following sites Vi, they would eat you for lunch....
Democracy Forums - Powered by vBulletin
House of Politics - Political Forum
http://www.libertynewsforum.com/
Democracy Forums - Powered by vBulletin
House of Politics - Political Forum
http://www.libertynewsforum.com/
ViRedd
New Member
No matter how respectful I am to you, you just keep picking the scab, don't you Dank? What's up with that??
From the first site above:
"A modern democrat is someone who feels a great moral debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money, by threat of force, via taxation.
-Osborn F. Enready
A modern republican is someone who feels a great moral debt to god, which debt he proposes to pay off by sacrificing YOUR liberties in the name of security and protecting you from yourself."
-Osborn F. Enready
How is that different from what I post here in the forum?
From the second site:
Taxation Is Robbery
by Frank Chodorov
[From Out of Step: The Autobiography of an Individualist, by Frank Chodorov; The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1962, pp. 216–239.]
THE Encyclopaedia Britannica defines taxation as "that part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges upon its subjects." That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is. In that statement of fact the word "compulsory" looms large, simply because of its ethical content. The quick reaction is to ques*tion the "right" of the State to this use of power. What sanc*tion, in morals, does the State adduce for the taking of property? Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?
On this question of morality there are two positions, and never the twain will meet. Those who hold that political institutions stem from "the nature of man," thus enjoying vicarious divinity, or those who pronounce the State the key*stone of social integrations, can find no quarrel with taxa*tion per se; the State's taking of property is justified by its being or its beneficial office. On the other hand, those who hold to the primacy of the individual, whose very existence is his claim to inalienable rights, lean to the position that in the compulsory collection of dues and charges the State is merely exercising power, without regard to morals.
The present inquiry into taxation begins with the second of these positions. It is as biased as would be an inquiry starting with the similarly unprovable proposition that the State is either a natural or a socially necessary institution. Complete objectivity is precluded when an ethical postu*late is the major premise of an argument and a discussion of the nature of taxation cannot exclude values.
If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself. If the State has a prior right to the products of one's labor, his right to existence is qualified. Aside from the fact that no such prior right can be established, except by declaring the State the author of all rights, our inclination (as shown in the effort to avoid paying taxes) is to reject this concept of priority. Our instinct is against it. We object to the taking of our property by organized society just as we do when a single unit of society commits the act. In the latter case we unhesitatingly call the act robbery, a malum in se. It is not the law which in the first instance defines robbery, it is an ethical principle, and this the law may violate but not supersede. If by the necessity of living we acquiesce to the force of law, if by long custom we lose sight of the immorality, has the principle been obliterated? Robbery is robbery, and no amount of words can make it anything else.
Rest of article at: http://www.mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp
How is that different from what I post here?
From the third site you posted:
Big Brother’s Blunt Instrument:
Gold Confiscation in a Post-Dollar Currency Crisis
By
Jamey Hecht, PhD
There’s an ongoing debate about whether the U.S. Government might ever repeat FDR’s 1933 confiscation of privately held gold. It raises the secondary question of whether such a confiscation would exempt rare (“numismatic”
coins, as the Roosevelt confiscation did. The debate is important because it’s a major factor in the buying and selling of gold in today’s environment. Eminent domain has been expanded to include corporate claimants to private assets; under the Patriot Act, the Fourth Amendment has gone the way of the 8-track tape; and without a bankruptcy escape hatch, the post-housing bubble future is beginning to look like indentured servitude. Though the paper fiat dollar has not yet burst into flames, the debt temperature is so high these days that you can almost smell the first serpentine wisp of smoke rising from Ben Franklin’s face. Every time I see that paternal frown on the hundred dollar bill I hear Franklin telling us which form of government is the best: “A republic… if you can keep it.” Translation: I told you so. So, contrary to your assertion that "they would eat me for lunch," it appears that I would be quite welcome on those three sites. What say you, Dankster?
Vi
ViRedd
New Member
~lol~ The liberals on THIS site certainly don't "eat me for lunch," so how do you figure liberals on the other sites would? Look, liberals in general debate from emotion and are sorely lacking in logic. When presented with logical viewpoints that are directly opposed to their own viewpoints, they go bananas and strike out with personal attacks. That's all they know, Dank. So, what makes you think that the liberals on any other site are different than the ones who post here? Liberals are liberals ... and that's about it.
Vi
bongspit
New Member
I'm not going to change your mind and your not gonna change my mind...BUT I think dank gets your old ass all the time...
lunch anyone...........................