Cancel Democracy?!

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

It says April 25 2011 on the bottom. (not kidding)

Clearly a forgery. (kidding...? YOU DECIDE)

Also, I did not know Barack's dad liked underage girls.

That is the date they released it. It was accepted Aug. 8 1961. READ!!!

Also, 18 is not underage.

[Tyranidos]

Yeah, quit being a doofus, Dopple.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Roglef

Quit making things what they aren't.

Originally Posted by blazeVA

READ!!!

Originally Posted by Tyranidos

Yeah, quit being a doofus, Dopple.

Stay classy, kids.

Originally Posted by blazeVA

Also, 18 is not underage.

I was insinuating that she was younger than 18 when she slept with Barack Sr., but that might not be the case according to Wikipedia. It would seem that when she married Barack Sr., she was already 3 months pregnant, but they were wed in February. This means they rolled in the hay sometime during November, Durham's birth month.

So it's possible she was 17. But I wouldn't bet on it, the timing is too good.

[Tyranidos]

It's pretty close. I'm thinking birthday sex.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Talon87

Not this bullshit again. Seriously? Do you honestly believe Obama is a secret spy from Nairobi? FFS, crazy people who collect newspapers, not to mention libraries in the state of Hawaii, have the newspaper that was printed the day he was born and it carries his name in there. What's more likely:

a) that he was in fact, then, born in Hawaii?
b) that it's all a lib'ral conspiracy to get a foreigner into office? and that all of the newspapers are doctored?

Seriously, you guys go from pitiful to intolerable in very little time. Knock it off.

No, I don't believe he is a spy, and while I have my doubts due to his aversion to giving the proof while he was on the campaign trail, I accept the birth certificate, and do not question his legitimacy in office.

The point of the matter is not whether or not he's a legal US born citizen, but that he was able to get a completely free pass from being vetted by the mass media, and when questioned, refused to give absolute proof to the voters, who very well deserved it, by ANY public figure with such stringent restrictions to their office, if they so demanded it.

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

Mentioning that Obama wasn't born in the United States is completely off-topic for what the actual article is about. It really puts a level of discredit to the source as they can't even keep on topic, instead trying to just outright bash random things on their political side.

If the topic of the article was about Obama not being a born American, talk about it all you want. If the topic is about not running elections for House of Representatives members because they waste all their time campaigning, then why are you talking about Obama? How was he even linked to the NC governor in any way? He didn't mention it. He never said he supported the idea. It's a completely random conspiracy connection to link this governor's words to the president in any way.

It's like if I were talking about how the Moon Landing was faked by NASA and then instead of talking about how the flag moved like there was wind and the footprint staying in shape despite the lack of water on the moon, I mention how crayons taste like purple. They're not associated with one another.

How are the two linked besides the political bias of the reporter?

And the Obama birther theory is lead by Tea Party members (not Tea Party leaders leading the birther theory), so there is a link to so-called "Tea Party Scaremongering." I would have had considered your overall message more credible without that link at all.

If you had actually read the article, instead of glossing over and picking out parts, you'd see that the point is not referring to whether he's US born or not, but that, HE WAS ABLE TO GET ELECTED WITHOUT BEING THOROUGHLY VETTED. And if he's able to do that, WHAT ELSE COULD HE DO, IF HE SO DESIRED IT?! Not that he will or not, but that he has the opportunity to do so!

Originally Posted by blazeVA

Seeing as the latest history textbooks don't even talk about the birther thing, then one thing must be said.

OBAMA WAS BORN IN AMERICA!!!

But really, do you think our government is that stupid? That they would not know whether or not he was born here. You are crazy.

It's not the government that cares whether he's in compliance with the law, but yes, the government is stupid. It's the voters that matter, and Obama was not vetted even half as hard as Republicans are when they run for office. The point is, He Got A Free Pass, not that he may or may not be a legitimate president.

Originally Posted by Talon87

That is the full birth certificate which the White House released, and had no legal obligation to release, in order to shut the doubters up once and for all. Ordinarily a short-form birth certificate would suffice -- when was the last time you heard people questioning Clinton's or Bush's authenticity as an American-born citizen? -- and Obama provided this during the campaign when the first "proto-Tea Partiers" showed up and began to question his ability to run for office. But the KKK a subset of Tea Partiers who didn't want a black man in office questioned the credentials of Barack Obama demanded to see the long-form birth certificate. So the White House released that, under no obligation to do so, to shut them up.

Your remarks are inflammatory, inciteful, and thoroughly untrue. They Reek of bias and libel, and I request you retract them immediately. You'd never see a Republican get away with making such comments without a thorough crucifixion in the media, and I've never said anything of such magnitude, nor insinuated such. You surely show your true colors when you post things like that.
If the public demands proof of legitimacy, those in question DO have the obligation to produce the proof. If people had questioned Bush's legality, or Clinton's, I can assure you, the birth certificate would have been released very likely on the very next day, well, maybe not Clinton's since he's a democrat and they usually get free passes by the media, but Bush's definitely.

Neither I, nor the TEA party have any affiliation with the KKK, nor is the Birther movement related to the TEA party. While some TEA party members may also be birthers, the two are not the same, and have completely different goals.

Of course they didn't shut up, saying the same things they said about the short-form certificate -- "IT'S A FAKE!" -- and so the whole exercise was pointless.

If it was so easy for them to release the birth certificate, why didn't they do so during the campaign trail? What did they have to hide? I can assure you, if such an issue had occurred for the republicans, they wouldn't have been able to rest until they released it, and more likely, they would have done so the day after the issue was raised. It was only after Donald Trump pushed and pressed and brought the issue to the media's un-ignorable attention that the certificate was finally released, long after Obama had been elected. Proof though it may be, suspicions continue because of the poor way the issue was handled.

[Tyranidos]

Why should he even be asked to prove it? I don't remember anyone asking all the other candidates or Bush.

[Talon87]

Denied. You keep bringing up conspiracy theory bullshit, this is exactly what you're going to get in response. We're tired of it. No, I won't speak for everybody, so I'll rescind that and say: I'm tired of it.

It's fine talking non-inflammatory topics with you -- anime, Pokemon, TV shows, whatever -- but anything else, from religion and politics to science and economics, inevitably results in The Entire Board vs. You. It's got to stop. If you're not willing to listen to the mountains of evidence we foist upon you and instead wish to continue to insist to us that we ought to respect your crappy tabloid-caliber sources as being no less credible than ours, then there's no point in even engaging you in these conversations any further.

It is ri-di-cu-lous that you sit there and lie to us -- LIE TO US -- claiming with a straight face that Obama "withheld" his birth certificate while he was on the campaign trail. June 2008, dude. June 2008, he released his birth certificate. And yes: it was all the gun-toting, bourbon-snorting, bucktoothed white supremacists who said shit like this: "I guess because he is another race. I'm sort of scared of the other races, 'cause we have so much conflict with 'em." Or "He's a Muslim, and y'know, that has a lot to do with it." Or, my personal favorite, "I don't like the Hussein thing. I've had enough of Hussein." So don't sit there and accuse me of libeling your people when it's your people who are the ones making jackasses of themselves on national television spouting their xenophobic, backwater views for all to hear.

You claim that he "withheld" evidence that not only did he supply (well before the election, mind you) but that he then bent over backwards to super-duper supply when the Tea Party crazies said, "TOOK 'R JERBS! SHOW US THE LONG-FORM! THE LONG-FORM!" >_> No other President has ever had to do that. The State Department even told him, "You don't need to accede to their demands." But you know what? He did. Because he's the people's president. He's got nothing to hide. So he says, "You know what: fine. Here you go." And you guys STILL sit there and lie, now saying "WELL YOU DIDN'T SHOW IT TO US BEFORE!" He did. He showed you the short-form before. "BUT IT WASN'T THE LONG-FORM!" No, it wasn't. And if you'd just-- "HAHA! SEE!? HE'S NOT FIT TO BE IN OFFICE! WE NEED TO IMPEACH HIM! IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH! "

>_>

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Tyranidos

Why should he even be asked to prove it? I don't remember anyone asking all the other candidates or Bush.

Because the voters requested it, and it's mandated by the constitution. Simply because they didn't show interest in other candidate's legitimacy doesn't mean he can be immune to it.

If it's so unfair, why don't you just demand to see Republicans birth certificates when they run for office as well? I'm sure they'd be happy to prove themselves legitimate for office. And if they don't, you can do everything the birthers did, and I'll be right there with you demanding legitimacy from them.

Conservatives and Republicans are not above my reproach if they're not up to par, same as with Democrats.

[Tyranidos]

I just wanted to get you to say "cause he black" or something along those lines, but fair enough.

I agree with Talon except with less rage.

[big bad birtha]

Obama is a gopher from outer space sent to infiltrate the United States in order to enslave humans for the gopher people. After they're done with us, they'll use their gopher powers and hurl us into the sun.

Obama is totally evil I tell ya!

[Loki]

Originally Posted by unownmew

If you had actually read the article, instead of glossing over and picking out parts, you'd see that the point is not referring to whether he's US born or not, but that, HE WAS ABLE TO GET ELECTED WITHOUT BEING THOROUGHLY VETTED. And if he's able to do that, WHAT ELSE COULD HE DO, IF HE SO DESIRED IT?! Not that he will or not, but that he has the opportunity to do so!

So because a governor from out of nowhere said something, the supposedly non-American President can break all of our current laws and have it done without anything stopping him? Even though the President has not supported or even commented on the issue... ever...

I'm still not seeing any connection between the two.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Talon87

Denied. You keep bringing up conspiracy theory bullshit, this is exactly what you're going to get in response. We're tired of it. No, I won't speak for everybody, so I'll rescind that and say: I'm tired of it.

So be it. But I do not appreciate being lumped in with the KKK, I abhor them, and their ideals, and if "My people" had such aversion to blacks, why is it that one of our Conservative candidates is black, and isn't receiving such hateful spake people on YOUR side say we give to blacks? Answer me that!

It's fine talking non-inflammatory topics with you -- anime, Pokemon, TV shows, whatever -- but anything else, from religion and politics to science and economics, inevitably results in The Entire Board vs. You. It's got to stop. If you're not willing to listen to the mountains of evidence we foist upon you and instead wish to continue to insist to us that we ought to respect your crappy tabloid-caliber sources as being no less credible than ours, then there's no point in even engaging you in these conversations any further.

Entire board vs me? Simply because I have a different view? Are you even willing to accept the possibility that you might be wrong?! I'm willing, if you can prove it to me, but so far, I've yet to be proven anything.

Why are conspiracies so impossible? Julius Caesar was a conspirator, and a successful one at that. As was Brutus, and the other roman senators who killed him. I'm sure there are many other conspiracies that have been unveiled by history, I'm just too lazy to look them up, and don't believe I need to to prove my point.

I accept every single source you give me, and rightly refute the information contained therein to the best of my ability, and to the best of my knowledge, which I'll admit, is not the very best, but that does not prove that my views are wrong.
You on the other hand, take my sources and don't even look at the information presented, and go straight to attempting to discredit them on premise of "biased and untrustworthy." I've yet to get any refutement of the actual information provided within the Wegman report I provided, simply an attempt to discredit it based on an unresolved controversy.

Well it just so happens that I consider Each and Every Single source you've provided to me, as "biased and untrustworthy," yet I still attempt to address the actual information they present, instead of saying, "nope, that doesn't agree with me, so, it's biased and not worth addressing." I COULD do what you do with my sources, but, what progress would be made in that case? NONE! And that's how much progress is being made when you refuse to address my sources as anything but biased hogwash. Frankly I'm sick of my points being ignored just because they are different them yours. What sites would you have me use to prove my points that are NOT potentially biased to your side? Each side has to have bias, or there would be no difference of opinion. Since all the "official and unbiased" news sites have jumped on the bandwagon and don't publish anything that differs from their happy little ideal world, it's up to the fringe sites to provide the actual numbers required to fight back "consensus."

Which, btw, Consensus =/= Truth, and I'm sure you know that very well.

It is ri-di-cu-lous that you sit there and lie to us -- LIE TO US -- claiming with a straight face that Obama "withheld" his birth certificate while he was on the campaign trail. June 2008, dude. June 2008, he released his birth certificate. And yes: it was all the gun-toting, bourbon-snorting, bucktoothed white supremacists who said shit like this: "I guess because he is another race. I'm sort of scared of the other races, 'cause we have so much conflict with 'em." Or "He's a Muslim, and y'know, that has a lot to do with it." Or, my personal favorite, "I don't like the Hussein thing. I've had enough of Hussein." So don't sit there and accuse me of libeling your people when it's your people who are the ones making jackasses of themselves on national television spouting their xenophobic, backwater views for all to hear.

You claim that he "withheld" evidence that not only did he supply (well before the election, mind you) but that he then bent over backwards to super-duper supply when the Tea Party crazies said, "TOOK 'R JERBS! SHOW US THE LONG-FORM! THE LONG-FORM!" >_> No other President has ever had to do that. The State Department even told him, "You don't need to accede to their demands." But you know what? He did. Because he's the people's president. He's got nothing to hide. So he says, "You know what: fine. Here you go." And you guys STILL sit there and lie, now saying "WELL YOU DIDN'T SHOW IT TO US BEFORE!" He did. He showed you the short-form before. "BUT IT WASN'T THE LONG-FORM!" No, it wasn't. And if you'd just-- "HAHA! SEE!? HE'S NOT FIT TO BE IN OFFICE! WE NEED TO IMPEACH HIM! IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH! "

>_>

I will freely admit I would not be opposed to impeaching Obama, but on the basis of treason, not his legitimacy to the presidency. His policies are destroying America, and America knows it. Whether it's by design, or simply ineptitude, it doesn't matter, they need to be changed. (That's why he has poor low approval numbers and why Conservatives running "against Obama" won the midterms elections) However, I also know such effort would be futile while democrats hold the legislature, and inflammatory at best if Republicans did it, so I do not hope for that solution. But if you question my claims, I suggest you read the actual legislation Democrats have passed, instead of just the news reviews who haven't read it either, and go off the fancy name and lies the senators put out to sell it to the public.
Of course this is all my opinion, so it has nothing to do with the argument at hand.



If Voters demand the long form, then it's his obligation to produce the long form. I'd support the same measures for any Republican or conservative candidate with questionable (or just simply questioned) legitimacy, black, white, red, or yellow. It doesn't have to be based on anything, if it's requested, it ought to be produced, just to comply with the constitution and the public. Simply because no other president has been requested to produce it, doesn't mean he can be immune if the call does come. The government doesn't care if he's legitimate or not, so it really doesn't matter what they advise him to do. Ours is a government by the People, not by the government. And for the People, not for the Government.

I couldn't care less who it was that started the first cry, but I would appreciate it if you would leave out the inflammatory remarks and insults. I've yet to insult you or your group, nor do I plan to, it just reflects poorly on your argument. However, if I have inadvertently insulted you or your group, please point out where, and I will humbly apologize.

He did not "bend over backwards" for anything, he kept the long form from us for as long as he could, and I wholly believe that if it where not for Donald Trump making the issue completely un-ignorable, he would never have produced it at all. Yet he could have easily quelled the entire movement if he had just produced it right after it was requested, like any other candidate would have. If he really had nothing to hide, it really is an innocent request, no? Some people believe it's a fake, because he handled the entire issue like he did have something to hide. Whether it's true or not means little, for a public figure appearance is everything, and he blew it on that one.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

So because a governor from out of nowhere said something, the President can break all of our current laws and have it done without anything stopping him? Even though the President has not supported or even commented on the issue... ever...

I'm still not seeing any connection between the two.

No, the govorner, was echoing the sentiments of other democracts and elitists who want to keep their power. It was a testing ground for the idea of suspending democracy. If it went over well, they would know they have a chance to do it.

It's obvious Obama will not compromise his ideals. The problem comes when you look closely at what his ideals actually are. I fear greatly he's not below taking dictatorial control to "stabilize" the economic crisis we're currently in.

I also know that that crisis is being fabricated through the democrat designed bills that have been passed since Bush was in office. And yes Bush signed them, so he's to blame there as well.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by unownmew

I do not appreciate being lumped in with

Originally Posted by unownmew

No, the govorner, was echoing the sentiments of other democracts and elitists who

[unownmew]

It seems you left off the descriptor at the end, "who want to keep their power." I see what you did there. Deliberately.

but, my apologies anyway for being less clear. A better way for me to have worded that would be:

"Elitist public officials who want to keep their power." Which are whom I usually refer to when I say "democrats", not the general base voter.

Though, you've been acting pretty elitist yourself, looking down on my ideals and spouting inflammatory remarks against the TEA party.


So why are you a Democrat, and of the liberal ideas they promote, which do you prescribe to, and why?
(I'm not about to make the mistake of assuming you prescribe to everything they believe in.) Just like every TEA partier is not the same carbon copy set of fringe ideals the media would make us out to be.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by unownmew

It seems you left off the descriptor at the end, "who want to keep their power." I see what you did there. Deliberately.

You're insane. I clipped the quote because all I needed was the relevant bit which shows how you in not even the span of twelve minutes go against what you preach. You're a real mental case, you know that? Not even fifteen minutes pass and you go from saying "DON'T ASSUME THAT JUST BECAUSE SOME OF US ARE LIKE THAT THAT ALL OF US ARE LIKE THAT! " to saying "So ... this one Democratic governor said these things. Therefore, the entire Democrat party must be in on it -- including OBAMA! " And then you egomaniacally come back and reply to me with an, "I see what you did there. You changed my wording to make me look bad! You're trying to hide the truth! TRUTH-MURDERER!" I'm not trying to hide anything. I could quote your entire blocks of text and it wouldn't make a difference, so I'll spell it out for you:

YOU. ARE. SPLIT. MINDED.

You decry crappy evidence and then post the shittiest evidence this board has ever seen.

You accuse others of obfuscating the truth yet you're the one who keeps repeating lies over and over and over, even when confronted with the truth by numerous individuals on this board.

You accuse others of twisting your words, yet it is you yourself in those very accusations who are most frequently twisting the words and the intentions of the very people who quoted you.

You take pride in being a Christian, yet your private and social beliefs are the most damning to the public welfare. The Tea Party has to be one of the most hysterically hypocritical movements in all of world history: because the very people who comprise it -- mostly self-proclaimed Christians who occupy the blue collar jobs in America and most desperately rely on Social Security, Medicare, and welfare programs to help them or their families to eke out a living on this rock -- are the same people most ardently calling for the death of those programs. Oh! Believe me when I say, we could totally do away with social welfare programs! But it's hysterically the Tea Party constituency which would be hardest hit. Social welfare programs, whether you like them or not, are very much in keeping with the charity Jesus Christ encouraged and which churches for centuries have practiced. Free clinics? Shelters? Soup kitchens? These are the sorts of things which churches and charities do. Even if you believe that's where it should be kept -- even if you believe that government should have no hand in such affairs -- I find it remarkably double-thinky of you. Because here you are, Mr. I'm A Christian, and you're allying with the political ideology by which Christ would probably be most horrified. "Fuck the poor. They're on their own. They got themselves into this mess and they can get themselves out of it. If they're lucky, a charitous person will come along and help them. BUT IT WON'T BE ME OR MY TAX DOLLARS! " Yeah. I'm sure Jesus is real pleased with this mentality.

This is why it's impossible to deal with you in these topics. Debating anything with you is like debating with someone who has dissociative identity disorder.

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by unownmew

No, the govorner, was echoing the sentiments of other democracts and elitists who want to keep their power. It was a testing ground for the idea of suspending democracy. If it went over well, they would know they have a chance to do it.

It's obvious Obama will not compromise his ideals. The problem comes when you look closely at what his ideals actually are. I fear greatly he's not below taking dictatorial control to "stabilize" the economic crisis we're currently in.

I also know that that crisis is being fabricated through the democrat designed bills that have been passed since Bush was in office. And yes Bush signed them, so he's to blame there as well.

That is such bullshit and you know it. I read that entire article MANY times, and I found no such hints in there. You are so anti-Democrat, it is not even funny. ALRIGHT FASCIST!!(A really conservative conservative). Because, you want big government to go down, and yet, you praise it at the same time.

You don't lump TEA paritiers into one group, but lump all of the Democrats into one group.

You have more personalities that people with multiple-personality disorder. You lie, you twist what other people say, and you believe every conspiracy theory out there about democrats.

LET ME REPEAT: WHAT THE GOVERNOR MEANT WAS WE NEED TO AT LEAST LENGTHEN THE TIME IN WHICH REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS GET ELECTED SO THEY? CAN FOCUS ON GETTING STUFF DONE AND NOT ABOUT REELECTION .

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Talon87

You're insane. I clipped the quote because all I needed was the relevant bit which shows how you in not even the span of twelve minutes go against what you preach. You're a real mental case, you know that? Not even fifteen minutes pass and you go from saying "DON'T ASSUME THAT JUST BECAUSE SOME OF US ARE LIKE THAT THAT ALL OF US ARE LIKE THAT! " to saying "So ... this one Democratic governor said these things. Therefore, the entire Democrat party must be in on it -- including OBAMA! " And then you egomaniacally come back and reply to me with an, "I see what you did there. You changed my wording to make me look bad! You're trying to hide the truth! TRUTH-MURDERER!" I'm not trying to hide anything. I could quote your entire blocks of text and it wouldn't make a difference, so I'll spell it out for you:

YOU. ARE. SPLIT. MINDED.

I never said the entire democrat party, I said "democrats and elitists who want to keep their power."
The descriptor you left out, is the most important part! It's what separated the "entire democrat party" from the "elitist ideologues who seek to retain their power." It was the defining portion of the sentence, which would have clarified the entire matter if you were not so obsessed with trying to prove me wrong by making me look bad.

So I'm split minded. Whether or not that's true, has nothing to do with whatever truths or untruths We've both been saying. I may be angry, but at least I'm not throwing personal insults at you.

You decry crappy evidence and then post the shittiest evidence this board has ever seen.

Care to give some actual examples of that instead of just saying so? I could say the exact same thing of you, and the thing is, I'd be completely right, because the entire comment is subjective. You're right, because it only deals with your opinion, and I'm right because it's only deals with my opinion.
We're both dead wrong however, unless we back it up with evidence. I'm not the one claiming it, so the burden of proof falls entirely on you. Failure to do so, discredits your entire argument.

You accuse others of obfuscating the truth yet you're the one who keeps repeating lies over and over and over, even when confronted with the truth by numerous individuals on this board.

Where have I ever said anyone is lying? I've never claimed that, and you know it. What lies have I been repeating? Evidence or keep it to your self.
Just because numerous people agree on something, does not make it truth.

Again, I'm sure you're aware that "Consensus does NOT equal Truth." no matter how much you'd like it to. And I'd appreciate it if you would stop trying to pass it off like it does.

You accuse others of twisting your words, yet it is you yourself in those very accusations who are most frequently twisting the words and the intentions of the very people who quoted you.

Perhaps you are right. Maybe I am twisting other people's intentions without intending to. Being as I'm not aware of your actual intentions, please tell me.

My intentions are to provide the alternate view, and prove various claims as truth or falsehoods through evidence, instead of trying to discrediting them.
If I'm confronted with something I can not prove, I'll be forced to accept it. I've yet to encounter such substantive proof however.

You take pride in being a Christian, yet your private and social beliefs are the most damning to the public welfare. The Tea Party has to be one of the most hysterically hypocritical movements in all of world history: because the very people who comprise it -- mostly self-proclaimed Christians who occupy the blue collar jobs in America and most desperately rely on Social Security, Medicare, and welfare programs to help them or their families to eke out a living on this rock -- are the same people most ardently calling for the death of those programs.

I take pride in knowing the truth of the Christian doctrine. My personal actions are far from Christian, and I will never claim to be perfect. I embody, do as I say, not as I do. Some things about that I'm trying to change, others I'm not yet spiritually prepared to do. But being a hypocrite doesn't make what they say any less true, it only damns themselves and makes people less apt to listen to them.
The difference between a Conservative and a Liberal, is that Conservatives have standards they try to keep, while the liberal just doesn't have standards so they can't be labeled as hypocrites.

The TEA party wants to reform medicare/medicaid/welfare yes, simply because it is unsustainable, not on the backs of those who are already dependent on it, but by changing who will get what, at what age, in the future.
The point with medicare and medicaid and welfare is, THEY ARE UNSUSTAINABLE at current levels, and needs to be reformed, along with other programs and government waste, if we ever hope to get our 6+ TRILLION dollar debt under control. Just because Liberals say we want to take benefits away from current beneficiaries, doesn't mean it's true. It's pure political posturing and scare tactics.

Oh! Believe me when I say, we could totally do away with social welfare programs! But it's hysterically the Tea Party constituency which would be hardest hit. Social welfare programs, whether you like them or not, are very much in keeping with the charity Jesus Christ encouraged and which churches for centuries have practiced. Free clinics? Shelters? Soup kitchens? These are the sorts of things which churches and charities do. Even if you believe that's where it should be kept -- even if you believe that government should have no hand in such affairs -- I find it remarkably double-thinky of you. Because here you are, Mr. I'm A Christian, and you're allying with the political ideology by which Christ would probably be most horrified. "Fuck the poor. They're on their own. They got themselves into this mess and they can get themselves out of it. If they're lucky, a charitous person will come along and help them. BUT IT WON'T BE ME OR MY TAX DOLLARS! " Yeah. I'm sure Jesus is real pleased with this mentality.

Social programs are very much NOT in line with Jesus' teachings. Why?
Because it breeds dependence and lazyness. The government doesn't care how "unable" you are to work, if it can get you on it's social programs, it will. Conservatives want to get people with the ability, back on their own two feet and working for their own subsistence.
The government is not a nanny, nor should it be. The government is solely for the purpose of keeping society in order, and protecting it from foreign powers.
For those who can not work, charities and such are there, and a larger tax break for charitable giving, will promote more charitable giving. Losing a finger counts as disabled, yet it does not hinder a person's ability to work very much. Are they entitled to a government check every month paying for their necessities?

Promoting jobs and growth, is the most charitable thing the government can and should be doing. Of course, the law should still stand that requires admittance of any seriously injured person into an emergency room no questions asked, and an un-abusable assistance program to get the poor into work so they can start supporting themselves.
But, everything else should be done through charitable donations, not tax dollars. If people choose to support the poor, they'd do so by donating. The government needs to stay out of it.
It's not charity if it's forced.

This is why it's impossible to deal with you in these topics. Debating anything with you is like debating with someone who has dissociative identity disorder.

I'm sorry my views are so disagreeable to yours. I can't help it that the two are fundamentally at odds with each other.

[unownmew]

Ok, let me make a clarification you seem to be missing. When I say "Democrat"
I mean,
"the elitist governing and media officials who belong to the democrat party, continully attempt to enlarge the government, or support those efforts, and anyone else who aspires to their ideals. Republicans included."

Is that clearer for you now? I never mean the base democrat voters.

Originally Posted by blazeVA

LET ME REPEAT: WHAT THE GOVERNOR MEANT WAS WE NEED TO AT LEAST LENGTHEN THE TIME IN WHICH REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS GET ELECTED SO THEY? CAN FOCUS ON GETTING STUFF DONE AND NOT ABOUT REELECTION .

Focus on getting stuff done, like, dismantling the Constitution and implementing the last of their radical agenda before the next election so they don't have to give up the progress or their power when the voters come out in waves against their policies the next election.

I have proof if you want to see it, but it's clear you're not interested in looking.
Just read the 1000+ page bills the democrat senators propose, and then ask your lawyer what it all really means for US citizens. You'll find what they say the bills do, and what the bills actually will do, are very different things.
Here's the source.

[Lady Kuno]

You guys know it's possible to argue without resorting to insulting each other, right?

Carry on.


Ps. This isn't directed to anyone in particular, but it's been happening and it's been annoying me so stop it. Keep it civil.

[deoxys]

This is only semi-on topic, but I want everyone to stop what you're doing and to see this goddamned amazing unaired video from an interview to an Occupy Wall St. guy from a Fox News employee. This is honestly one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by deoxys

This is only semi-on topic, but I want everyone to stop what you're doing and to see this goddamned amazing unaired video from an interview to an Occupy Wall St. guy from a Fox News employee. This is honestly one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

Wow, that guy makes so much goddamn sense. LETS MAKE HIM OUT NEXT SENATOR! HE HAS THE RIGHT IDEAS!

[deoxys]

[lilboocorsola]

Just so you know, I'm closing this thread if it descends into no more than memes and insults. -.-

[unownmew]

Since this is slightly related to the original topic, and I've been rather vexed by Talon's accusations, I'll tack this on, as I'm really not expecting anyone to actually respond to my last points (After spamming it up. I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, but as it stands, people usually ignore what they can't refute.)

Obama wants Congress to pass his jobs bill, immediately, saying, Republicans are keeping that from happening.

So Senate Republican Mitch Micconnel says "Sure! The president is entitled to a vote to know what the senate thinks about it, why waste anymore time? Let's vote!"


Senate Democrat Harry Reid says, "No way! 'Right now'' is a relative term anyway."

Not only that, but, the bill still has had no cosponsors in the senate since Reid's introduction of the bill 17 days after Obama said he was going to send it to them.

In the days since Obama's Bill was introduced to the Congress, not even Reid has called it for a vote, until being schooled by Mcconnel. He proposes changes to the bill the day after he rejects a Vote on it.

So, how does one spin this as anything but, Democrats don't consider Obama's job's plan a "pressing matter"?

Why is that? Because Democrats are up for reelection next year, and they're already poised to lose, so not a single one of them wants to be associated with it. But, if it was really that great of a Bill, a surefire jobs creator, like Obama claims it is, you'd think they would be head over heels about supporting it, right?
Apparently they'll get Hell by the voters if they did, and they don't want to be voted out. But why are the voters against it? Because they know what's really in there, as opposed to what's being said about it. Obama and the democrats know the republicans will never sign onto the bill, and without them, it has no chance of passing, but it was never intended to pass anyway, it's simply a political posturing tool for Obama to use against the Republicans, that would be a great cookie for Obama if by hte very off chance it did get passed.

So, shall we take a close look at this "Jobs Bill"?
412 Pages? Yuck! What in the world is in there that requires it to take a full 412 pages?!
I'd post the summary, but even that is huge. Why does it take 412 pages of legislation to create jobs?

Well, read it if you've got time, it'll be great educational material on what really goes on in politics. If you have any sections you'd like confront me with, go right ahead.


Governing against the will of the people is so much easier when you don't have to worry about losing your position in the coming election for doing so, like the democrats do next year, that's why Congress is deadlocked on "Jobs" legislation. Maybe that's why it's been suggested that we "suspend elections for a time;" so the senators can get down to the business on passing legislation against the will of their constituents, without having to worry about the repercussions.


[Disclaimer: Quotes above not accurate to what was actually said, quotes were dramatized for emphasis and summation.]

Extraneous Links

Spoiler: show

Links I ran across which I found interesting, but not quite relevant to my point, and so therefore, not used. Address if you wish.

Obama, "Pass this Bill!" with Obama spending figures
Another take on my point.

[Phew, that took all afternoon >_> ]