reply to post by justsomeboreddude
I didnt call them retards, that was your word not mine. Maybe you just realized the truth.
I’m aware you didn’t explicitly say retard, which is why I used the term “euphemism”.
Well saying no to peope murdering their own child is no different than saying no to murder in general. Are you trying to say you are
pro-murder?
I dont think most conservatives so no to some social programs. Just no to the ones created by FDR which basically create a welfare state where someone
can have the same things a working person has without working. Also, they dont say no to diplomacy, they try it, but if it doesnt work they move on to
what does. That is way more sensible than playing games with some idiot like Hussein or Ahmybreathisbad.
All the above were rooted in selfishness because liberals want a government that will take care of them so they dont have to risk anything or face
consequences when they make mistakes. They want a Moooommmmyyy and Daaaaaaadddyyyyyyy to come and rescue them for the rest of their lives.
I’m not going to argue with you about abortion, but suffice it to say I am not “pro-murder”. I will not be baited that easily.
Prime liberal magical thinking here. Blame Bush for a deficit that was partially created by two wars caused by us being attacked on 911. The
deficit was also created by a declining economy. A president cant control the economy he can only attempt to limit the affects. I guess in your mind
we wouldnt have a deficit because we would have just gave the terrorists a time out or a gentle smack on the hand and hoped they learned their
lessons. Bush didnt label a bunch of Americans terrorists unlike Obamas DHS director who labeled anyone not a liberal a potential terrorist.
Jesus.
Partially created by two wars, yes. Due to 9/11, no. We started one war due to 9/11, and one war for WMDs that magically disappeared when we got there
(we get the oil though!). Bush didn’t decrease overall spending by even 1% to reflect the “declining economy”. You also don’t know my
political beliefs, so I would refrain from assuming anyone that sees your OP for what it really is, is an extreme liberal.
I like how you believe a President can limit the affects of a declining economy. Kind of like FDR’s social spending to get us out of the Great
Depression and how Bush and Obama enacted massive government spending to ensure we didn’t see another one. Bush never directly labeled anyone as a
terrorist and neither has Obama. The DHS report said nothing of the sort about anyone who is not a liberal a potential terrorist.
No I am saying the government should treat everyone fair and let people live and die by their own choices. If retirees need more help, its
their own fault for not saving their money or making stupid investments. Why should we have to help them? Also, most people regardless of party
support helping trully handicapped or mentally ill people, but you cross a line when you want to hand out money to people with add or slightly low iq,
like its our fault somebody is an idiot.
The people affected by Enron weren’t idiots. The people who lost their retirement money due to the corruption in the banking industry weren’t
idiots. The people who lost everything in Katrina or Ike weren’t idiots.
Typical liberal thinking. Liberals think they have a right to the government solving their problems and taking care of them. That infringes on
everyone elses right to keep more of their hard earned money.
That was out of left field. My response didn’t have anything to do with the government, and you still haven’t answered how anything in your op
intelligently questions or tests anyone’s logic, because you know it doesn’t and you know I called you out on the hypocritically tantrum that the
OP really is.
Lets censor me because I disagree with you. I didnt say you had to read it or post here. Typical liberal tactic of deflecting their problems
onto everyone else.
I never suggested to censor you. I just stated the obvious effects of your OP.