Are republicans without conscience or empathy?

page: 23
39
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Are democrats without logic or reason? Legitimate question...


There is a lot of logic in having society that shuns desperate poverty, you benefit from it as we speak (Somalia)
Are you logical enough to see that???




posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by technical difficulties
 





numerous threads on this site are the proof of this


i swear people can not read on this site and do your own leg work


Wow Neo, given your track record, wow



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Empower our government to stop the destruction of the environment.


Governments are the biggest polluters on the planet.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Then again, most of us are hypocrites.

Those screaming we need more government will eat those words when they find themselves on the wrong side of countless laws and citations. While those wanting less government should know that if we didn't have a strong CENTRAL government we'd all be speaking German or Russian or Japanese. Imagine the great state of Texas coming to the aide of Europe?

The world is a big body and its evolving. Why would such a big body want a small ineffective nervous system (government)? So looking at it that way, we have to decide. Do we want an advanced world which will one day begin space colonization and cure illnesses or do we wish to permanently live circa 1950?

Government is what unites and organizes mankind. The "me,my, I" bunch are part of the OWO, they wish to retard the growth of civilization. You can't have a planet with billions of people playing every man for himself! Unless you like chaos and living like Little House on the Praire. If that's what we want, sure we can cut government down to almost nothing. But we must realize that a lot of the conveniences we enjoy would disappear.

Also, what would happen when the young males decide to band together and form gangs (as they're prone to doing)? Can you imagine the state of California trying to combat the Crips and Bloods? Do you know how many thugs were in that gang? Enough thugs that if they didn't fear the FEDERAL persecution, local law enforcement couldn't do anything with them....not even lock them up.

Like it or not, we the people forming a strong central government is what has allowed America to become what it is.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Funny how those who trumpet smaller government will willingly support government intrusion into the lives of ordinary Americans.

You can't be two things at once.

When will there ever be a candidate that is fiscally moderate and socially liberal?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by tangonine
Explain to me how "the rich" are destroying the environment?



Originally posted by Jezus
The problem is these issues effect the entire planet.

The air, the water, and the land.

Upper Ringwood residents' environmental battle showcased in HBO documentary
www.northjersey.com...

This is one example of what is happening all over our world.

Corporations control the regulators. The people get poisoned. The richer get richer.

People suffer and others benefit from this suffering.



Originally posted by tangonine
So what's to do?

Find enough money to fight him. Not much else, but I'd entertain alternatives that don't involve shooting.


Empower our government to stop the destruction of the environment.



You are aware there is an EPA, yes? It's an oppressive, bloated, unmanageable monster run from DC that has exactly zero idea how state and local municipalities deal with environmental issues, also? Or, I'm guessing you're a typical liberal idealist who flails about aimlessly waving signs and cheering on naked PETA models in Time's Square. I'd bet the second is closer to the truth.

There should be no EPA, there should be men and women who say "no" and can back up that "no." On a state, county, and city level.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I don't care what you say.

If you whine that loud about the "oppressive nanny state", then you might want to thank it for saving your life in a collision, keep the air clean for you and many other things that are direct benefits of more government.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by neo96
 


Funny how those who trumpet smaller government will willingly support government intrusion into the lives of ordinary Americans.

You can't be two things at once.

When will there ever be a candidate that is fiscally moderate and socially liberal?



I'm fiscally conservative: what I earn is mine, stay out of my life

That flows into my social thinking as well: who I diddle is none of your business. Marriage should be separated from government altogether... it's between me and my chosen and (in my case) my god. Why in the hell should a married person get a tax break? seriously?

Guess I'm what they'd call an extreme libertarian, though I vote republican because it lets me and my family keep more of what we earn and doesn't distribute it to who will vote for a democrat.

And I want small government and zero intrusion into my life. The constitution gives 8 specific powers to the government. After 235 years, the idiots of this nation have allowed that to let warrantless cops invade peoples himes and 360lb TSA agents feel you up without your consent. 4th amendment? What 4th Amendment?

Democrat, Republican, doesn't matter. Your right to do as you wish, travel as you want, protect yourself as you deem necessary, start a business, educate your children the way you want... all that crap is gone. You're a ward of the State.
edit on 4-8-2011 by tangonine because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
I don't care what you say.

If you whine that loud about the "oppressive nanny state", then you might want to thank it for saving your life in a collision, keep the air clean for you and many other things that are direct benefits of more government.



If I die in a collision it's my fault. I don't want the government to "protect me from myself." Who, in the hell, is the government to know better than I do? Have you SEEN "the government?" Our representatives? Seriously? Are you so insecure that you'd put your well being in the hands of those idiots? I give you William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Cynthia Mckinney (google "crazy former congresswoman," first hit... think about it)

You want the government to tell you what you can and can't eat? Are you that much of a sheeple? srsly dude. Grow some cajones or move to Cuba.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

not very empathetic.

do you just gloss over posts or what?

anyone who has read any thread on here knows
edit on 4-8-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)
So your evidence is just some guy insulting the tea party? That's not really evidence of lacking empathy, much less of those three things (maybe the last one) you said democrats hate, unless you're trying to say tea partiers are rich and christian. I should also add that that really doesn't compare to the OP at all.
edit on 5-8-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by tangonine
there should be men and women who say "no" and can back up that "no." On a state, county, and city level.




What an amazingly great and original idea...

Men and Women...saying no...together...like organizing to accomplish something...

And backing it up with power...almost like an agency...to protect...the environment...

We could call it the "Agency of Environmental Protection" - THE AEP !

o my god...wait a second...that would almost be like GOVERNMENT!!!!

AHHHHHH!!!



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Becareful what you ask for. You might just get it.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by macman
No, it is not. It is the game of the Nanny Govt to tax the wealthy.
The is no definition within capitalism stating such.
Capitalism is the vessel, plain and simple. A vessel to allow an individual to create a widget/service, manufacture it and sell it. It is based on personal growth and wealth, not communal or the collective.


I understand how that rationlization might make sense to you.

But you need to to think about capitlism within society. It is just a concept; and the main point of the concept is competition. Capitlism does not mean plutocracy.

You aren't dealing with reality.


Originally posted by macman
Again, bastardization of capitalism to form what a Nanny Govt, or Parent, deems fit.


Destroying the enviornment and enslaving the masses is bad for everyone...not just "the government".


Originally posted by macman
And yes, taxes are punitive. It is applied as a sliding scale. The more you earn, the more that is taken from you.

If the taxes were flat, being all paid the same amount no matter what, then they would not be punitive.


That isn't what punitive means...

It is not punative because it doesn't matter how you get it.
edit on 4-8-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)


First off, just because you have been indoctrinated into believing that taxes are not punishment/punitive, does not make it so. By design and definition, they are.
When you make, say $60k a year, you pay 15%. If you go up to $100k a year, your tax bracket goes up to 20%.
Sliding scale, punitive in nature.
A dog is a dog. Not a cat, just because you think it is more fair that way.

Second, the vessel of Capitalism does not route to enslavement or pollution. That is again, your indoctrinated ideas stepping out in front. Should there be limited Govt interaction to prevent pollution? Yes.
Should there be extremely limited Govt interaction in regards to the work force? Yes.
LIMITED.

Definition of Punitive.
"punitive or punitory (ˈpjuːnɪtɪv, ˈpjuːnɪtərɪ, -trɪ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— adj
relating to, involving, or with the intention of inflicting punishment: a punitive expedition "

Taking more from some it punishment. TAKING....NO CHOICE......BY FORCE.......WITHOUT CHOICE.....


As for being enslaved to a job???Really?? Then don't work. You don't have to. YOUR CHOICE...



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


You can view taxation as a punishment, but it is also the life blood which keeps our government functioning. Ya know, that government that has made us a world power?



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by macman
 


You can view taxation as a punishment, but it is also the life blood which keeps our government functioning. Ya know, that government that has made us a world power?


Life blood you say??
The Govt today, is not the Govt of yesteryear. Nor is it the Govt that was created and outlined as such.
Because it has grown to a bloated, unmanageable, unreliable, unrestricted and with no real supervision, it has been deemed that more and more tax dollars are "needed".

But, just because it is needed, it does not mean it is right to take.

Just because you need to eat, does not justify the taking of bread.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


I think there are two types of Republicans. The Leader and the Follower

The way the party is set up, they lead from the top down whereas with Democrats , they lead as a collective which is why you see the party as a whole never agreeing on the same thing or moving in lock step on any give issue.

But you do see Republicans acting as a hive. They have orders from the top and the constituents follow even using the same talking points give to them by their leaders. As to your question, it is not the party, but the LEADERS of the party who are without conscience and are full of vile and corruption.

Because their constituents follow without question, the party leaders in turn have corrupted them. Many of them do not pay attention to politics, only talking points so they speak against their own interests not realizing it. They are not stupid, only distracted by their own lifes events. They work and raise families and don't really pay attention to the current events so when their leaders say "This is what you want', they believe it because they don't know they are being played.

edit on 5-8-2011 by skepticconwatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kellynap43
reply to post by haarvik
 




A good book to read is "State of Fear" by:
Michael Crichton

He wrote this book to show what groups of the liberal party will do to create fear within the populous so that they may start to control certain aspects of society and industry. Example: Environmentalists.

One of my favorite books. If you havent already, read it, you will enjoy.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by travisirius
 


Hard to ignore the fact in one post a righty or whatever says the left can't deal with FACTS. Then one of you guys recommends a book about how the Left Creates fear. A book by Michael Crichton proves your "facts"! This book is FICTION, Kellynap, fiction just like the of how Republicans can run this government better, FICTION. Who in their right mind would elect a large group of people who say government is bad and must be destroyed? Especially after the last eighty years. The Republicans base their ideology on Ayn Rand, which is FICTION!!!
They don't know how to govern when their ideas come from fiction!
Well at least they're reading.
The balanced budget is a MUST only when the eighties are in power because they've got nothing else. They hope everyone has Alzheimer's like most of their constituents.
Read current events & learn where the fear is created. The last great fear was the debt ceiling, right? Who holds it up when Bush got 8 voted in by a rubber stamp Republicans.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
Definition of Punitive.
"punitive or punitory (ˈpjuːnɪtɪv, ˈpjuːnɪtərɪ, -trɪ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— adj
relating to, involving, or with the intention of inflicting punishment: a punitive expedition "

Taking more from some it punishment. TAKING....NO CHOICE......BY FORCE.......WITHOUT CHOICE.....


You posted the definition but don't seem to comprehend it.

Taxes are not punishment for obtaining money. It is about the amount of money itself not about the act of obtaining it.

Fines are punishment. Taxes are not punishment.


Originally posted by macman
Second, the vessel of Capitalism does not route to enslavement or pollution.


It does if the people don't actively organize to prevent it.


Originally posted by macman
Should there be limited Govt interaction to prevent pollution? Yes.
Should there be extremely limited Govt interaction in regards to the work force? Yes.
LIMITED.


Limited. So enough to accomplish the task but not more.

Right now we are not accomplishing the task.


Originally posted by Jezus
Upper Ringwood residents' environmental battle showcased in HBO documentary
www.northjersey.com...

This is one example of what is happening all over our world.

Corporations control the regulators. The people get poisoned. The richer get richer.

People suffer and others benefit from this suffering.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by macman
Definition of Punitive.
"punitive or punitory (ˈpjuːnɪtɪv, ˈpjuːnɪtərɪ, -trɪ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— adj
relating to, involving, or with the intention of inflicting punishment: a punitive expedition "

Taking more from some it punishment. TAKING....NO CHOICE......BY FORCE.......WITHOUT CHOICE.....


You posted the definition but don't seem to comprehend it.

Taxes are not punishment for obtaining money. It is about the amount of money itself not about the act of obtaining it.

Fines are punishment. Taxes are not punishment.


Originally posted by macman
Second, the vessel of Capitalism does not route to enslavement or pollution.


It does if the people don't actively organize to prevent it.


Originally posted by macman
Should there be limited Govt interaction to prevent pollution? Yes.
Should there be extremely limited Govt interaction in regards to the work force? Yes.
LIMITED.


Limited. So enough to accomplish the task but not more.

Right now we are not accomplishing the task.


Originally posted by Jezus
Upper Ringwood residents' environmental battle showcased in HBO documentary
www.northjersey.com...

This is one example of what is happening all over our world.

Corporations control the regulators. The people get poisoned. The richer get richer.

People suffer and others benefit from this suffering.




Here we go, round and round.

If a person makes more, then they are FORCED to pay more. How is that not punishment??





top topics
 
39
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join