It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To the GOP: Is it about your Religion? Your Rights? Your Money?

page: 9
16
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
One Question....

What is it exactly,that you think "Obamacare",is?.

I lived in Florida until 2011,and met many ignorant fools who thought it was free universal health care.

It IS mandatory universal health insurance,insurance ain't the same as health care.

It is life support for a big segment of the types that nearly destroyed our country though.




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Bill Moyers is the guy interviewing the authors, a couple of economists. Both of them know a darn sight more than you and Ben Stein another economist agrees with them. You have no skills or knowledge in this area and not only shouldn't you be making suggestions or giving advice you shouldn't be pretending like you have any answers.

You have no answers, no knowledge of what has been done in the past or how we reached this sad state of affairs in the first place. This makes your worth and opinion here in this discussion fairly negligible.


LOL. YOu are clueless and are woefully ignorant of history and economics and just repeat the same Alinsky tactics over and over and over again. Not only are you ignorant, you are intellectually dishonest and continue to obfiscate and divert. I have given you many answers, data points, references. You just blow them off because they do not support your preconceived Marxist worldview.

I own a business, a side business, and manage several charitable organizations at this point. I know a #-ton more about economics than your sheep-hearding socialist self.


You may know how to cut a business down to the lowest common denominator and get blood out of a stone or a worker - I'll give you that but if fighting for basic human rights and RELIEF FROM the burden of taxes placed on that workers income, makes me a socialist, great. Particularly tax burdens that are NOT placed on his bosses "income" - thanks to the fact the boss is in a HIGHER "income" bracket. You clearly have not investigated the links I provided or you would not bother to hawk this ridiculous FOX NEWS agenda.

If exposing an Oligarchy you cannot see through the BS FOX News shovels on you - not my problem.

If fighting for EQUALITY in a system that is grossly unbalanced to favor the richest 1% of 1% makes me a socialist - I am proud to be one.
edit on 10-11-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)


Bull#. Your version of equality is to make everyone equally miserable. You like taking from some people to give to another just for your version of "equality." Makes you feel good and you don't have to sacrifice yourself.

We had an old joke in the Soviet Union.

A farmer wakes up and looks out across the field and sees that his neighbor has a cow and he does not. He is very angry as it is not fair that his neighbor has a cow and he does not and he wants them both to be equal.

In the USA, the angry farmer works his ass off, saves his money, cuts some corners, and buys his cow. Now they are equal. He decides that is not enough and works hard and buys another cow. ANd another and another.

In the Soviet Union, the angry farmer calls the ministry of agriculture and the agents go to the neighbor's farm and shoot the cow. NOW they are equal.

With my worldview, those people, those 99% you allege to care about, will have the best chance, under economic and individual freedom, to be equal, or even more than equal and be able to strive to make better lives for themselves and those that come after them.

Under your worldview, "equality" comes by pulling everyone down into the same hopless morass. You, sir, are the NKVD wannabe who gets off on thinking about running around shooting people's cows in order to make everything "equal."


edit on 10-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-11-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


You can find a video to support anything.

When the media reports it though on multiple stations it is all left wing propaganda but give Joe Blow a camera and a microphone and we all bow down.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner
 

I presume you are asking me, so I'll answer you.

This:
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

PPACA is aimed primarily at decreasing the number of uninsured Americans and reducing the overall costs of health care. It provides a number of mechanisms—including mandates, subsidies, and tax credits—to employers and individuals in order to increase the coverage rate.[5][6]

Additional reforms are aimed at improving healthcare outcomes and streamlining the delivery of health care. PPACA requires insurance companies to cover all applicants and offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or gender.[7][8]

The Congressional Budget Office projected that PPACA will lower both future deficits[9] and Medicare spending.[10]
On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of PPACA in the case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.[11][12]



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



You feel they are being eroded and eventually will be taken entirely away from you? That is not happening unless you are doing something wrong. I still have my rights - except if I want to build a bomb or fly a plane into a building or kill people in a theatre... ....the NDAA? Are you planning a government overthrow? Are you someone who should be worried about getting caught?

Really?

This is the dumbest thing I've read on ATS all year.

And I'm willing to bet 16 trillion dollars that if there was a Republican in office you wouldn't feel this way about the NDAA at all!



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





Bull#. Your version of equality is to make everyone equally miserable. You like taking from some people to give to another just for your version of "equality." Makes you feel good and you don't have to sacrifice yourself.



A. You are the only one miserable and that is by your own accounting....not mine. I am trying to cheer you up.


B. How about this for re-distribution? And I'll bet you weren't saddened in the slightest.
From a student teacher site. Shmoop. Not liberal or conservative. It is economic history in the Reagan Era, plain and simple. Anyone that has been paying attention knows the vast majority of Americans have seen themselves and their net worth in steady decline, not just recently but for the past 20 years. www.shmoop.com...



Reagan's tax policies did redistribute the tax burden significantly...

By cutting income taxes, which are paid at a higher rate by the wealthy,

while increasing payroll taxes,

which are paid at a higher rate by the working poor and middle class,

Reagan shifted the tax burden down the income scale.

(You should be able to tally net effect on the coffers over time)

During the 1980s, the total effective federal taxation rate for
the poorest one-fifth of American families increased by more than 16%.

By contrast, the effective taxation rate for the wealthiest one-fifth of families
fell by 5.5%

and the richest one percent of Americans saved even more:
their tax rate fell by 14.4%.


During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the wealthiest one-fifth of American households (those who naturally owned the most stock) saw their incomes increase by 14%.

Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth (who presumably owned no stock) endured an income decline of 24%,

That's a 24% decline for a fifth of the population!

And it didn't STOP declining ever since. We are the ones who should be complaining. The poor. Not those who suddenly fear one day their vast wealth will be gone. Give me a break from the violin concert.


C.

Yet the national debt TRIPLED under Reagan's watch, reaching a staggering $2.7 trillion by the time he left office.
TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT? We should have had him criminally charged. And that was in the 80's. I wonder what that 2.7 TRILLION would amount to today?


D.

The national unemployment rate exceeded 10% throughout 1982, rendering more Americans jobless than at any time since the Great Depression.


Can I repeat that unemployment rate?

10%

Impeach the bas#&*. And Reagan gave amnesty to 2 million illegals. Can you imagine if Obama of if he even thought about pardoning illegals? Now why did we not see our clear spiral into socialism during the Reagan or Bush years when it was most likely transpiring? What were we missing then that's present now? Oh yeah, a Democrat in office.

You are too transparent to be very convincing.

edit on 10-11-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 



And I'm willing to bet 16 trillion dollars that if there was a Republican in office you wouldn't feel this way about the NDAA at all!

Well, I'll take that bet. It is what it is, and it wasn't "invented" by the Democrats or Obama. It became necessary when terrorism went global. With security comes some compromise to freedoms. Look it up.

And, I'll raise you civility and respect, while politely ignoring your trollish childishness.

(You have an extra $16 trillion? Well, Blow me down, You are the ONE! The ONE who can single-handedly fix this mess that the Government has created!!!! Where the hell have you been???!!)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



Well, I'll take that bet. It is what it is, and it wasn't "invented" by the Democrats or Obama.

I never said Obama or the democrats invented it, but 'Obama' did sign it.



It became necessary when terrorism went global. With security comes some compromise to freedoms. Look it up.

What does that even mean?

This is the same argument the republicans used to defend the patriot act. Liberals didn't buy it then, so why do they buy it now? Is it because it's 'your guy' selling it?



And, I'll raise you civility and respect, while politely ignoring your trollish childishness.

Honestly I did not mean to disrespect you. It just seems very silly to me to see self proclaimed liberals fawn over and make so many excuses for Obama. While I understand that he was the lesser evil of two evils, he is still evil and evil does not deserve your adulation.



(You have an extra $16 trillion? Well, Blow me down, You are the ONE! The ONE who can single-handedly fix this mess that the Government has created!!!! Where the hell have you been???!!)

It's MY MONEY!! I'm not bailing them out again!!!



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 

Did you notice that (if not here, then in my other posts), I said I'm an Unaffiliated voter, and that the Green and Libertarian parties are most closely aligned to mine?

I'm not "Democrat"..... I vote my conscience.

Regarding your question:

What does that even mean?

Here is how I assess the NDAA:

Some Americans feel threatened by the Patriot Act.

Their vigilance against unwarranted government intrusion into private behavior is important, for a United States without personal liberty is not a United States as we have ever known it.
Some things are simply too important to compromise, even to improve our own safety.

However, the Patriot Act does not represent an opportunity for intrusion into the private lives of most Americans, because the traditional requirements of judicially-approved warrants still apply. Instead, it is a means through which the American government can be proactive rather than reactive in the war against terror, helping to prevent attacks before they occur rather than only acting vigorously after Americans have been killed.

Read more: Family Security Matters www.familysecuritymatters.org...
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution



edit on 10-11-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



Where did the notion come from that the right feels that the left thinks everyone on the right is (as Stormdancer777 said)..?


Originally posted by Stormdancer777
and another thing,

Make up my mind, which is it?

Either conservatives are inbred mouth breathing toothless hillbilly rednecks or they,

"live in McMansions".

Which is it?


Lets see if we can find out where that kind of feeling comes from. This thread is actually one of the most polite threads going on this subject.. but lets take a look at this thread. BTW - this may sting a bit...

From your OP..


People need to be fed and sheltered. They don't need 100-foot yachts.

They need to be educated, not enslaved.

They need the resources to farm and develop cottage industries, and the training to do so.

Clean water, basic medicines, and freedom from fear for survival.
.........
You don't want to admit that a 2000 year old religion is now outdated?
You don't want to be "forced" to help (when that is what you should be doing if you can)....? (That was supposed to be handled by your parents before you reached age 5! It's called "sharing") ...
...
Have your values and ALSO share your hoard. You can't have it both ways, being a "good Christian" and ALSO a rich vulture


Your OP is actually one of the nicest, least offensive ones floating around ATS on this subject and you seemed like you wanted actual dialogue. So, that's why I posted in your thread. But, from your OP, the right seems to not want people fed and sheltered. They want people to be slaves. They want to keep people homeless. Want them to drink dirty water have no medicine and live in fear. Wow - the right sounds like some really evil people.

Oh - they claim to have a good religion too but are really just evil carrion eaters feeding off the weak and dying they created. Egads! How evil the right is!!

Wait - according to the Huff post - Religion And Giving: More Religious States Give More To Charity

Quite a lot more than the left leaning states actually. Go figure.


What else do we have on the first page?

Originally posted by Hefficide

If you're right? Well then it will all fall to pieces and the conservatives will be there, at the ready, with their guns and their wish to take it all back to 200 years ago - and with an opportunity to do it.


..and the conservatives want to go back 200 years as an armed mob.



Originally posted by luciddream
I don't think the people who you direct it going to understand with flames coming out of their ears. They don't need reason to hate.


..and the right is just chock full 'o hate they don't even need a reason to hate!!


That's just from the 1st page of this thread. Like I said, this thread is actually one of the most polite ones out there.

So, if you want to know where the right gets notions that they are thought of that way - it comes largely from some of the shining beacons of love, light, compassion, understanding and caring that make up the left.

Of course, the right can (and does) spew venom and ignorance about the left just as good the left spews it about the right.

But anyway, I could go thru the rest of the pages in this thread, or other threads and list case after case of people saying really silly, hurtful, and totally ignorant things about the other political side.

That is why I said, we have been conditioned very well to think of each other as monsters. It makes actual discussion very difficult at times.


.

edit on 10-11-2012 by Frogs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 



Lets see if we can find out where that kind of feeling comes from. This thread is actually one of the most polite threads going on this subject.. but lets take a look at this thread. BTW - this may sting a bit...

It doesn't sting at all!!!
And I'm glad you haven't bailed!

Yes, I want to know where that kind of "I'm wrongly and unfairly persecuted and pigeonholed" thinking comes from.

My parents, back in the 60s and 70s were Republicans. The party has changed, and the candidate offered up by the GOP this time was -- a questionable choice, at best.

You make an excellent point. I'd like to know, too, where the "liberals" and "progressives" became seen as communist anti-Americans.

Thanks, Frogs.


P.S. As a matter of fact, while musing outdoors yesterday, I began to think about why on earth they would put Romney up as their candidate. What do you think of the (*puts on tin-foil hat*) Conspiracy Theory That I Just Dreamed Up: that maybe the election process is just a "litmus test", and we "voters" are the "weather gauge" for the country's leanings?

Maybe they knew all along he wouldn't win, but they wanted to test the climate and see if the so-called 99% would respond to the ultra-right-wing-conservatives???? Maybe they do that EVERY FOUR YEARS, to advance their agenda with the least amount of "push-back" ????

I don't know, it's possible.

(*removes tin-foil hat*)

edit on 10-11-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 




You said..


You make an excellent point. I'd like to know, too, where the "liberals" and "progressives" became seen as communist anti-Americans.


Heck, that's easy. Some of those beacons of freedom, democracy, hard work, family values, patriotism, and decency on the right claimed that they were.


Like I said - some on the right is just as guilty of spewing ignorance and venom as some on the left.

IMO - both sides need to tone it down some. If we don't then the country is gonna be torn apart. It has come to the point where it is so easy to assume the worst about the other side.

I gotta run for a bit.. laters..

PS - On why running Romney. Romney got it by default. Leadership in the primaries bounced around to everyone but Romney. Then something would happen to knock whoever the leader was at the moment out of the race. Romney got the nomination by virtue of being the last one standing when the smoke cleared. One of the problems Romney faced was he had very few that were "pro-Romney". Most were just "anti-the-other-guy".



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


States with the least religious residents are also the stingiest about giving money to charity, a new study on the generosity of Americans suggests.

The study, released Monday by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, found that residents in states where religious participation is higher than the rest of the nation, particularly in the South, gave the greatest percentage of their discretionary income to charity.

The Northeast, with lower religious participation, was the least generous to charities, with the six New England states filling the last six slots among the 50 states. Churches are among the organizations counted as charities by the study, and some states in the Northeast rank in the top 10 when religious giving is not counted.

(from your link above).....

Perhaps it's because those in "blue" states already have state legislation that takes care of the needy? It's built into the system. Whereas, perhaps, in "red" states, there is no automatic safety net provided (in the form of so-called "welfare")?

When state psychiatric hospitals were closed a couple of decades ago the patients were released at large; the communities were told to "take care of these people, we're letting them out." The problem was that the communities didn't know how, and had no infrastructure set up to do so.

This led to a huge influx of "mental patients", released to the mercy of the community, who were indigent, no longer had their "meds" to keep them on track, and had few (if any) venues for relief. The homeless population exploded. Public schools had to figure out how to "mainstream", or at least to include, kids that would have been in state institutions. This led to the revised version of "Special Ed." (IDEA)

I worked in the "alternative" schools of the Public School System that were designated for Severely Behaviorally and Emotionally Disturbed students (K-12); the schools really had to scramble to meet the govt requirements for "personalized curriculum" and support. The kids, regardless of their "challenges" were put together in classes: a large 11-yr old boy with Degenerative Brain Disorder (becoming more childlike every year), alongside a Paronoid Schizophrenic, next to an Intermittent Explosive Disordered youth who had a penchant for throwing computers at staff (or desks), and running away (it was a locked down unit.)

(Just a little background, for anyone who's remotely interested in the roots of my own thinking.)

So, maybe "red states" (conservatives/Republicans) can expect that charitable "Faith-Based" organizations will step up and pull up the slack, but "liberal" states (bigger government oversight) rely less on "charity"?

In the end, either way works, if the community decides to do it via taxes, or charity alone. I see both sides doing what they need to do to take care of their needy or less fortunate.

Part of the reason for the OP: can't we find a way to establish middle ground, and work from there?





edit on 10-11-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


It is quite possible, I'll admit that. I think either side (left or the right) has a valid reason to get huffy when the other side accusing them not caring. Most often the reason for getting huffy is because the accusation simply is not true.

I think one of the differences is on beliefs about how well the government does things, or how efficient they are at doing it. I'm all for helping people. Heck, right now I give over 10% of my gross to charity. Much of it to non-religious institutions. That doesn't even count stuff like the two mattresses I gave this week to a family I know whose kids were sleeping on the floor. I'm not saying that to brag at all. But - to say this...

I am all for helping people that need help. But, if I collect $3 in donations (or taxes) and by the time it gets to you then you get $1.. then I'm either skimming off the top or I'm totally horrible at effectively managing my process and there is a huge amount of waste involved in the getting the money to you.

I don't think the government does a very good job of managing most things. I think that likely many programs could be looked at, and made to work better for all. That is waaaaay different from saying the programs or help isn't needed.
edit on 10-11-2012 by Frogs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Fine, then you shouldn't have a problem with this:



President Bush Helped Americans Through Tax Relief

President Bush Trusted Americans With Their Hard-Earned Money, Providing $1.7 Trillion In Relief Through 2008

President Bush demonstrated that letting people keep more of their own money leads to economic growth. In 2001, America was experiencing the unprecedented triple shock of a recession following the dot-com bust, economic disruption due to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and corporate accounting scandals. Fortunately, the country was able to overcome these challenges, in part because President Bush's tax relief put more money in families' pockets and encouraged businesses to grow and invest. Following the President's 2003 tax relief, the United States had 52 months of uninterrupted job growth, the longest run on record.

President Bush Signed The Largest Tax Relief In A Generation

President Bush's tax cuts provided $1.7 trillion in relief through 2008. President Bush worked with Congress to reduce the tax burden on American families and small businesses to spur savings, investment, and job creation.

In 2001, President Bush proposed and signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This legislation:

•Reduced tax rates for every American who pays income taxes, including creating a new 10 percent tax bracket
•Doubled the child tax credit to $1,000 by 2010
•Reduced the marriage penalty beginning in 2005
•Put the death tax on the road to extinction
•Increased education tax benefits
•Increased limits on IRA and 401(k) contributions and changed limits on defined benefit pension plans – which were made permanent in the Pension Protection Act of 2006
In 2003, President Bush proposed and signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This legislation:

•Reduced the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent
•Accelerated income tax rate reductions
•Accelerated the expansion of the 10 percent bracket
•Accelerated the increase of the child credit to $1,000
•Accelerated the reduction in the marriage penalty
•Quadrupled small business expensing from $25,000 to $100,000
•Increased bonus depreciation for businesses to 50 percent through 2004
President Bush's Tax Relief Allowed Americans To Keep Trillions Of Dollars Of Their Own Money

Results of the President's tax relief were swift. The economy returned to growth in the fourth quarter of 2001 and continued to grow for 24 consecutive quarters. The economy grew at a rapid pace of 7.5 percent above inflation during the third quarter of 2003 – the highest since 1984. The President's tax relief reduced the marginal effective tax rate on new investment, which encourages additional investment and, in the long-term, higher wages for workers.

•In 2007, a family of four earning $40,000 saved an average of $2,053 thanks to the President's tax relief.
The President's tax relief was followed by increases in tax revenue. From 2005 to 2007, tax revenues grew faster than the economy. The ratio of receipts to GDP rose to 18.8 percent in 2007, above the 40-year average. Between 2004 and 2006, capital gains realizations grew by approximately 60 percent. Growth in corporate income tax receipts was especially strong in the President's second term, nearly doubling between 2004 and 2007 and contributing a full percentage point to the increase in the total federal receipts-to-GDP share.

The President's tax relief has shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher-income taxpayers. With nearly all of the tax relief provisions fully in effect, the President's tax relief reduced the share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 3.1 percent in 2005, the latest year of available data, while increasing the share paid by the top 10 percent from 46.0 to 46.4 percent.

President Bush Led The Response To The Financial Crisis Of 2008

This unprecedented economic growth was ended by the turbulence in the housing and credit markets, to which the President responded with bold action. President Bushaddressed the weakness in the economy early in 2008 by leading the bipartisan passage of an economic growth package that boosted consumer spending and encouraged businesses to expand, returning more than $96 billion to Americans. When the financial crisis intensified, President Bush led the passage and implementation of a rescue plan that helped address the root of the financial crisis, protected the deposits of individuals and small businesses, and helped enable credit to remain available to individuals and families. Moreover, he convened a summit with the leaders of the G-20 nations to discuss efforts to strengthen economic growth, deal with the financial crisis [/text]



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Or do you only support and belive things that support your preconcieved socialist worldview?



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I am not a Rep. I was a Dem. for many, many years until I started to see a lot of hatred spewed by Dem's when anyone tried to state any sort of disagreement with the party or it's president.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.breitbart.com...

shark-tank.net...

I could also include Twitter postings, but I'm sure you get the idea.
There has been name calling from many political groups, not just Dem's, but I feel that it has gotten really out of hand and refuse to be part of it. I was still a Dem. back in 2008 when Obama first ran and I didn't vote for him. Back then it wasn't about any policies, I didn't vote for him because I didn't think that he had enough experience to run the country.

www.youtube.com...

I think that Obama was well-meaning and did a really bad job his first term. I could include video or links to articles, but as you know, there are many all over ATS.

I think that a lot of different groups became offended with Dem's and Obama when they complained about a new policy and were labeled racist or ignorant. Most people don't like being called those things. I can't imagine that there was ever a president that didn't have someone complain or make a joke of something he did. Those days feel like they are over, you are either with him or you are a racist, KKK, and Rep.

______beforeitsnews/tea-party/2012/10/if-you-dont-vote-for-obama-you-are-a-racist-according-to-chris-matthews-wow-herman-cain-weighs-in-2461708.h tml
______beforeitsnews/tea-party/2012/10/if-you-dont-vote-for-obama-you-are-a-racist-according-to-chris-matthews-wow-herman-cain-weighs-in-2461708.h tml

I think that the only thing that matches my views from your query are on abortion. I do support abortion, but not 3rd term. If a woman is in the third trimester of prenancy and is shot and killed, in many states she would be charged for double homicide.

en.wikipedia.org...

So it doesn't make sense to me that on one hand the 3rd trimester can be called a homicide, yet if it's abortion, it's ok, it's a fetus. It really should be one or the other, because both ways make no sense.

Something that you might want to think about is the prejudice.

en.wikipedia.org...

I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 because I felt he was too inexperienced. I didn't vote for Obama in 2012 because I felt that his inexperience cause job-loss and the National Debt to rise. I stopped being a Dem and am now an Independent. I want to help poor people, I am not even close to being rich, but I have volunteered at the local food bank for years. I think that there are a lot of good and bad people in the world. I do not believe that all rich people or all poor people are evil. A lot of people voted for Romney and a lot of people voted Obama and I do not believe that everyone followed party-lines. I also believe that most of the people who voted Romney do not have the values or beliefs of what you think makes a Rep. (Given what you've posted.) I think that most people who have disagreed and been called some really bad things by the Obama followers probably don't want to work with anyone that has unfairly labeled them (see link above under prejudice). I think if you believe that all Rep. fit the definition that your post implies, maybe you really do need to click the link to the definition of prejudice that I posted.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by julie1008
 



I think if you believe that all Rep. fit the definition that your post implies, maybe you really do need to click the link to the definition of prejudice that I posted.

Hi, julie

I asked some questions, and stated my reasons for not being against the results of the election.

I do not think that "all Rep. fit" whatever "definition" that you feel the post implies.
Thank you for posting. Aside from wikipedia, the sources that you linked are well-known to be far from "balanced", and I don't use them for research.

Please feel free to further contribute, but understand that I was asking questions to the GOP supporters who were angry, and I honestly wanted to know what their main beefs were. I think much political "opinion" is misinformed, or knee-jerk reactions to stances that are "other" than their own.

You cite inexperience (I agree - and his leadership was perhaps not up to the task, but he has some experience now, and hopefully Congress will be less "out-to-get-him", which, in my opinion, was at LEAST part of the problem), and you cite abortion. Thanks for stating your case!!



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 



I think one of the differences is on beliefs about how well the government does things, or how efficient they are at doing it.

Absolutely and indisputably TRUE! That is my biggest concern with "larger" government, they are bureaucrats, and we ALL know how red tape is. Ugh.

I agree 100% that most govt programs are run poorly, they are too big. On principle, however, I don't think there's anything wrong with govt wanting to oversee the general welfare, and having a "tiny" government would be great as long as the private sector wasn't as susceptible to corruption as the government.

For me, it all boils down to principles. Not the costs, not the overseeing entity, not the political party.....only the actual principles. I understand your points, and appreciate your contributions to help me look at things. All good points.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 



About a third of American benefited but your Pro-Reagan rant still overlooks the vast majority - 70% of Americans that saw nothing during the Bush years except their lives go downhill and their financial straights get worse. You present the upside and it was boom times for the stock market and people who'd invested but not for anyone else which if it matters was the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join