• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

Fenton said:
LOL !!

First I'm pretty sure he is a "she". Anyone with a room temperature IQ should be able to figure that one out.

Note Addagio's efforts to do just about anything and everything to avoid discussing specific data and when challenged simply maxes out the post character count and just repeats the innane and superficial barely coherent rhetoric that was in the last post she was responsible for.

Look I realize that empty fillibusters and generic plattitudes impress you, but it doesn't equate to someone' ass getting handed to them. It actually means theyv'e admitted their failure at debating on the merits of their argument and have moved on to nonsensical rhetoric.

Since Addagio's too scared to address my challenge of rebutting my earlier sub-prime post, maybe you would like to take a shot at it.
Click to expand...


First I'm pretty sure he is a "she". Anyone with a room temperature IQ should be able to figure that one out.
Click to expand...

Ooops wrong again. :doh Better check your temperature.

Note Addagio's efforts to do just about anything and everything to avoid discussing specific data and when challenged simply maxes out the post character count and just repeats the innane and superficial barely coherent rhetoric that was in the last post she was responsible for.
Click to expand...

I think I told you more times than I can remember...I don't engage in a war of talking points. I can think for myself. Can you? Of course you can. It will make all your posts stronger.And I'd suggest you correct your gender error unless you want to risk an infraction of the rules. We wouldn't want that now, would we?

Look I realize that empty fillibusters and generic plattitudes impress you, but it doesn't equate to someone' ass getting handed to them.
Click to expand...

Whip can think for himself. And he's not easily impressed. I have issues with the entire idea of conservatism, and that's what I post about, not a host of talking points over every minute issue that I personally don't have the time or interest to wade through. My interest in economics stems from the author of the economic idea, and whether it strikes me as both rational and logical. I look at who's interests are served, and who's are impacted negatively. If I'm to examine the conservative approach then I look to where it originates and Hayek is usually the source today. So I go to him to get his thoughts. Not Paul Ryan or Ayn Rand. If I am to examine conservatism then I go to the source of where the movement began which is Russell Kirk in 1953. But I find that Kirk is really warmed over Edmund Burke, so I study Burke. And he was an Aristocrat member of Parliament back in the days of the Revolution. He was the leading Anti-enlightenment voice. This country was founded on the Enlightenment principles of Locke, Voltair, Rouseau, Paine, and of course Jefferson. I look at the history of conservatism dating to the revolution, through slavery and the Civil War, through Jim Crow and Segregation, and the entire history of the American South. I see very little change in attitude among them. So...I look at every proposal from a conservative through that lense. One thing they never do, is change their values. Those are constant, and very deeply rooted. And their economic proposals, and their social ideas are in my view primitive. So...talking points mean nothing to me. I'd suggest you find another playmate if that's where you want to go.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
No, they don't pay it and they don't get to claim it any real way, but for statistical purposes, the CBO adds corporate taxes to their personal income taxes. It is ONLY for statistical purposes, but whenever someone says the rich pay some percentage of income taxes, not only are the income taxes only about half of all federal taxes, but they are padding the stats by adding corporate taxes received to the amounts paid by the highest earners.
Click to expand...

Lovely. We should all be so lucky.
 
Adagio said:
I think he thinks we all need somebody's help in dealing with them. Guess I left my
talking points someplace else. What do you think about Dualing Talking Points? :duel
Click to expand...

Wow, you still have nothing ? After all that time Googling to find a magical counter to each point, you show up with nothing.

How embarrasing.
 
Whipsnade said:
You post an incoherent rambling THESIS to anther poster (obvious Child) and you
think that Addagio shoulda respond-TWICE. You’re a real piece of work.Bytheway, have you ever figured the gender thingy out yet?:mrgreen:

OH god, i had such high hopes for you too.:( sad panda.
Click to expand...

So you wont do a point by point rebut to my very coherent post on who's responsible for the sub-prime collapse either ?

I mean its coherent if your reading comprehension level excels that of a fourth grader.

The two of you are hillarious. Sorry I forced the both of you into a desperate GOOGLE search for counterpoints on my very specific post.

I guess all you have now is to give each other the proverbial "high five" for being exposed on a public forum.

" Yay, wev'e been humiliated by a Conservative AGAIN on a political forum....Yay !
 
Fenton said:
So you wont do a point by point rebut to my very coherent post on who's responsible for the sub-prime collapse either ?

I mean its coherent if your reading comprehension level excels that of a fourth grader.

The two of you are hillarious. Sorry I forced the both of you into a desperate GOOGLE search for counterpoints on my very specific post.

I guess all you have now is to give each other the proverbial "high five" for being exposed on a public forum.

" Yay, wev'e been humiliated by a Conservative AGAIN on a political forum....Yay !
Click to expand...

Go back and look where your links go.WTF...why the trollling of your post to another member of DP?If you were so proud of that wall of INCOHERENT GIBBERISH make a copy of it and paste it above yer cradle.Whats with the referencing to googling?A bit of projecting going on?:shock:
 
Conservative said:
You are so right, hate radio made up the current 16.6 trillion dollar debt,
negative GDP growth last quarter, 22 plus million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, record number of people on food stamps, over 100 million Americans on some form of taxpayer assistance, along with all the other verifiable data on non partisan sites like BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and the U.S. Treasury.
Click to expand...

Conservative's only use data, facts and common sense to cloud the truth of Obama's brilliance and the Nations roaring recovery.

Notice his ad hominem. I'm trying to help them, educate them.

Oh well. We knew we had a problem when 60 million of them re-elected the guy that ran on " Usama's Dead, GM's Alive "..
 
Adagio said:
Lovely. We should all be so lucky.
Click to expand...

So when someone says the richest -% pay such and % of all federal income taxes, we should all be aware that they mean ONLY income taxes, and the numbers are padded with corporate tax receipts.

When did become so stupid as to fall for this stuff? (My answer is the 80's when I fell for supply-side theory, but the actual outcomes and the facts disabused me of this notion)
 
Conservative said:
Just as I thought, you don't get out much and have no idea what goes on in the real world. Get your nose out of the books and become a little more street smart. Over 100 million Americans are on some form of taxpayer assistance, we have record numbers on food stamps, we have 22+ million unemployed/under employed/discouraged all receiving some kind of taxpayer assistance and 52% of income earners are paying those charges. In your world apparently people are never the problem unless of course they are rich and spend money a different way than you want. You do not seem to understand personal responsibility.

If we aren't trying to create equal outcome why redistribute wealth? Why tax one class of people more? Why is it that 47+% of the income earning families in this country pay zero income taxes? What is it about the cost of running this govt. don't you understand? Apparently you have no idea what your taxes fund and what are state and local responsibilities. Do you believe it is my responsibility to pay for your personal expenses? If you want me to fund your expenses then send me your address so I can send you a direct check vs having the govt. take the money, syphon off their adminstrative costs and then send it where they want to send it?
Click to expand...

If we aren't trying to create equal outcome why redistribute wealth?
Click to expand...

What do you think "redistribution of wealth" means?

Why tax one class of people more
Click to expand...

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

"the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."

Progressive Taxation
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Smith also wrote:
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

Adam Smith from The Wealth of Nations
 
Fenton said:
Conservative's only use data, facts and common sense to cloud the truth of Obama's brilliance and the Nations roaring recovery.

Notice his ad hominem. I'm trying to help them, educate them.

Oh well. We knew we had a problem when 60 million of them re-elected the guy that ran on " Usama's Dead, GM's Alive "..
Click to expand...

Its past conservatives bedtime now.He takes his double shot of metiamusil and hits the sack about this time every-night. Probably has trouble sleeping though, seeing as the republicans threw this election with the most non electable field ever put forth by a political party. Maybe that's why he keeps parroting the same things over and over and over again,like a endless rerun of Glen Beck talking points.:(
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
So when someone says the richest -% pay such and % of all federal income taxes, we should all be aware that they mean ONLY income taxes, and the numbers are padded with corporate tax receipts.

When did become so stupid as to fall for this stuff? (My answer is the 80's when I fell for supply-side theory, but the actual outcomes and the facts disabused me of this notion)
Click to expand...

The top 1% of earners pay 38% of all federal individual income taxes.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
The top 1% of earners pay 38% of all federal individual income taxes.:cool:
Click to expand...

If you hotkey that post it'll save you a lotta time seeing as you seem to use it quite often.:2wave:
 
Re: SOTU Address:[W: 378]

Whipsnade said:
You post an incoherent rambling THESIS to anther poster (obvious Child) and you think that Addagio shoulda respond-TWICE. You’re a real piece of work.Bytheway, have you ever figured the gender thingy out yet?:mrgreen:

OH god, i had such high hopes for you too.:( sad panda.
Click to expand...

I probably did like Childs post. I was confused between him and the guy with the Owl. I actually like Childs posts a lot. Originally I thought he was talking about the Owl. Couldn't figure out why I'd "like" his posts. Turns out my instincts were correct. Sorry Child:2wave:
 
Whipsnade said:
The poor lads got problems. More than likely to much time listening to hate radio. If you could come up with his addy you should send him a bill for the psychoanalyzing that you gave him; hope he takes it to heart.:peace
Click to expand...

:lamo I should start charging for my services?? I'll send him a bill.
 
Fenton said:
Wow, you still have nothing ? After all that time Googling to find a magical counter to each point, you show up with nothing.

How embarrasing.
Click to expand...

Google?? I have my own notes to refer to. They all come from studying history, logic, philosophy. It's conservatism itself that I have issues with. Don't you know that yet?? I take nothing from the DNC in the way of "talking points". I don't need to. Conservatism is easy to deconstruct.
 
Fenton said:
So you wont do a point by point rebut to my very coherent post on who's responsible for the sub-prime collapse either ?

I mean its coherent if your reading comprehension level excels that of a fourth grader.

The two of you are hillarious. Sorry I forced the both of you into a desperate GOOGLE search for counterpoints on my very specific post.


I guess all you have now is to give each other the proverbial "high five" for being exposed on a public forum.

" Yay, wev'e been humiliated by a Conservative AGAIN on a political forum....Yay !
Click to expand...


It's too long winded Fenton. Nobody is interested in sifting through all of that. You want to go back to Clinton. Somebody else will bring up Reagan, and on and on back to Washington. Nobody wins and everybody declares Victory, just as you've done.

The two of you are hillarious. Sorry I forced the both of you into a desperate GOOGLE search for counterpoints on my very specific post.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we're a comedy team. Never argue with a comedian. You'll lose everytime. I can't speak for Whip, but I'm afraid you're deluding yourself if you think you've "forced" me into a "desperate" Google search for counter points to your talking points. We all know how proud you are of them, and I'm sure it took a long time to gather them. The problem is that nobody is interested in entertaining you and your bag of talking points. Nobody wants to wallow in the swamp of minutia that you are offering. As I said, data can and always is manipulated to serve a purpose. You have your talking points, I present mine, Whip presents his, the Owl presents his. It's what we used to call a Circle ....well, you can use your imagination. 200 pages later, nothing is settled. In other words...it's a fools errand, and nobody want's to play just for your own enjoyment. Got it?

I guess all you have now is to give each other the proverbial "high five" for being exposed on a public forum. " Yay, wev'e been humiliated by a Conservative AGAIN on a political forum....Yay !
Click to expand...

I realize you're attempting to make up for that pounding you just took in our last exchange. Be that as it may, I'm feeling fine. I'm sure Whip is doing well too.
 
CaptinSarcastic said:
So when someone says the richest -% pay such and % of all federal income taxes, we should all be aware that they mean ONLY income taxes, and the numbers are padded with corporate tax receipts.

When did become so stupid as to fall for this stuff? (My answer is the 80's when I fell for supply-side theory, but the actual outcomes and the facts disabused me of this notion)
Click to expand...

I never accepted the idea of supply side economics. I'm more of a demand side guy myself.
 
Jack Hays said:
The top 1% of earners pay 38% of all federal individual income taxes.:cool:
Click to expand...

Right, when someone says that, know that income tax is about half of all federal taxes, and the rest of the taxes are regressive, so fall much heavier on lower incomes, and that precentage is padded with corporate income taxes, which the CBO just adds on as paid income tax, distributed according to income, so the highest incomes get the bulk of the padding.

Also, the top 1% is made of up a lot (90%) of fairly regular folk making under a $1 million, while the top 1/10 of 1% earn half of the income of the top 1%, 17% of all income, they pay about 11% of the total federal taxes.



Thanks for being my straight man!
 
Jack Hays said:
The top 1% of earners pay 38% of all federal individual income taxes.:cool:
Click to expand...

Good. And they're still rich. I'll bet you that not one of them is worried over how to pay next months rent or mortgage. What we need to examine is the impact of taxes on people at the top 1% and the rest of the people. Anybody at the top 1% isn't getting a weekly paycheck. Their money is coming from stocks and contracted saleries. Romney didn't have a paycheck. It was all in stocks and dividends and capital gains. And he wanted to get rid of Captial Gains tax. Great! That means he'd pay nothing. In effect, he paid less than 13%. Probably nothing since a lot of it was offshore. He could afford to own 4houses and build an elevator for his cars. His sense of desperation is somewhat different from the average person trying to make ends meet every month. He's taken advantage of everything America has to offer, and paid back nothing. He's quick to call for wars, but his own sons aren't going to be involved. They served their country by working on his campaign. Meanwhile my son is a Green Beret with three tours of Iraq and a dead best friend. I have little sympathy for the super rich. They have it just fine.
 
Fenton said:
Conservative's only use data, facts and common sense to cloud the truth of Obama's brilliance and the Nations roaring recovery.

Notice his ad hominem. I'm trying to help them, educate them.

Oh well. We knew we had a problem when 60 million of them re-elected the guy that ran on " Usama's Dead, GM's Alive "..
Click to expand...


Conservative's only use data, facts and common sense to cloud the truth of Obama's brilliance and the Nations roaring recovery.
Click to expand...

Would those be the same data, facts and common sense used to predict that landslide victory in the election? :doh Kind of freaked everybody out when Ohio went for Obama didn't it?
 
Adagio said:
Would those be the same data, facts and common sense used to predict that landslide victory in the election? :doh Kind of freaked everybody out when Ohio went for Obama didn't it?
Click to expand...

Yeah I think this qoute sums up their reaction that night.

"We...have been cheated out of our victory... Decepiticons...retreat...RETREAT!!!!!!"
-megatron, transformers generation 1
 
Adagio said:
"Business relationships between lawmakers and people with government interests are not illegal or uncommon in Illinois or other states with a part-time Legislature, where lawmakers supplement their state salaries with income from the private sector. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, who provided The Times with details of Obama's compensation from EKI, said Obama did nothing wrong acting on behalf of Killerspin. He said the state senator simply wrote a letter backing a worthy project developed by a constituent.

When Blackwell sought backing for his table tennis tournament in 2002, other politicians, including U.S. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, offered support for the event. Initially, the idea of table tennis receiving funds from a state tourism program -- designed to encourage overnight visits to Illinois -- was met with skepticism by one Republican state official. But the funding was granted at the $20,000 level that first year, grew to $200,000 in 2003 and totaled $100,000 in 2004.

Six months later Blackwell hired Obama to serve as general counsel for his tech company, EKI, which had been launched a few years earlier.

The monthly retainer paid by EKI was sent to the law firm that Obama was affiliated with at the time, currently known as Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where he worked part time when he wasn't tending to legislative duties. The business arrived at an especially fortuitous time because, as the law firm's senior partner, Judson Miner, put it, "it was a very dry period here," meaning that the ebb and flow of cases left little work for Obama and cash was tight.

The entire EKI retainer went to Obama, who was considered "of counsel" to the firm, according to details provided to The Times by the Obama campaign and confirmed by Miner. Blackwell said he had no knowledge of Obama's finances and hired Obama solely based on his abilities. "His personal financial situation was not and is not my concern," Blackwell said. "I hired Barack because he is a brilliant person and a lawyer with great insight and judgment."

Obama's tax returns show that he made no money from his law practice in 2000, the year of his unsuccessful run for a congressional seat. But that changed in 2001, when Obama reported $98,158 income for providing legal services. Of that, $80,000 was from Blackwell's company.

In 2002, the state senator reported $34,491 from legal services and speeches. Of that, $32,000 came from the EKI legal assignment, which ended in April 2002 by mutual agreement, as Obama ceased the practice of law and looked ahead to the possibility of running for the U.S. Senate. .

Blackwell said that "Barack worked extensive hours advising the company on compliance and human resource issues," negotiated contracts, reviewed confidentiality agreements and provided reports on topics requested by the company's senior management. Obama was not involved in soliciting city or state contracts for EKI, Blackwell said, and there was an agreement that he would not contact any government agencies.

It seems you left this stuff out. More selective outrage. Nothing illegal here, and no vast fortune accumulated.
Click to expand...

Il. Politicians in jail....

"Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich (D) was charged with conspiracy to commit mail, wire fraud and solicitation of bribery. He was impeached and removed from office by 59-0 votes of the Illinois Senate.(January 28, 2009)[74] On August 17, 2010, he was convicted on just one of 24 federal charges.[75] In a retrial in 2011, he was found guilty on 17 other counts and sentenced to 14 years in prison.[76][77][78][79]

Illinois Governor George H. Ryan (R) illegal sale of government licenses and contracts as Secretary of State and as Governor. He was convicted of 18 counts of corruption. (2006) [80]

State Representative James DeLeo (D) caught in the "Operation Greylord" investigation of corruption in Cook County. He was indicted by a federal grand jury for taking bribes and negotiated guilty plea on a misdemeanor tax offense, and was placed on probation (1992)

State Representative Joe Kotlarz (D) convicted and sentenced to jail for theft and conspiracy for pocketing in about $200,000 for a sale of state land to a company he once served as legal counsel (1997)

State Senator Bruce A. Farley (D) sentenced to 18 months in prison for mail fraud (1999)

State Senator John A. D’Arco Jr. (D) served about 3 years in prison for bribery and extortion (1995)

Illinois Governor Daniel Walker (D) was convicted of improprieties stemming from loans from a Savings and Loan. He served 18 months in prison. (1987) [188][188] The First American Savings & Loan Association of Oak Brook was declared insolvent with a deficit of $23 million[189]

Illinois Attorney General William J. Scott served from 1968 until 1982 when he was convicted of tax fraud and sentenced to a year in prison.[190]

Illinois Governor Otto Kerner, Jr. (D) After serving two terms, Kerner was appointed to the Seventh District Court when he was convicted on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury and related charges. (1973) [197] He was sentenced to three years in federal prison. Faced with impeachment, he resigned his position on the federal bench on July 22, 1974.[197][198]

Illinois State Auditor (comptroller) Orville Hodge (R) embezzled more than $6 million and was indicted for on 54 counts including conspiracy, forgery and embezzling. He was sentenced to 12 to 15 years in prison.[206][207]"

List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, real bunch of angles those Illinois politicians.....:roll:

When federal agents arrested Governor Rod Blagojevich two years ago—interrupting what the U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald called “a political corruption crime spree”—Robert Grant, head of the FBI’s Chicago office, offered a succinct analysis of the day’s events. “If [Illinois] isn’t the most corrupt state in the United States,” he said, “it is certainly one hell of a competitor.”

Given the abundance and variety of political scandals in the state, it’s hard to disagree. Over the past 40 years, about 1,500 people—including 30 Chicago aldermen—have been convicted for bribery, extortion, embezzlement, tax fraud, and other forms of corruption, according to Dick Simpson, head of the political science department at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Why Is Illinois So Corrupt? - Chicago magazine - December 2010 - Chicago
Click to expand...
 
Adagio said:
Would those be the same data, facts and common sense used to predict that landslide victory in the election? :doh Kind of freaked everybody out when Ohio went for Obama didn't it?
Click to expand...

I think everyone, including some of the MSM forecasters, couldn't quite believe that the people could be so down right stupid as to re elect such an empty suit, anti capitalist, anti traditional American president that had really done little to improve this country, and in fact divided it more, if that was even possible after the stink liberals made the entire Bush terms.....So congrats, we are in decline, and liberals cheer it.
 
Adagio said:
No it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Besides being the point, I guess it doesnt.

Adagio said:
So what? More nonsense. Fenton does it all the time. It's still the Kitchen Sink no matter when he did it. If you object to what you call the "kitchen sink" then what possible difference can it make when it's done, or who does it? It still amounts to the thing you have an issue with. It's called selective outrage.
Click to expand...

Its called I can post whatever I want. Get used to it. You and Fenton havent even been here long enough to qualify for "all the time". Your outrage seems rather selective at this point, but then you seem to engage in a lot of passive agressive behavior.

Adagio said:
You never did. That's the point. When you went after me on that very thing, and I pointed his post out to you...crickets. You're simply selective in your criticism.
Click to expand...

So, yeah you pointed it out. So I have to as well? No, Im going to do what I want, quit crying about it.

Adagio said:
That doesn't answer the question. It's really very simple. Either it's possible that you could be wrong, or it isn't. Stop dancing.
Click to expand...
Anyone can be wrong, including me. Some of us accept it more gracefully and can own up to it more readily than you seem to be able to. Again, you seem to be projecting with this one, as you have a lot more invested in being right.

Adagio said:
History is a talking point? Really? I've never needed a set of talking points from the DNC to understand history. It's not just slavery that's associated with conservatism, but everything else that came out of it. Jim Crow, Segregation, right up to the Birthers of today. It's embedded into the ideology. Conservatism always strives to maintain institutions, and they can't let go of that one.
Click to expand...

Modern conservatism and the evolution and movements it has had as recently as Goldwater change the makeup, goals and drives of conservatism.



Adagio said:
Conservative values rarely change. And the last thing they want is to "liberalize" those values. But "values" can't be demonstrated as true. And we aren't talking about "quick changes". It's been a couple hundred years now with regards to race. Maybe it's time to put that aside for good. It neither serves you well, nor the country.
Click to expand...

racecard.jpg



Adagio said:
Hehe...yes. To evolve is a forward movement. Not backward.

I've posted this before. Situationally, conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values. The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. Conservatism is reactionary by its nature. Liberalism is progressive. Conservatism is always a reaction to progressive movement.
Click to expand...

None of which squares with Democrats or Progressives becoming the party of government. Government is an institution, liberalism is using that institution. Keep playing that race card, three plays in one post in three paragraphs! Woot. You miss a very essential point about establishment Democrats and Republicans---they are not wedded to either conservatism or progressivism, they are after power. Both parties are infested with power mongering fools that do not act in anyone's self interest. Which is an effective argument for smaller government, the less power they can wield, the harder it is for them to use it to accumulate more and hang onto what power they have. Thats the smaller government side of conservatism.

Adagio said:
Oh yeah... pointing out that you're complaining over something within an entire paragraph that YOU decide to quote in its entirety...Is a matter of your whining over one sentence. It's nonsense. If you don't agree with the sentence all you really need to do is highlight it.
Click to expand...

Checking....yeah, Im gonna post whatever I want. You need to get over the control issues you have with how and why other people post. Its not your forum, you are not going to convince people to do it your anal retentive way, so quit weeping about it.
 
Adagio said:
He was a lawyer. And he was hired. And he got paid. And he didn't get paid a fortune. There is no impropiety. But its not surprising that a conservative would look for one. And yes, it is reason. Unless you can demonstrate something wrong in any of that, then it's hogwash. Apparently you can't.
Click to expand...

If you cant find a problem with someone getting a state grant then getting a job from that same company after the fact, then you are unable to see quid pro quo when its laid bare before you. But then Im positive its a liberal thing, by that I mean Obama identifies as a Democrat and liberals are unable to see shady things that they would cause them to instantly call a Republican crooked.

How about that Tony Rezko, hes just rewarding a fine public servant right? Obama is shady as hell, always has been. Its the Chicago way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom