»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
He said, he said
| The Alley |
|
He said, he said |
|
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia 
|
Reagan rebuffs Obama/Buffet rule http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJ-Fs1ikA&feature=youtube_gdata_player |
||
| © Copyright 2011 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Whut? There he goes again, socialist puppy-hater. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
President Reagan? I don't think I would take that rebuff too seriously ... (Those of us on the lower bandwidth spectrum, LR, who avoid videos specifically and blind links generally, have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's kind of fun to speculate, though. :-) |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Did I say rebuffs? Was that the wrong word? My bad. Course if Congress would pass the Prez's jobs bill, you could be on the high band highway too Ron. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think they left out the part about Reagan not only calling for closing the loopholes, which most of us can agree on, but also LOWERING the income tax rates for everybody, not raising them on the higher earners as Obama is proposing. He can't even get the Senate Democrats to allow his latest so-called 'jobs bill' to come for a vote. Mitch McConnell said 'bring it to the floor for a vote.' Harry Reid said, 'no.' And then Obama announces that the Republicans are blocking it! LOL! And if Buffett really wants to pay more in taxes why has he and his company been in a tug of war with the IRS for the past 10 years? I guess he really doesn't want to pay more. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Keystone Kops, Denise  (maybe Reid is really a republican and that's what Obama means? Shhhh....) |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm not sure if I should start a new thread on this or not, but I'll just tag it on here anyhow. It never stopped me before, so why break a trend? Why break a trend? BECAUSE IT IS KILLING US. U.S. I've opportunity to speak with many women, housewives usually, but there's a lot of unemployed men present lately. And I don't think that the men are there because the housewives are desperate or lonely or particularly good-looking. They are there to drink our damned beer. But? To the point, it did come up in conversation (*ahem*) that women are natural socialists. Meaning, that raising a family, counting the dumplings in your chicken stock? Means that the person in charge of foods and goods insists, that you not only wash your hands before you eat, you empty your pockets, and hopefully have something to add to the stone soup. That's how it's always been in my family, and it's even more pernicious now... I do not understand what there is to not understand regarding the care and provision of a country of peoples. If you happen to have two carrots and an onion today, you give it. The person who has nothing still gets to eat. And tomorrow you might have nothing, but you still get to eat--even if if it's dandelion soup. Does that mean that mothers are natural born socialists? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
They could be, Karen. But they run households not countries. Our government was never meant to be our mommy or daddy providing for everyone's needs by forced sharing of resources. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm confused, Denise. What part of "representative democracy" didn't you understand? When the people you help elect vote on a measure and it is passed or defeated in a vote taken with other representatives, you have had your say. If you don't like your representative, elect somebody else. If you feel you get a personal veto over every regulation and law the democracy passes when it's representatives sit down to consider laws, you are not living in a democracy, you are probably kidding yourself. You are asking for rights that nobody except the President has, and which he can only exercise on behalf of the people. Even he can be overridden. Under some conditions the Supreme court can exercise a similar function. If your proposition were the case, then somebody under sentence of death could say that the law was confiscatory, and refuse to allow his scare and vital resource to be stolen for some idiotic notion of the general good. If somebody could get away with doing so, of course, that might be something else, since obviously the murder had happened, right? But all that would do would suggest a system in which the most predatory of people could take what they wanted without any sense of laws to keep things somewhat on the up and up. Alas, it is cheaper and more humane to be charitable and to prevent anarchy and starvation in the process than to stick to the ideals you seem to be espousing, and thus mandating, de facto, that we should demand the poor starve rather than make arrangements to feed them. Um, the poor also happen to have a fairly ;large number of folks who are children and who are ill among them, and who cannot work. Many of them do not have available family to help, and while there are many churches in the land, the size of the problem is far larger than the churches can cope with. Also, while you may not be aware of it, some folks would rather not accept money from churches. They feel they are being bribed and on occasion the churches involved may feel they have indeed bought something. It's really a pretty wretched accusation, when you think of it, to suggest that you can buy somebody's soul for cash and call that a victory of sorts. It demeans the person you suggest you are helping, it demeans the God you serve, it demeans the act of charity and the nature of love. It may also demean the person who makes the offer. When we suggest an impoverished person seek charity from a religious source, I think it is easy to loose track of the nature of the transaction we suggest that a person make. A transaction with the state should be free of these things. The fact that so many of us wish to impose the burden of rage that we do along with the services we offer suggests what we've been imposing with the religious charity all this time. The fact that many of the people who get the benefits of these services have at some point in their lives or another paid into the system to supply them is so easily forgotten. Or never considered at all. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Alas, it is cheaper and more humane to be charitable and to prevent anarchy and starvation in the process than to stick to the ideals you seem to be espousing, and thus mandating, de facto, that we should demand the poor starve rather than make arrangements to feed them. Without a doubt, Bob, you are the most insulting person I have ever seen. You're incapable of carrying on a decent conversation, it appears. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: This comment doesn't look like it is centered on the post instead of the poster. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, you are right, ess. I'll put in a ticket instead..Denise did not deserve a comment like that. SHe is a decent and caring person. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thank you, Michael. I appreciate you. Very much. Ess, I don't see much of Bob's comments that were centered on the post and not a poster. Bob, I have no idea what type of filter you see through when reading my comments to be able to come up with such things. I can't even begin to decipher it. You don't trust Churches to be a viable venue for charity because you suspect that there may be some sort of unspoken quid pro quo going on, but you don't suspect government nanny-state charity of the same thing? Really? Although we are NOT a democracy, but rather a republic, I'm sure the same principle applies: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." Alexander Tytler, 1747 - 1843 I've never been against a temporary safety net for people in need. What I am against are politicians who create lifelong dependency through unsustainable bankrupting programs as a way to retain their power. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Denise is indeed a decent and caring person. So are you Mike. I think the example of Ess can't be followed by many, but I appreciate very much the valiance of Bob. It's possible to love and respect everyone, although in truth, it's very confusing. I try, though. And I don't have to try very hard. All I have to do is put my bare feet in your shoes, and suddenly I get dizzy...seeing everything at once. I hope that makes sense.  My dog Freddy is missing, btw. I miss him, but every day I wake up I think: "Toto got away!"  I love you guys. And there is no evolution without a revolution. I just hope the anarchy is not so ... intense. You can find me by the mixing board. No matter what chaos ensues, the sound is always best there, and when in doubt? Don't fight security. BECOME security.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Serenity gal, I'm really sorry to hear about your dog......really! Anytime that has happened to me in the past it's affected me very emotionally. I can't stand the thought of anything bad happening to an animal. Hopefully he will be ok... |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you. He was a gift to me, yanno. He got me through some ruff times. <--hush, he'd like that remark--'cause it made me smile to type it. He wouldn't understand it, but he'd wag his tail.) I'm kind of in mourning, again, I guess. My sister, Twist, wanted to get me a puppy (too soon) BUT...she wante me to have a dog because she can only remember seven years of my life when I didn't have a dog, and nobody ever knew where I was then. *smile* They know where to find me. ty |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks Karen. I appreciate your kind words. I'm also sad to hear about your dog gone missing. My previous dog did that and we had a happy ending 3 days later in that someone found him and took him to the pound....where we had been searching and finally found him. I really didn't expect to find him but kept looking anyway and was so surprised and relieved and so happy that I broke down in tears when I saw him! I hope you find yours too. (((HUGS))) |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
