Watch the whole thing through, it was being mentioned on a talk radio program I listened to. So this guy is a democrat, does this disprove the theory that only republicans can be crazy assholes?
Last edited by Macbeth (2009-10-02 21:13:13)
Watch the whole thing through, it was being mentioned on a talk radio program I listened to. So this guy is a democrat, does this disprove the theory that only republicans can be crazy assholes?
Do people actually say things like "Only Republicans are crazy dicks"? Is that really a whole theory?
It's true though. oololollllllllllllooooooooooooolllllllll
Don't get sick .
Well you sure busted this "theory" that has been going around...
I'm so confused right now.Macbeth wrote:
talk radio program I watched
Oops, meant listened to.AussieReaper wrote:
I'm so confused right now.Macbeth wrote:
talk radio program I watched
Just noticed you have BR song lyrics in your sig. Well done sir, well done. Along the Way is one of my favorite songs by them, Yesterday is #1Macbeth wrote:
Oops, meant listened to.AussieReaper wrote:
I'm so confused right now.Macbeth wrote:
talk radio program I watched
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Doesn't disprove the theory at all. Grayson is finally stepping up and doing what the rest of the Democrats should do and is calling the Republicans out. They don't have a solution other than to just hinder anything the Democrats try to get going.
You do understand that to be a conservative you must like the status quo. When the status quo is your ideal why would you propose new ideas that would radically change what exists? This is why calling the Republicans the part of 'No.", while witty, is idiocy.Marconius wrote:
Doesn't disprove the theory at all. Grayson is finally stepping up and doing what the rest of the Democrats should do and is calling the Republicans out. They don't have a solution other than to just hinder anything the Democrats try to get going.
Except they've been pushed too hard recently and have begun to see what has happened to this country in the last 60 years. Now you're getting a backlash like what you've seen in town hall meetings. Sure, you can make fun of them all you want (even the new Starbucks add tries to marginalize them) but when it comes down to it, it's those people that will rise in rebellion, not the bedwetting PETA-loving Che Guevara t-shirt wearing liberals.
There are millions of pissed off veterans all over this country right now who are outraged to see the country they fought for being completely remade into a design not of their choosing or desire. I am not patriotic or nationalistic by any means but the apologism and euro-centrism of our current government has to stop. My grandparents FLED from Europe and I'll be damned if I see this country, the land of opportunity, turned into a slightly modified version of France. Sorry.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-10-02 22:14:10)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Change is inevitable. As the country grows, people need to be appreciative of the fact that it was allowed to be able to change, and others need to learn to let go and to quit being reactionary. There's no use in being stubborn when it's holding back progress, especially, at the least, well-intentioned and compassionate progress that aims to aid all of our citizens.
"From the best of intentions may come the greatest harm" or as many rednecks I've met like to say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".Marconius wrote:
Change is inevitable. As the country grows, people need to be appreciative of the fact that it was allowed to be able to change, and others need to learn to let go and to quit being reactionary. There's no use in being stubborn when it's holding back progress, especially, at the least, well-intentioned and compassionate progress that aims to aid all of our citizens.
Look, I get that when young adults start becoming more aware of the world around them they can become frustrated because they look at the super wealthy and don't see a way to get there themselves, I get that. I also get that Marx's writing resonated and continue to resonate with more people than they reasonably should.
But the fact remains that what Marx wrote is nothing more than a pipedream about a Utopia that can never exist. Unless we're cloning exact genetic copies and passing them off as human beings there will always be differences among us. Some will be smarter, some will be taller, some will be better looking etc. Equality, while a noble goal, is not possible in reality. There are too many factors, many of which have to do with human nature itself, that make it an impossibility. Look at the social programs that already exist in this nation. They were begun with the best of intentions and currently have more people abusing them than using them as intended.
I've seen it first hand. I grew up in a town with government projects and half of the people living in them had better cars than my mother and better clothes than we were wearing while collecting welfare and food stamps. On a long enough timeline those people will become the majority because people will see the pointlessness of working hard and giving an ever larger percentage of their income to feed and clothe these people.
What socialism lacks is a 'carrot on a stick' to goad people towards ever higher heights. Brotherly love, guilt and social compassion only go so far before people become immune to them. Tell a man that if he works hard, invests wisely and cares for his children and he will find success in life? That man will, and has, moved mountains willingly.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I hear what you are saying, but then again its a democracy and people voted for progress on some important issues.JohnG@lt wrote:
You do understand that to be a conservative you must like the status quo. When the status quo is your ideal why would you propose new ideas that would radically change what exists? This is why calling the Republicans the part of 'No.", while witty, is idiocy.Marconius wrote:
Doesn't disprove the theory at all. Grayson is finally stepping up and doing what the rest of the Democrats should do and is calling the Republicans out. They don't have a solution other than to just hinder anything the Democrats try to get going.
Except they've been pushed too hard recently and have begun to see what has happened to this country in the last 60 years. Now you're getting a backlash like what you've seen in town hall meetings. Sure, you can make fun of them all you want (even the new Starbucks add tries to marginalize them) but when it comes down to it, it's those people that will rise in rebellion, not the bedwetting PETA-loving Che Guevara t-shirt wearing liberals.
There are millions of pissed off veterans all over this country right now who are outraged to see the country they fought for being completely remade into a design not of their choosing or desire. I am not patriotic or nationalistic by any means but the apologism and euro-centrism of our current government has to stop. My grandparents FLED from Europe and I'll be damned if I see this country, the land of opportunity, turned into a slightly modified version of France. Sorry.
My take on this is that Grayson is being aggressive which is something that the Dems lack. Afterall, the Dems are the party for neurotic and passive aggressive mothers. If the Dems are to do anything with their super majority, they need to be agressive like Grayson, but, I fear that their more subdued approach has more to do with filling their own pockets by proposing reform, being paid off by stake holders, while not being to loud or specific about reforms so as not to arouse the passion of the masses. Which is why some Dems have condemed Grayson's passion. BTW I think Grayson is 100% correct, the debate needs to be shifted to how profits are made because sick people are made to suffer and die. And to show that the GOP is in the back pockets of big insurance, the problem is that there are Dems that are just as corrupt.
IMO what attracts some people to the GOP is the fact that they are aggressive and resolute. They look like the strong party and the Dems appear to be weak, which is funny because like I said the Dems hold a super majority. If reform doesn't get passed, it has to be because there are corrupt Dems that have scuttled it.
Not completely. Letting Charles Rangel write the original legislation and then leaking that all over the web is what incited so much anger at the town hall meetings and made Dems with tenuous holds on their seats fearful of losing reelection. Whether that anger is justified or not doesn't even matter at this point, fear is both a useful tool for politicians, and an implacable enemy to reason. Good luck getting reasonable debate going when you've incited a mob. Now the wingnuts from both parties are firmly in the drivers seat and we're all going to lose.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I hear what you are saying, but then again its a democracy and people voted for progress on some important issues.
My take on this is that Grayson is being aggressive which is something that the Dems lack. Afterall, the Dems are the party for neurotic and passive aggressive mothers. If the Dems are to do anything with their super majority, they need to be agressive like Grayson, but, I fear that their more subdued approach has more to do with filling their own pockets by proposing reform, being paid off by stake holders, while not being to loud or specific about reforms so as not to arouse the passion of the masses. Which is why some Dems have condemed Grayson's passion. BTW I think Grayson is 100% correct, the debate needs to be shifted to how profits are made because sick people are made to suffer and die. And to show that the GOP is in the back pockets of big insurance, the problem is that there are Dems that are just as corrupt.
IMO what attracts some people to the GOP is the fact that they are aggressive and resolute. They look like the strong party and the Dems appear to be weak, which is funny because like I said the Dems hold a super majority. If reform doesn't get passed, it has to be because there are corrupt Dems that have scuttled it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Oh, and for the record, I am not a Republican but I did vote for McCain. The Republican Party is really no different than the Dems except in the base they attract. They're all a bunch of slimy corrupt politicians that need to be tossed out on their collective ears. Too bad they have a 95% reelection rate
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yes, IMO Grayson is trying to rouse the Dems base to get them to push the Dems towards a real reform. It won't help a debate between dems and gop, but it might spark a debate amongst dems and steer them back towards real reform. What the dems should be doing is moving towards the middle of the democratic position, not towards the middle between the Dems and the GOP. To do that, some Dems need to out their corrupt colleagues, first by vilifying the GOP position, then by equating other dems as holding the same position as the gop.JohnG@lt wrote:
Good luck getting reasonable debate going when you've incited a mob. Now the wingnuts from both parties are firmly in the drivers seat and we're all going to lose.
If they don't do that, then the reforms, if any, will be minimal changes that empower and enrich the corrupt in congress.
IMO its the corrupt who are the beneficiaries of the wingnuts' intransigence.
So you have a problem with the Blue Dogs then? They come from conservative districts, siding with a single payer or other quasi-socialist platform would spell their doom in the next election cycle. And no, they wouldn't be replaced by a more liberal Dem either.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Yes, IMO Grayson is trying to rouse the Dems base to get them to push the Dems towards a real reform. It won't help a debate between dems and gop, but it might spark a debate amongst dems and steer them back towards real reform. What the dems should be doing is moving towards the middle of the democratic position, not towards the middle between the Dems and the GOP. To do that, some Dems need to out their corrupt colleagues, first by vilifying the GOP position, then by equating other dems as holding the same position as the gop.JohnG@lt wrote:
Good luck getting reasonable debate going when you've incited a mob. Now the wingnuts from both parties are firmly in the drivers seat and we're all going to lose.
If they don't do that, then the reforms, if any, will be minimal changes that empower and enrich the corrupt in congress.
IMO its the corrupt who are the beneficiaries of the wingnuts' intransigence.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The difference between you and the che t-shirt wearing liberals is that you're much more willing to resort to violence to eventually get your way. You seem to be unable to handle the fact that things are going in a way that you don't want it to. The very basis of your country seems to be being tested right now. You need to take a look at yourself and see whether you really are a patriotic true american or just someone who wants to get what he wants and will do anything to do it. Some people always think they're right and they know everything and that they're the perfect example of what things should be. It's just that people have different ways of going about it. Some use violence, others speech, others protest etc..JohnG@lt wrote:
You do understand that to be a conservative you must like the status quo. When the status quo is your ideal why would you propose new ideas that would radically change what exists? This is why calling the Republicans the part of 'No.", while witty, is idiocy.Marconius wrote:
Doesn't disprove the theory at all. Grayson is finally stepping up and doing what the rest of the Democrats should do and is calling the Republicans out. They don't have a solution other than to just hinder anything the Democrats try to get going.
Except they've been pushed too hard recently and have begun to see what has happened to this country in the last 60 years. Now you're getting a backlash like what you've seen in town hall meetings. Sure, you can make fun of them all you want (even the new Starbucks add tries to marginalize them) but when it comes down to it, it's those people that will rise in rebellion, not the bedwetting PETA-loving Che Guevara t-shirt wearing liberals.
There are millions of pissed off veterans all over this country right now who are outraged to see the country they fought for being completely remade into a design not of their choosing or desire. I am not patriotic or nationalistic by any means but the apologism and euro-centrism of our current government has to stop. My grandparents FLED from Europe and I'll be damned if I see this country, the land of opportunity, turned into a slightly modified version of France. Sorry.
I happen to believe the premises that this country was founded upon were ideal. I believe in Capitalism because I believe it works as long as Government keeps it's filthy paws out of the economy. To trust a few elected officials to steer the economy and to place absolute faith in their ability to 'run' an economy is the height of stupidity.Mekstizzle wrote:
The difference between you and the che t-shirt wearing liberals is that you're much more willing to resort to violence to eventually get your way. You seem to be unable to handle the fact that things are going in a way that you don't want it to. The very basis of your country seems to be being tested right now. You need to take a look at yourself and see whether you really are a patriotic true american or just someone who wants to get what he wants and will do anything to do it. Some people always think they're right and they know everything and that they're the perfect example of what things should be. It's just that people have different ways of going about it. Some use violence, others speech, others protest etc..JohnG@lt wrote:
You do understand that to be a conservative you must like the status quo. When the status quo is your ideal why would you propose new ideas that would radically change what exists? This is why calling the Republicans the part of 'No.", while witty, is idiocy.Marconius wrote:
Doesn't disprove the theory at all. Grayson is finally stepping up and doing what the rest of the Democrats should do and is calling the Republicans out. They don't have a solution other than to just hinder anything the Democrats try to get going.
Except they've been pushed too hard recently and have begun to see what has happened to this country in the last 60 years. Now you're getting a backlash like what you've seen in town hall meetings. Sure, you can make fun of them all you want (even the new Starbucks add tries to marginalize them) but when it comes down to it, it's those people that will rise in rebellion, not the bedwetting PETA-loving Che Guevara t-shirt wearing liberals.
There are millions of pissed off veterans all over this country right now who are outraged to see the country they fought for being completely remade into a design not of their choosing or desire. I am not patriotic or nationalistic by any means but the apologism and euro-centrism of our current government has to stop. My grandparents FLED from Europe and I'll be damned if I see this country, the land of opportunity, turned into a slightly modified version of France. Sorry.
You say I'm dangerous because I believe so strongly. Well, I swore an Oath to defend the United States Constitution and I believe very strongly in any oath that I take. The vast majority of veterans feel the same way. Please show me the constitutional amendment that says I have to pay 30% of my income in taxes so welfare moms can pop out six kids and suffer no consequences? Show me where in the Constitution it states that Universal Health Care is something our government supposed to provide.
I believe in the individual above all. I believe in minimal government, minimal taxation and just enough of a military to defend our shores. I've put my life on the line to defend the Constitution of the United States of America in the past, and if necessary, will do so again.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
no problem with blue dogsJohnG@lt wrote:
So you have a problem with the Blue Dogs then? They come from conservative districts, siding with a single payer or other quasi-socialist platform would spell their doom in the next election cycle. And no, they wouldn't be replaced by a more liberal Dem either.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Yes, IMO Grayson is trying to rouse the Dems base to get them to push the Dems towards a real reform. It won't help a debate between dems and gop, but it might spark a debate amongst dems and steer them back towards real reform. What the dems should be doing is moving towards the middle of the democratic position, not towards the middle between the Dems and the GOP. To do that, some Dems need to out their corrupt colleagues, first by vilifying the GOP position, then by equating other dems as holding the same position as the gop.JohnG@lt wrote:
Good luck getting reasonable debate going when you've incited a mob. Now the wingnuts from both parties are firmly in the drivers seat and we're all going to lose.
If they don't do that, then the reforms, if any, will be minimal changes that empower and enrich the corrupt in congress.
IMO its the corrupt who are the beneficiaries of the wingnuts' intransigence.
but the number one rule in party politics is never hurt the party. the dems need some party discipline, which the republicans appear to have in abundance.
My peeve is that if you are a senator taking money from big insurance then you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be able to vote on anything concerning big insurance. The system in congress is so interwoven with corruption that people just seem to gloss over the fact that some senators are getting millions.... for what?.... to buy their vote and that's corruption.
That's a pretty good line securing the interest of the US Government wanting to provide basic human rights to people who cannot afford healthcare. Healthcare reform and putting out a public option isn't going to turn this country into a Socialist authoritarian state. Not everyone is born lucky, and in some cases no amount of hard work will be able to make someone gain equality with their peers. Rather than brushing them aside with the ever cavalier "Every man for himself" attitude, it's much more compassionate to let the elected government offer aid in times of need. I have absolutely no problem paying more taxes to help others out. I know that for every abuser of the system, there are 10 more people legitimately benefiting from my tax dollars.US Constitution wrote:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Apart from that, let's drop out of the public option/Socialism idea. Are you against basic healthcare reform? Capitalism is fine for the most part, but healthcare cannot be treated as another mere commodity. It's a basic human necessity. Allowing private corporations the ability to drive up costs and negate care for "risky participants" all in the name of Profit is absolutely backwards to the call for promoting General Welfare of the People. Allowing people the ability to get care without putting them into bankruptcy is important. Dropping the overall cost of healthcare is important for the society as a whole.
If you've put your life on the line to defend the Constitution and this country, why do you decide to go against reforms that ultimately aim to save to People who make it up? Willing to risk your life to keep this country free, then ultimately buttoning up when some unfortunate citizen cannot benefit from living in this country is sort of contradictory. Plus, unless you are making more than $250,000 a year, you wouldn't be paying any new taxes...
they can go to the hospital and get treated already. what does human rights have to do with it?
If it is life threatening, and at twice he cost. The reason healthcare is so expensive is because of insurance. Why should hose who don' have it be forced to pay a premium price for a service that would cost less w/o an industry that is unrelated to them?Red Forman wrote:
they can go to the hospital and get treated already. what does human rights have to do with it?
you are not getting the point. he is saying it is a human right. hospitals cannot refuse someone no matter what. thats my point.nlsme1 wrote:
If it is life threatening, and at twice he cost. The reason healthcare is so expensive is because of insurance. Why should hose who don' have it be forced to pay a premium price for a service that would cost less w/o an industry that is unrelated to them?Red Forman wrote:
they can go to the hospital and get treated already. what does human rights have to do with it?
But they can. As long as it is not life threatening. Even then their "duty" ends when they are no longer in a life threatening condition.