User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Reality Check

  1. #1
    Points: 1,195, Level: 7
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 55
    Overall activity: 13.0%
    Achievements:
    31 days registered1000 Experience Points
    Czernobog's Avatar Member
    Karma
    368
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    186
    Points
    1,195
    Level
    7
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 25x in 16 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6

    Reality Check

    I think it is time for a reality check. Since Tuesday, all we have heard is that Obama won because "Americans voted to get other people's money", as if medicare, medicaid, and public assistance were the only issues being discussed in this election. Well, that's half true. They are the only issues that were being discussed by the right. The problem is that most Americans didn't particularly care about those issues.


    I can only speak for myself here, however, I, myself, have been accused of voting for Obama solely because of public assistance. Not only is that patently untrue, it is more than a little insulting. It is insulting not the least of which because it means that members from the right have been wasting my time responding with drivel to my posts, and threads without actually reading a single word I wrote. I can only assume this to be true, because if they had been reading what I wrote, they would have known that there were a plethora of issues with which I had concern.


    Allow me to set the record straight. The truth is I actually believe that Romney has a better understanding, from a businessman's perspective, of the economy than Obama does. This means that, while I do believe that Obama can, and will, get us back on track, Romney would quite possibly have been able to do it faster. This is because I am, contrary to popular opinion, a fiscal conservative.


    Now, this does not mean that I agree with every theory of fiscal conservatism. Notably, I believe that the "trickle down" theory of economics has pretty decidedly been proven not to work. However, I do believe that reducing budgets, while increasing revenue, leads to a more efficient government. I also believe that while some regulation is necessary to protect consumers, workers, and the environment from predatory practices, that over-regulation is anti-business, and kills jobs.


    Unfortunately, in order to support Romney's fiscal conservatism, I would also have been forced to accept his social conservatism - his anti-abortion, fetal personhood, unscientific position on reproductive rights; his moralistic, repressive, religion-based position on marriage equality, and gay rights; and his misogynistic, unenlightened, uninformed position on equal pay. I would have had to accept that he would have placed on the Supreme Court justices that would have moved our court closer to a socially conservative, and repressive position than the court has had in over a hundred years.


    And I do not believe that I am alone in this view. So, I am more than willing to accept that our economic recovery will take a little longer, in order to protect the individual liberties of myself, and my fellow Americans. I will not sacrifice individual liberty in favour of a little economic security. So long as the Republican party insists on marrying their fiscal conservatism with social conservatism, I will never vote Republican, and this has nothing to do with wanting "stuff", or "other people money". For conservatives to continue to insist that that is the sole reason that people voted for Obama does more to expose their own myopathy than it does to make any kind of commentary on the people who voted for Obama.


    I realise that this will be dismissed by everyone on the right. However, if the right does not take the time - and soon - to consider that their social agenda is costing them support for their fiscal agenda, then the Republican Party is in serious risk of losing any chance it ever had of reclaiming its former glory, and will fade into historical obscurity.
    Last edited by Czernobog; 11-09-2012 at 05:20 AM.
    You don't get to vote for the party that supported, and legislated government forced vaginal probes, and then claim to oppose Obama because he represents "increased government control, and power".

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Czernobog For This Useful Post:

    Mainecoons (11-09-2012),Peter1469 (11-09-2012)

  3. #2
    Points: 11,465, Level: 25
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 285
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive1 year registered10000 Experience Points
    truthmatters's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    -689
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,478
    Points
    11,465
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    324
    Thanked 125x in 113 Posts
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    If the right would begin to accept facts they could solve this problem quickly.

    The republican party lost because they refuse any fact they dot like the implications of.

    They refuse acts that prove their ideas are failing.


    would you hire someone to manage your businness who you knew would refuse any facts that made their ideas proven failures?

  4. #3
    Points: 1,195, Level: 7
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 55
    Overall activity: 13.0%
    Achievements:
    31 days registered1000 Experience Points
    Czernobog's Avatar Member
    Karma
    368
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    186
    Points
    1,195
    Level
    7
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 25x in 16 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by truthmatters View Post
    If the right would begin to accept facts they could solve this problem quickly.

    The republican party lost because they refuse any fact they dot like the implications of.

    They refuse acts that prove their ideas are failing.


    would you hire someone to manage your businness who you knew would refuse any facts that made their ideas proven failures?
    You get into dangerous analogy with me there, TM. It wasn't business (i.e. economic) matters that caused me to vote to re-elect Obama; it was social matters. If business were my only concern, I absolutely would have voted for Romney.
    You don't get to vote for the party that supported, and legislated government forced vaginal probes, and then claim to oppose Obama because he represents "increased government control, and power".

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Czernobog For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (11-09-2012)

  6. #4
    Points: 91,744, Level: 73
    Level completed: 80%, Points required for next Level: 506
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    Social1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Mainecoons's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    19757
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    16,741
    Points
    91,744
    Level
    73
    Thanks Given
    10,256
    Thanked 6,425x in 4,418 Posts
    Mentioned
    256 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    216
    I actually agree with much of your post Czer. Exactly why the Libertarian philosophy is the right way for the Republican Party to go.

    In actuality, there is little difference between authoritarian governments that seize and squander the efforts of the people versus authoritarian governments that try to legislate morality. Both are wrong and both are destined to fail. The first, under the radical Obama administration, is already well on the way to happening. I have no desire to see the second.

    The Republicans need to get out of everyone's bedrooms. I have no problem with espousing morality by leading by example. I have every problem with legislating it.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Mainecoons For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (11-09-2012)

  8. #5
    Points: 11,465, Level: 25
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 285
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive1 year registered10000 Experience Points
    truthmatters's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    -689
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,478
    Points
    11,465
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    324
    Thanked 125x in 113 Posts
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    why would you want the same people running the economy that distroyed it just a fcew years ago?

  9. #6
    Points: 1,195, Level: 7
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 55
    Overall activity: 13.0%
    Achievements:
    31 days registered1000 Experience Points
    Czernobog's Avatar Member
    Karma
    368
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    186
    Points
    1,195
    Level
    7
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 25x in 16 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by truthmatters View Post
    why would you want the same people running the economy that distroyed it just a fcew years ago?
    I'm not referring to a Party, TM; I am referring to an individual. You presume that, because Bush was a "tax, and spend" Republican, and was rabidly anti-regulation, that Romney would have governed the same way. Based on his record, if allowed off his leash by the Party, I'm not certain that that would have been the case.
    You don't get to vote for the party that supported, and legislated government forced vaginal probes, and then claim to oppose Obama because he represents "increased government control, and power".

  10. #7
    Points: 91,744, Level: 73
    Level completed: 80%, Points required for next Level: 506
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    Social1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Mainecoons's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    19757
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    16,741
    Points
    91,744
    Level
    73
    Thanks Given
    10,256
    Thanked 6,425x in 4,418 Posts
    Mentioned
    256 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    216
    Bush was hardly rabidly anti-regulation. In fact, his administration was almost as good at piling them on as Obama's is.

    And let's don't forget the new Gestapo, "homeland security."

  11. #8
    Points: 192,130, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Cigar's Avatar Infracted Member
    Karma
    19169
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Land of Lincoln
    Posts
    39,189
    Points
    192,130
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    954
    Thanked 3,725x in 3,069 Posts
    Mentioned
    592 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Whenever you think of giving up, just think of all the people who would Love to see you FAIL

  12. #9
    Points: 1,195, Level: 7
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 55
    Overall activity: 13.0%
    Achievements:
    31 days registered1000 Experience Points
    Czernobog's Avatar Member
    Karma
    368
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    186
    Points
    1,195
    Level
    7
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 25x in 16 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoons View Post
    And let's don't forget the new Gestapo, "homeland security."
    Welllll....he didn't exactly do that one alone. Our representatives chose to vote for the Patriot act - TWICE! The first time? Okay...I get that. People make stupid, irrational decisions when they're scared. But the second? There was no excuse for that.
    You don't get to vote for the party that supported, and legislated government forced vaginal probes, and then claim to oppose Obama because he represents "increased government control, and power".

  13. #10
    Points: 40,744, Level: 49
    Level completed: 35%, Points required for next Level: 1,106
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered25000 Experience Points
    patrickt's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    9417
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    U. S. Citizien living in Oaxaca
    Posts
    9,084
    Points
    40,744
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    474
    Thanked 3,283x in 2,336 Posts
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I think it is time for a reality check. Since Tuesday, all we have heard is that Obama won because "Americans voted to get other people's money", as if medicare, medicaid, and public assistance were the only issues being discussed in this election. Well, that's half true. They are the only issues that were being discussed by the right. The problem is that most Americans didn't particularly care about those issues.


    I can only speak for myself here, however, I, myself, have been accused of voting for Obama solely because of public assistance. Not only is that patently untrue, it is more than a little insulting. It is insulting not the least of which because it means that members from the right have been wasting my time responding with drivel to my posts, and threads without actually reading a single word I wrote. I can only assume this to be true, because if they had been reading what I wrote, they would have known that there were a plethora of issues with which I had concern.


    Allow me to set the record straight. The truth is I actually believe that Romney has a better understanding, from a businessman's perspective, of the economy than Obama does. This means that, while I do believe that Obama can, and will, get us back on track, Romney would quite possibly have been able to do it faster. This is because I am, contrary to popular opinion, a fiscal conservative.


    Now, this does not mean that I agree with every theory of fiscal conservatism. Notably, I believe that the "trickle down" theory of economics has pretty decidedly been proven not to work. However, I do believe that reducing budgets, while increasing revenue, leads to a more efficient government. I also believe that while some regulation is necessary to protect consumers, workers, and the environment from predatory practices, that over-regulation is anti-business, and kills jobs.


    Unfortunately, in order to support Romney's fiscal conservatism, I would also have been forced to accept his social conservatism - his anti-abortion, fetal personhood, unscientific position on reproductive rights; his moralistic, repressive, religion-based position on marriage equality, and gay rights; and his misogynistic, unenlightened, uninformed position on equal pay. I would have had to accept that he would have placed on the Supreme Court justices that would have moved our court closer to a socially conservative, and repressive position than the court has had in over a hundred years.


    And I do not believe that I am alone in this view. So, I am more than willing to accept that our economic recovery will take a little longer, in order to protect the individual liberties of myself, and my fellow Americans. I will not sacrifice individual liberty in favour of a little economic security. So long as the Republican party insists on marrying their fiscal conservatism with social conservatism, I will never vote Republican, and this has nothing to do with wanting "stuff", or "other people money". For conservatives to continue to insist that that is the sole reason that people voted for Obama does more to expose their own myopathy than it does to make any kind of commentary on the people who voted for Obama.


    I realise that this will be dismissed by everyone on the right. However, if the right does not take the time - and soon - to consider that their social agenda is costing them support for their fiscal agenda, then the Republican Party is in serious risk of losing any chance it ever had of reclaiming its former glory, and will fade into historical obscurity.
    We all know the only reason, the only possible reason, anyone didn't vote for President Obama is racism. When stating a generality it will, by definition, not apply to everyone. Not all liberals are racists, economic idiots, or desperate for a dictatorship. Most are, but not all of them and you might well be an outlyer.

    President Obama stated, well before he was president, that when most people are on the dole then liberals will run the country forever. Well, at least until they run out of borrowed morney.

    So, you're reality check is bogus. If your reality is that you didn't vote for Obama because you want your SS to double that's fine. Some of my friends voted for Obama specifically for that. If you didn't vote so you could get "free" health care that's fine. But I have friends who voted for Obama specifically for that, too. And, his statement that everyone deserves a share certainly resonated with the branch of my family that are junkies on the dole. If they bothered to vote, they voted for Obama. If they didn't bother to vote, some Democrat voted for them.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Forum Topsite Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO