User Tag List

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

Thread: Reality Check

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Points: 9,412, Level: 23
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 638
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Czernobog's Avatar Member
    Karma
    368
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    186
    Points
    9,412
    Level
    23
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 25x in 16 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    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 06:20 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: 20,097, Level: 34
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 653
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    truthmatters's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    -689
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,478
    Points
    20,097
    Level
    34
    Thanks Given
    324
    Thanked 125x in 113 Posts
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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: 9,412, Level: 23
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 638
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Czernobog's Avatar Member
    Karma
    368
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    186
    Points
    9,412
    Level
    23
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 25x in 16 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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: 69,181, Level: 64
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,769
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mainecoons's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    19769
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    16,741
    Points
    69,181
    Level
    64
    Thanks Given
    10,256
    Thanked 6,437x in 4,426 Posts
    Mentioned
    260 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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: 20,097, Level: 34
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 653
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive10000 Experience PointsVeteran
    truthmatters's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    -689
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,478
    Points
    20,097
    Level
    34
    Thanks Given
    324
    Thanked 125x in 113 Posts
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    why would you want the same people running the economy that distroyed it just a fcew years ago?

  9. #6
    Points: 9,412, Level: 23
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 638
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Czernobog's Avatar Member
    Karma
    368
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    186
    Points
    9,412
    Level
    23
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 25x in 16 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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: 69,181, Level: 64
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,769
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mainecoons's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    19769
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    16,741
    Points
    69,181
    Level
    64
    Thanks Given
    10,256
    Thanked 6,437x in 4,426 Posts
    Mentioned
    260 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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: 9,412, Level: 23
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 638
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Czernobog's Avatar Member
    Karma
    368
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    186
    Points
    9,412
    Level
    23
    Thanks Given
    13
    Thanked 25x in 16 Posts
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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".

  12. #9
    Points: 500,453, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cigar's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    325517
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Wow, what next?
    Posts
    78,900
    Points
    500,453
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    4,088
    Thanked 12,276x in 9,780 Posts
    Mentioned
    1541 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)



  13. #10
    Points: 56,719, Level: 58
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 1,631
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience PointsTagger Second Class
    patrickt's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    17597
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Living in Oaxaca, Mexico, born in Memphis and worked in Colorado
    Posts
    11,977
    Points
    56,719
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    916
    Thanked 5,009x in 3,481 Posts
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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