Mitt Romney: This is why the GOP believes in family values

[Too Tall]

Going to read all that garble b/c it's an interesting read. But pointing to some politicians bad behavior doesn't really erase the reality that family values are proven concepts. You should try not using erroneous logic bro.

If you want to stand on that statement, again, you had better look at all of the "generalizations" that you have glossed over.
I stand on my statement that the poliitical party that tries to shout down from their pedestal about family values that are like everyone else. They have no solid family values.
BRO!

When you see a (D) after a persons name it means they are a Democrat and are not rightwinger Republicans.

This from your previous post.

You mean like all those rightwinger republicans that prove family values everyday.

David Wu (D-OR) announced he will resign from the House of Representatives after being accused of making unwanted sexual advances toward a fundraiser's daughter became public. July 26, 2011[9]

Anthony Weiner (D-NY) The newly married Congressman admitted to sending sexually suggestive photos of himself to several women through his Twitter account.[10] He resigned on June 16.[11](2011)

Eric Massa (D-NY): Resigned to avoid an ethics investigation into his admitted groping and tickling of multiple male staffers. He later stated on Fox News that, "not only did I grope [a staffer], I tickled him until he couldn't breathe," (2010)[18][19]

Tim Mahoney, Representative (D-FL) was elected to the seat of Mark Foley, who had resigned following sexual harassment charges from his congressional interns. Mahoney ran on a campaign promise to make "a world that is safer, more moral." In October 2008, he admitted he placed his mistress on his staff and then fired her, saying, "You work at my pleasure." He then admitted to multiple other affairs.[32]

John Edwards, Senator (D-NC) His 2008 presidential campaign was seriously undercut when he admitted to an extramarital affair with actress and film producer Rielle Hunter, which produced a child.[30] (see federal political scandals)

Gary Condit, Representative (D-CA) His affair with 23-year-old intern Chandra Levy was exposed after Levy disappeared. Her body was found a year later and in 2008, an ex-felon with no relation to Condit was charged with her murder. (2001)[49] Condit had often demanded that Bill Clinton "come clean" about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.[50]

 

[LoneLaugher]

Mitt Romney gave a speech at Liberty University. He cited a Brookings Institute study. If a person graduates high school, gets a job, gets married and then has a child; the odds he will be poor is two percent. If those factors are not in place, it is 76 percent!

So next time, Dems give you sheeot about pimping family values, tell them to stuff it. They are important and absolutely need to be a part of the political discourse.

Short Video Link: Mitt Romney tells Liberty grads to honor family commitments - The Washington Post

Full Speech

[youtube]muHK5Hqgar8[/youtube]

Fuckin' duh.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's an interesting opinion politicalchic. One I've never even thought about, really. I'm not familiar with how they determine these things so I would be curious as to what leads you to that conclusion.

Thank you for the opportunity...

1. The calculation itself is arbitrary....


'Poverty’ may be illusory. It exists in the context in which we discuss it, based on a dollar figure, …the government “developed poverty thresholds. based on the "thrifty food plan," which was the cheapest of four food plans developed by the Department of Agriculture. The food plan was "designed for temporary or emergency use when funds are low," according to the USDA. Based on the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey from the USDA (the latest available survey at the time), Orshansky knew that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food, then multiplied the cost of the USDA economy food plan by three to arrive at the minimal yearly income a family would need. Using 1963 as a base year, she calculated that a family of four, two adults and two children would spend $1,033 for food per year. Using her formula based on the 1955 survey, she arrived at $3,100 a year ($1,033 x3) as the poverty threshold for a family of four in 1963….Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau updates the poverty threshold to account for inflation.” How We Measure Poverty
How We Measure Poverty - Oregon Center for Public Policy

BTW, today, food is about 14% of the above budget.


2. The fundamental rule, always at the forefront, is

There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government:
Rule no.1: Always try to expand;
Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1.
Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115


3. Every economic quintile of our population is doing better, over the long term, and the numerous government programs cannot admit this, or they would be forced to break the above rule no. 1.
Therefore, the government merely raises the calculation of 'poor.'
To see how bogus it is, 6% of the 'poor' own a jacuzzi.
And based on in-kind trasfers, such as free housing, the 'poor' generally do better than the workers supporting them.

There is poverty in this nation...but it is social poverty of attitude and aspiration...not material poverty, which I define as no home, no heat, no food.

4. Take a look at what the 'poor' own here:

How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America

6% of the 'poor' own a jacuzzi? We know that 6% of scientists are Republican.

Poor Republicans in a "jacuzzi".

deanie...I just ran a poll, and only 6% are voting for Obama...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hmmm. the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly the most objective source but at least you didn't quote Drudge, newsMax or something along those lines. I notice the article is from a year before the big crash in '08.
It is an interesting article though. I don't think owning a color tv makes one rich. You can buy one on Craigslist for $25 nowadays.
But I appreciate that you shared the article and it does make some legitimate points. I am absolutely certain there are people out there abusing welfare and other programs. However, I am also absolutely certain we have a LOT of poor people. I keep a roll of $1 bills in my ashtray for the ones on street corners. I feel so sorry for them. I looked it up and apparently the income level for one person is $11K a year if they DON'T get SSI or medicare. it's less if they do. That's under $1000 a month. Seems poor to me. For two people it's only $14K. That seems very poor.
I think we have a lot of poor people and it's a shame that we also have so many people who abuse the system, that the resentments of people like yourself are perfectly understandable and justified.

1. "the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly the most objective source..."
Let's be very clear: it is bogus to dispute a source, rather than the data provided.
Let's be very clear. I acknowledged that although Heritage is obviously a VERY Conservative source, I consider it a reliable source of data. So why the confrontational tone?
The is nothing wrong with Drudge, newsMax, Huffington, NYTimes, etc.
Deal with the data.

2. "I notice the article is from a year before the big crash in '08."
The post suggest that Americans are doing better over time...not a specific year or three period. We are talking about trends and directions.

3. "I don't think owning a color tv makes one rich."
Who said it did?
Focus like a laser: we are speaking of the definition of poor. I've given both my definition and that of the government.
My definition is specific, and testable.
And from where were the stats in the article on Heritage obtained?
If you believe the government stats, you are being played.
Note, all have living quaters, almost half own their own homes, all have refrigerators, I doubt they are empty, all have color TV's, etc., etc.
So if a person in Detroit owns a home which has gone from being worth $100K to being worth $5K, has lost their job but just happened to own a tv, refrigerator and a dvd before their income went from $70K a year to $11K a year, then by your "measurable and specific" standards, they are not poor. According to your "specific and testable" method, they must lose everything right down to the refrigerator and any food in it, to qualofy as poor. Hmmm. Yeah I see a rather obvious flaw in that one.

4."I looked it up and apparently the income level for one person is $11K a year if they DON'T get SSI or medicare."

Now, watch this very carefully:

When reading the propaganda about poverty incomes, realize that they leave out the income transfers from various government programs: benefits are substantial and the recipients pay nothing. Those in the bottom 20% of income recipients receive over 70% of their income in such transfers. Now, why doesn’t the Old Left Media tell this?

a. In 2001 cash and in-kind transfers accounted for 77.8% of said recipients’ income. How fair is it for the Left to tell you that their income is actually 22.2% of what it actually is? Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 28

b. This tends to explain how Americans living below the poverty level spend $1.75 for every $1 of income. The Myth of Widespread American Poverty

Did you understand the math?
"For two people it's only $14K. That seems very poor."
But if the 14k represents only 22.2% of what they get, then the real income is $63,000!

Wow. Talking about someone who has bought into the propaganda! You think that a family that qualifies for government help by showing a gross income of less than $14K, lives on $63K a year? Well so much for any credibility you might have had.
Still poor?

The average family income in the US is from $49,434 to $51,413.

Get it yet?


You say what?
I say you're drinking kool-aid and don't get out much. I mean, I believe there is widespread abuse of welfare etc... But the extremist hogwash you're shoveling would be good for growing plants.



"Every economic quintile of our population is doing better, over the long term,
I find that an interesting statement as most Conservatives seem to claim the opposite."

This is economics, not politics.
I'd be happy to prove my point:


Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


b. From 1969 to 1999, the average real income per person rose by 51% over that same period!!!
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

So a couple things here.
1. As someone who just chastised Closedcaption about the civility of his tone, you might want to examine yours.
2. I volunteer with my fellow veterans every week. One out of every three homeless men you see are vets.
They do not live a $60K / year lifestyle.
Those who are not homeless (and may even still own their homes) but in need of government assistance do not live a $60K a year lifestyle. That's just plain BS. Even when it comes to those who dare to own tv's and dvd players (The atrocity!).
There are a LOT of them and they genuinely need and DESERVE our help.
And there are definitely a lot of other people out there who genuinely need help and are sure as hell not living this BS propaganda $60K lifestyle you've been spoon-fed. Get out of the house. Open your eyes. Tell me which major US city isn't flooded with homeless people on the corners? Detroit? NYC? LA? Chicago? DC? SF? Where?
I have lived in countries that define poverty the way you would.
No thanks.
While I have displayed both objectivity and open-mindedness, you seem guided in your economic beliefs by a desire for them to conform with your political ideology. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. Didn't you also criticize Closed Caption for that, as well? jus sayin.

"And there are definitely a lot of other people out there who genuinely need help and are sure as hell not living this BS propaganda $60K lifestyle you've been spoon-fed. Get out of the house. Open your eyes. "

I've made a study of the panorama of programs, and the deleterious effects of the propaganda that you've bought like it was on sale.

Conservatives are documented to give more charity and have more of a sense of community than Liberals, who talk a good game, but love to throw around other folks hard earned money.

I believe that, unlike yourself, many are waking up to the scam.....
....we'll both go to the polls in November.

Be well.

 

[Gadawg73]

"I am the family values candidate" is for the dumb asses that have no clue what the issues are.
Instead of informing themselves on the deficit, education, the wars, energy, healthcare, trade problems, immigration and the 107 other important issues of the day they are prone to believe bull shit such as "family values" gay bashing and such because they know no better.
Catering to the ignorant is a Republican and Democrat strategy as there is no shortage of dumb asses in America. CNN and The Rush Limbaugh Show are prime examples.

 

[Gadawg73]

Pretty hard to stomach seeing my candidate kissing the asses of the very folks that call his religion a cult.

 

[IndependntLogic]

1. "the Heritage Foundation. Not exactly the most objective source..."
Let's be very clear: it is bogus to dispute a source, rather than the data provided.
Let's be very clear. I acknowledged that although Heritage is obviously a VERY Conservative source, I consider it a reliable source of data. So why the confrontational tone?
The is nothing wrong with Drudge, newsMax, Huffington, NYTimes, etc.
Deal with the data.

2. "I notice the article is from a year before the big crash in '08."
The post suggest that Americans are doing better over time...not a specific year or three period. We are talking about trends and directions.

3. "I don't think owning a color tv makes one rich."
Who said it did?
Focus like a laser: we are speaking of the definition of poor. I've given both my definition and that of the government.
My definition is specific, and testable.
And from where were the stats in the article on Heritage obtained?
If you believe the government stats, you are being played.
Note, all have living quaters, almost half own their own homes, all have refrigerators, I doubt they are empty, all have color TV's, etc., etc.
So if a person in Detroit owns a home which has gone from being worth $100K to being worth $5K, has lost their job but just happened to own a tv, refrigerator and a dvd before their income went from $70K a year to $11K a year, then by your "measurable and specific" standards, they are not poor. According to your "specific and testable" method, they must lose everything right down to the refrigerator and any food in it, to qualofy as poor. Hmmm. Yeah I see a rather obvious flaw in that one.

4."I looked it up and apparently the income level for one person is $11K a year if they DON'T get SSI or medicare."

Now, watch this very carefully:

When reading the propaganda about poverty incomes, realize that they leave out the income transfers from various government programs: benefits are substantial and the recipients pay nothing. Those in the bottom 20% of income recipients receive over 70% of their income in such transfers. Now, why doesn’t the Old Left Media tell this?

a. In 2001 cash and in-kind transfers accounted for 77.8% of said recipients’ income. How fair is it for the Left to tell you that their income is actually 22.2% of what it actually is? Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 28

b. This tends to explain how Americans living below the poverty level spend $1.75 for every $1 of income. The Myth of Widespread American Poverty

Did you understand the math?
"For two people it's only $14K. That seems very poor."
But if the 14k represents only 22.2% of what they get, then the real income is $63,000!

Wow. Talking about someone who has bought into the propaganda! You think that a family that qualifies for government help by showing a gross income of less than $14K, lives on $63K a year? Well so much for any credibility you might have had.
Still poor?

The average family income in the US is from $49,434 to $51,413.

Get it yet?


You say what?
I say you're drinking kool-aid and don't get out much. I mean, I believe there is widespread abuse of welfare etc... But the extremist hogwash you're shoveling would be good for growing plants.



"Every economic quintile of our population is doing better, over the long term,
I find that an interesting statement as most Conservatives seem to claim the opposite."

This is economics, not politics.
I'd be happy to prove my point:


Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.


b. From 1969 to 1999, the average real income per person rose by 51% over that same period!!!
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

So a couple things here.
1. As someone who just chastised Closedcaption about the civility of his tone, you might want to examine yours.
2. I volunteer with my fellow veterans every week. One out of every three homeless men you see are vets.
They do not live a $60K / year lifestyle.
Those who are not homeless (and may even still own their homes) but in need of government assistance do not live a $60K a year lifestyle. That's just plain BS. Even when it comes to those who dare to own tv's and dvd players (The atrocity!).
There are a LOT of them and they genuinely need and DESERVE our help.
And there are definitely a lot of other people out there who genuinely need help and are sure as hell not living this BS propaganda $60K lifestyle you've been spoon-fed. Get out of the house. Open your eyes. Tell me which major US city isn't flooded with homeless people on the corners? Detroit? NYC? LA? Chicago? DC? SF? Where?
I have lived in countries that define poverty the way you would.
No thanks.
While I have displayed both objectivity and open-mindedness, you seem guided in your economic beliefs by a desire for them to conform with your political ideology. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. Didn't you also criticize Closed Caption for that, as well? jus sayin.

"And there are definitely a lot of other people out there who genuinely need help and are sure as hell not living this BS propaganda $60K lifestyle you've been spoon-fed. Get out of the house. Open your eyes. "

I've made a study of the panorama of programs, and the deleterious effects of the propaganda that you've bought like it was on sale.

Conservatives are documented to give more charity and have more of a sense of community than Liberals, who talk a good game, but love to throw around other folks hard earned money.

I believe that, unlike yourself, many are waking up to the scam.....
....we'll both go to the polls in November.

Be well.

Lovely. You got out the little book of pedantics. How nice for you. But like a typical ConservaRepub, when faced with actual counterpoints, you dodge or Cut & Run. The difference between us is obvious. I can acknowledge facts, even when they aren't convenient to a particular political ideology.
According to you:
So there are no homeless people.
There are no Vets who are in really bad times.
Everyone who is poor is living a wonderful $60K a year lifestyles because that conforms to what you want to believe politically.

Weak.

Keep that head in the sand and of course, be well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So a couple things here.
1. As someone who just chastised Closedcaption about the civility of his tone, you might want to examine yours.
2. I volunteer with my fellow veterans every week. One out of every three homeless men you see are vets.
They do not live a $60K / year lifestyle.
Those who are not homeless (and may even still own their homes) but in need of government assistance do not live a $60K a year lifestyle. That's just plain BS. Even when it comes to those who dare to own tv's and dvd players (The atrocity!).
There are a LOT of them and they genuinely need and DESERVE our help.
And there are definitely a lot of other people out there who genuinely need help and are sure as hell not living this BS propaganda $60K lifestyle you've been spoon-fed. Get out of the house. Open your eyes. Tell me which major US city isn't flooded with homeless people on the corners? Detroit? NYC? LA? Chicago? DC? SF? Where?
I have lived in countries that define poverty the way you would.
No thanks.
While I have displayed both objectivity and open-mindedness, you seem guided in your economic beliefs by a desire for them to conform with your political ideology. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. Didn't you also criticize Closed Caption for that, as well? jus sayin.

"And there are definitely a lot of other people out there who genuinely need help and are sure as hell not living this BS propaganda $60K lifestyle you've been spoon-fed. Get out of the house. Open your eyes. "

I've made a study of the panorama of programs, and the deleterious effects of the propaganda that you've bought like it was on sale.

Conservatives are documented to give more charity and have more of a sense of community than Liberals, who talk a good game, but love to throw around other folks hard earned money.

I believe that, unlike yourself, many are waking up to the scam.....
....we'll both go to the polls in November.

Be well.

Lovely. You got out the little book of pedantics. How nice for you. But like a typical ConservaRepub, when faced with actual counterpoints, you dodge or Cut & Run. The difference between us is obvious. I can acknowledge facts, even when they aren't convenient to a particular political ideology.
According to you:
So there are no homeless people.
There are no Vets who are in really bad times.
Everyone who is poor is living a wonderful $60K a year lifestyles because that conforms to what you want to believe politically.

Weak.

Keep that head in the sand and of course, be well.

1. My posts are there for anyone to read. They will note that I have never said
any of these things that you claim I have:

"According to you:
So there are no homeless people.
There are no Vets who are in really bad times.
Everyone who is poor is living a wonderful $60K a year lifestyles..."


2. "...even when they aren't convenient to a particular political ideology."
I have provided specific links that prove everything that I have stated, so they are
economic facts, not 'political ideology.'

a. As a rule, for conservatives, data informs policy.
For a liberal, feeling passes for knowing.


3. I can explain reality to you, I simply cannot comprehend it for you.
You live in a free nation, so you may believe, based on faith, what you wish.
Even if does not conform to reality.


You have exactly the right characteristics necessary to vote Democrat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC did you know a paragraph of bullshit doesn't have shit to do with Ppl on your side thinking fam values is something only they hold dear. Dumb fuckers take something like "family values are good" and think they're taking a brave stance.

If you tried, you could express your rage in a more civil manner.

The point is that you've identified yourself as being on the Left.
My post identifies the association of the Left with attacks on the family and on traditional values.

If you would like to dispute that, I'd be happy to entertain the debate.

If what you are trying to say is that, while you are on the Left in many ways, you are not opposed to the nuclear family and what Burke called 'the little platoon,' I believe you'd find your position hard to articulate.

Why would I? This is a message board not Misscongeniality.com but it serves as a useful distraction so you employ that tactic often.

To your point, your paragraphs about people from the 1923 have shit to do with today. In order to debate we have to have somethign to debate.

I said Both sides believe in family values. You believe otherwise state the facts and not some opinion blog posting that talks about "Marxist and how they really feel.

If you had an original thought in your head, you would debate the family values point instead you run to some multi-tiered response trying to connect the dots over 100 years time.

Well, let's show you how the 1923 origination of the Frankfurt School is connected with today....


1. As a result of the ascension of the Nazis, the Frankfurt School moved to Geneva, and then to New York City. The openness, freedom and liberty of the United States is all they needed to infect this society and its cultural institutions. Too many simply ignored the onslaught…”And the most dangerous thing you can do with a driven leftist intellectual clique is ignore it!”
Breitbart, “Righteous Indignation,” p. 114.

a. Who could imagine that that a group could come to our nation, learn of our incredible freedom and liberty, yet wish to destroy it??? That’s exactly what the Frankfurt School wanted to do.

b. “The Frankfurt School of philosophers emigrated from Nazi Germany and became dyspeptic critics of American culture. Several landed in Southern California where they were disturbed by the consumer culture and the gospel of relentless cheeriness. Depressive by nature, they focused on the disappointments and venality that surrounded them and how unnecessary it all was. It could be paradise, Theodor Adorno complained, but it was only California.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17wed4.html

2. Waiting to ally themselves with the Frankfurt School Marxists were the Americans who had accepted the Wilson/TR synthesis of Hegel and Marx. And a welcoming ‘nest’ was provided for these vipers by the Columbia University Sociology department. And, the perfect storm: America was up for helping scholars fleeing from Germany. The guy in charge of this was Edward R. Murrow, the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars.

3. The explosion of personal wealth in the 1960’s when a record-long (nearly nine-year) American economic expansion occurred, fueled an all-out assault on bourgeois moral codes. Cultural Marxism and nihilism began the attack on Western norms as the orthodoxy within the political, intellectual, and cultural elites. Reality was shaped around individuals’ needs and desires: nothing was allowed to interfere with an individual’s right to instant gratification. Alternative lifestyles became mainstream and the counterculture became the norm. The family was undermined as the crucible of emotional and moral growth.

a. When morality became privatized, the questions “what is right” became “what is right for me.” Feelings rather than reason became the arbiters of behavior. Rather than traditional taboos, only religiously based moral judgment was deemed taboo. The harm caused to abandoned spouses or children by adultery or desertion- harm that can be objectively documented in rates of ill health, depression, educational underachievement, criminal behavior- was all but ignored, while damage done to people’s feelings by condemnation of their adultery or desertion was considered unforgiveable.
Melanie Phillips, "The World Turned Upside Down," chapter 14.


All of that was way over your head, wasn't it.
Got it.

 

[IndependntLogic]

"And there are definitely a lot of other people out there who genuinely need help and are sure as hell not living this BS propaganda $60K lifestyle you've been spoon-fed. Get out of the house. Open your eyes. "

I've made a study of the panorama of programs, and the deleterious effects of the propaganda that you've bought like it was on sale.

Conservatives are documented to give more charity and have more of a sense of community than Liberals, who talk a good game, but love to throw around other folks hard earned money.

I believe that, unlike yourself, many are waking up to the scam.....
....we'll both go to the polls in November.

Be well.

Lovely. You got out the little book of pedantics. How nice for you. But like a typical ConservaRepub, when faced with actual counterpoints, you dodge or Cut & Run. The difference between us is obvious. I can acknowledge facts, even when they aren't convenient to a particular political ideology.
According to you:
So there are no homeless people.
There are no Vets who are in really bad times.
Everyone who is poor is living a wonderful $60K a year lifestyles because that conforms to what you want to believe politically.

Weak.

Keep that head in the sand and of course, be well.

1. My posts are there for anyone to read. They will note that I have never said
any of these things that you claim I have:

"According to you:
So there are no homeless people.
There are no Vets who are in really bad times.
Everyone who is poor is living a wonderful $60K a year lifestyles..."


2. "...even when they aren't convenient to a particular political ideology."
I have provided specific links that prove everything that I have stated, so they are
economic facts, not 'political ideology.'
a. As a rule, for conservatives, data informs policy.
For a liberal, feeling passes for knowing.
3. I can explain reality to you, I simply cannot comprehend it for you.
You live in a free nation, so you may believe, based on faith, what you wish.
Even if does not conform to reality.
You have exactly the right characteristics necessary to vote Democrat.

Thank you! I will! Yes that Independent Thought and ability to see the obvious is a hulluva great thing.
A characteristic common to Conservarepubs is that if someone doesn't agree with EVERYTHING the ConservaRepub say, they instantly label them or sling petty insults. Congratulations. You have exactly the chracteristics to vote Republican.
You claim that your data is economic fact but the flaw is that you claim it as universal fact and when confronted with the reality that your cliams obviously do not always apply, refuse to acknowledge the obvious - unless I missed the part where you wrote "Oh well no. There are a lot of people on welfare, disability etc... who genuinely need it and do not live $60K a year lifestyles." Did I miss that somewhere?
No.
ConservaRepubs generally have a much more difficult time acknoledging anything that doesn't conform completely to their view or ideology.
The difference between us is that from the outset, I have acknowledged the obvious facts that would conflict with LibDem ideology.
I said from the start that it's obvious we have a problem with the abuse of welfare and other entitlements.
Would you consider that Libdem thinking? Of course not. It's called Independent thinking.
Whereas you can't point out a single post of yours in this thread, that would run counter to ConservaRepub ideology.
The inconvenient thing about facts is that they are sometimes easy to prove. Like in this link.
Now you could just do what those who are fed their thoughts by the extremes on both Left and Right do. Change the subject, sling a few insults, of course label anyone with a differing opinion etc...
Or you might just acknowledge that yes, there are in fact tons of people who genuinely need a hand, don't abuse the system and don't live $60K lifestyles.
Hmmm. Yeah not holding my breath on that one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lovely. You got out the little book of pedantics. How nice for you. But like a typical ConservaRepub, when faced with actual counterpoints, you dodge or Cut & Run. The difference between us is obvious. I can acknowledge facts, even when they aren't convenient to a particular political ideology.
According to you:
So there are no homeless people.
There are no Vets who are in really bad times.
Everyone who is poor is living a wonderful $60K a year lifestyles because that conforms to what you want to believe politically.

Weak.

Keep that head in the sand and of course, be well.

1. My posts are there for anyone to read. They will note that I have never said
any of these things that you claim I have:

"According to you:
So there are no homeless people.
There are no Vets who are in really bad times.
Everyone who is poor is living a wonderful $60K a year lifestyles..."


2. "...even when they aren't convenient to a particular political ideology."
I have provided specific links that prove everything that I have stated, so they are
economic facts, not 'political ideology.'
a. As a rule, for conservatives, data informs policy.
For a liberal, feeling passes for knowing.
3. I can explain reality to you, I simply cannot comprehend it for you.
You live in a free nation, so you may believe, based on faith, what you wish.
Even if does not conform to reality.
You have exactly the right characteristics necessary to vote Democrat.

Thank you! I will! Yes that Independent Thought and ability to see the obvious is a hulluva great thing.
A characteristic common to Conservarepubs is that if someone doesn't agree with EVERYTHING the ConservaRepub say, they instantly label them or sling petty insults. Congratulations. You have exactly the chracteristics to vote Republican.
You claim that your data is economic fact but the flaw is that you claim it as universal fact and when confronted with the reality that your cliams obviously do not always apply, refuse to acknowledge the obvious - unless I missed the part where you wrote "Oh well no. There are a lot of people on welfare, disability etc... who genuinely need it and do not live $60K a year lifestyles." Did I miss that somewhere?
No.
ConservaRepubs generally have a much more difficult time acknoledging anything that doesn't conform completely to their view or ideology.
The difference between us is that from the outset, I have acknowledged the obvious facts that would conflict with LibDem ideology.
I said from the start that it's obvious we have a problem with the abuse of welfare and other entitlements.
Would you consider that Libdem thinking? Of course not. It's called Independent thinking.
Whereas you can't point out a single post of yours in this thread, that would run counter to ConservaRepub ideology.
The inconvenient thing about facts is that they are sometimes easy to prove. Like in this link.
Now you could just do what those who are fed their thoughts by the extremes on both Left and Right do. Change the subject, sling a few insults, of course label anyone with a differing opinion etc...
Or you might just acknowledge that yes, there are in fact tons of people who genuinely need a hand, don't abuse the system and don't live $60K lifestyles.
Hmmm. Yeah not holding my breath on that one.

You have produced no ' Independent thinking.' You simply deny facts, and call it so.

Where is the apology for misquoting me, and attributing statements that I didn't make?


On the other hand, everything I said and linked is true...while your posts are of the 'is not, is not' variety.


Sophomoric.

Be gone.

 

[rdean]

Republicans believe in family values? If Republicans figured out a way to create an abortion pill that targeted gays, would they promote it? I suspect the answer would be a resounding "YES!"

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^2^^^

Yea, the "independents" and people that come here claiming to neither be left or right; seem to always be liberal snipers.

It reminds me of a mailer I received that targeted independents. This so-called independent group sent me this mailer telling me to vote for all the Democrat candidates and propositions.

 

[IndependntLogic]

^^^2^^^

Yea, the "independents" and people that come here claiming to neither be left or right; seem to always be liberal snipers.

It reminds me of a mailer I received that targeted independents. This so-called independent group sent me this mailer telling me to vote for all the Democrat candidates and propositions.

It's easy to spot Independents. They agree or disagree with issues based on Independent Thought vs what they are told to think by a party or ideology.
For example, in this thread alone, I have acknowledged that there is widespread abuse of welfare and other entitlements. While you have simply parroted what you've been told should be your opinion.
I can name a half dozen of my personal views which would conflict with Liberal / Dem ideology while I bet you would be hard-pressed to do the same with Conservative / republican stances.
The difference between Liberals and Conservative is easy to spot though. Logically and civilly argue a point with a Liberal and they will cite facts or state their countering opinions. Do the same with a Conservative and they will start the insults and then label you a Liberal. because after all, if you don't hve your every single thought spoon-fed to you and agree on every single point, you're one of "them".
I like conservatives better irl. They're smarter, better at having discussions and don't whine about how anyone disagreeing with them on anything, must be a "liberal sniper!"

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

I haven't parroted anything. I'm sure you "feel" that I have. But as Political Chic said, you don't "know" it.

And unlike you, I'm not denying my leanings. But I most certainly take issues by their merit and in a much more "independent" manner than you do. I find that conservatives generally are more willing to look at matters more truthfully.

 

[Chris]

Mittens says "Marriage is between a man and a woman, and another woman, and maybe a couple of underage girls."

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

Wow. A whole half dozen views that "conflict" with Dems/libs. And I'm sure an uncountable amount of views that line up perfectly with libs/dems. Look, real independent thinkers don't have to take inventory of the sparse amount of views that don't line-up with a party LMAO. They certainly wouldn't use it as some pathetic logic that they are "independent."

 

[IndependntLogic]

^^^

I haven't parroted anything. I'm sure you "feel" that I have. But as Political Chic said, you don't "know" it.

And unlike you, I'm not denying my leanings. But I most certainly take issues by their merit and in a much more "independent" manner than you do. I find that conservatives generally are more willing to look at matters more truthfully.

Yes I find you a PolticalFactDodger to both be rather completely full of shit.

So fine. On what five or six issues do you disagree with the Conservative Talking Heads on? Three of four maybe?

Thought so.

Wanna cracker?

 

[PoliticalChic]

^^^

I haven't parroted anything. I'm sure you "feel" that I have. But as Political Chic said, you don't "know" it.

And unlike you, I'm not denying my leanings. But I most certainly take issues by their merit and in a much more "independent" manner than you do. I find that conservatives generally are more willing to look at matters more truthfully.

Yes I find you a PolticalFactDodger to both be rather completely full of shit.

So fine. On what five or six issues do you disagree with the Conservative Talking Heads on? Three of four maybe?

Thought so.

Wanna cracker?

You have proven to be a mind-numbed dolt.

Fact?

"Reporting from Sacramento — More than $69 million in California welfare money, meant to help the needy pay their rent and clothe their children, has been spent or withdrawn outside the state in recent years, including millions in Las Vegas, hundreds of thousands in Hawaii and thousands on cruise ships sailing from Miami. State-issued aid cards have been used at hotels, shops, restaurants, ATMs and other places in 49 other states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, according to data obtained by The Times from the California Department of Social Services. Las Vegas drew $11.8 million of the cash benefits, far more than any other destination. The money was accessed from January 2007 through May 2010."
California Welfare | $69 million in California welfare money drawn out of state - Los Angeles Times


LATimes....facts.

Vote Democrat...
....and continue to be treated like an intellectual mushroom.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

I haven't parroted anything. I'm sure you "feel" that I have. But as Political Chic said, you don't "know" it.

And unlike you, I'm not denying my leanings. But I most certainly take issues by their merit and in a much more "independent" manner than you do. I find that conservatives generally are more willing to look at matters more truthfully.

Yes I find you a PolticalFactDodger to both be rather completely full of shit.

So fine. On what five or six issues do you disagree with the Conservative Talking Heads on? Three of four maybe?

Thought so.

Wanna cracker?

I thought you independently dealt in facts? All's I just heard were a bunch of mindless platitudes. I've seen your analysis on this board. You're a lefty bro. You just want to pretend that you're an unbiased arbiter while spouting leftist ideology. That type of highminded nonsense is no better than a lot of the lunacy we see here.