Can those who have NEVER served make SOME sacrifice for this great nation?

[American4Americ]

Botswana, Singapore, Hong Kong, although more libertarian in principle, follow a reasonably conservative economic policy.

Botswana and Singapore.

I rest my case.

Doesn't Botswana lead the world in AIDS infections?

I guess that is why he considers it a Conservative paradise

Although still lagging behind in comparison to the most of the world, Bostwana has shown economic growth that has not been replicated by the rest of the countries in Africa, due to the free market principles that it has implemented. Despite starting out as the very worst country, it has the highest GDP growth per year of any African country.

 

[Kosh]

James K. Polk was one of the faces of extreme American expansion. He started a war based on a false premise in order to acquire territory. The idea of America being an Empire IN THE PAST, isn't too far fetched.

Well if we are going to use that as an example then every nation back in those days were bent on being an "empire".

Historians have emphasized that "Manifest Destiny" was a contested concept--many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs and Republicans) rejected it.

The Whigs primarily rejected it because it would have likely meant the expansion of slavery to new states (such as the former territories of Mexico), and they would lose their influence in the Senate.

However, the U.S was specifically referred to as an empire bent on expanding its territory, by Jefferson, Jackson, and Polk.

Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.

So the word "empire" in those days must have had different meaning than the one that is being used today as the US was not an "empire" in any stance of the definition.

Unless you believe that the US as well as many other nations are ruled by oligarchy.

 

[RDD_1210]

Of course. This is why none of these "conservatives" can point out a single country that is being successfully run with policies that they consider "conservative worthy". They live in a fantasy world. That much is plain to see.

Funny the far left can not point to a country that is prospering under far left rule, yet want others to something they can not do themselves. Typical far left.

Of course I can. Pick any of the Scandinavian countries for starters.

List of the most prosperous countries. Which of these are conservative nations?

http://www.prosperity.com/#!/?aspxerrorpath=%2Fmedia.aspx

1. Norway
2. Switzerland
3. Canada
4. Sweden
5. New Zealand
6. Denmark
7. Australia
8. Finland
9. Netherlands
10. Luxembourg

Quick, break out the canned talking points!

Kosh, where did you go?

It's funny that the loudmouth, know-it-all's never return when they are presented with actual evidence to their questions.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Proud, probably. But he has abso-*******-lutely no idea what living in a real socialist country is like. He's just been taught to be afraid of anything socialist.

So I suggest he avoid national parks, crossing the Hoover Dam and entering public libraries.

Of course. This is why none of these "conservatives" can point out a single country that is being successfully run with policies that they consider "conservative worthy". They live in a fantasy world. That much is plain to see.

Botswana, Singapore, Hong Kong, although more libertarian in principle, follow a reasonably conservative economic policy.

Ahahahaha.....I have some friends from Singapore and also do business with an American in Hong Kong. I would like to hear your definition of "conservative economic policy" for those two countries....You know,....facts. If you don't mind.

HK has one of the best PUBLIC transportation systems in the world. A socialist high-speed train system. SHOCKING!

We have the ancient subway system in New York. We are very conservative in this country and think transportation improvements are too liberal:

 

[American4Americ]

Well if we are going to use that as an example then every nation back in those days were bent on being an "empire".

Historians have emphasized that "Manifest Destiny" was a contested concept--many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs and Republicans) rejected it.

The Whigs primarily rejected it because it would have likely meant the expansion of slavery to new states (such as the former territories of Mexico), and they would lose their influence in the Senate.

However, the U.S was specifically referred to as an empire bent on expanding its territory, by Jefferson, Jackson, and Polk.

Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.

So the word "empire" in those days must have had different meaning than the one that is being used today as the US was not an "empire" in any stance of the definition.

Unless you believe that the US as well as many other nations are ruled by oligarchy.

The British Empire was an Empire without an oligarchy, or Emperor, as was France (After Napoleon's defeat by Bismarck) during the same time period that the U.S could be called one. The Carthaginian Empire was a Empire despite not having an emperor.

The definition must have had a different connotation back then, otherwise Jefferson would not have referred to it as such.

 

[rightwinger]

Botswana and Singapore.

I rest my case.

Doesn't Botswana lead the world in AIDS infections?

I guess that is why he considers it a Conservative paradise

Although still lagging behind in comparison to the most of the world, Bostwana has shown economic growth that has not been replicated by the rest of the countries in Africa, due to the free market principles that it has implemented. Despite starting out as the very worst country, it has the highest GDP growth per year of any African country.

Doesn't Botswana sit on immense mineral wealth?

Shouldn't we credit that more than its Libertarian principles? Botswana has a strong GDP growth because it has avoided much of the political corruption evident in most African countries.

 

[Kosh]

Where in the Constitution does it mandate how much must be spent on defense?

More proof that the far left does not understand the Constitution.

Oh goody, another expert on the Constitution of the United States. Tell us oh wise one, where in the Constitution did it authorize the Federal Government to provide the Salk Vaccine to the citizens of the United States? Do you believe the Eisenhower Administration was acting illegally in doing so? Would you prefer the parents of afflicted children purchase an Iron Lung to keep their child alive instead?

Oh goody another far left poster that has no clue about the Constitution but uses the same old tired talking points to promote the far left agenda.

 

[Kosh]

Haha, loaded questions. You mean you don't answer questions that your handlers haven't given you a response to fire back with.

Maybe the next time you call in to Rush you can ask him how to best respond.

Then show where it is the responsibility of the government to run healthcare and how much of the budget all the social programs should take via the Constition?

It doesn't say that explicitly, just like it doesn't say how much we should be spending on defense. Which is the whole point that you refused to acknowledge.

Just because the Constitution allows for spending on defense it doesn't mandate a minimum spend level. Hence, we can certainly reduce the tremendous defense spending we currently engage in.

Get it yet?

Yes I get the far left only wants to reduce the military (as it is clearly spelled out in the constitution) for social programs that are continuing to bankrupt the country (that are not a part of the Constitution).

 

[Kosh]

The most prosperous countries in the world today are built on predominantly liberal policies. Conservative policies get you countries like Iran and Pakistan. You must be proud.

Spot on!

Botswana, Hong Kong, and Singapore beg a differ.

Notice how the far left will deny that far left policies have bankrupted most of the worlds countries and it took conservative policies to bring them from the brink of collapse.

 

[rightwinger]

Spot on!

Botswana, Hong Kong, and Singapore beg a differ.

Notice how the far left will deny that far left policies have bankrupted most of the worlds countries and it took conservative policies to bring them from the brink of collapse.

Sweden, Finland and Denmark are all doing quite well. You don't get more liberal than that

Beat the hell out of "Botswana"

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well if we are going to use that as an example then every nation back in those days were bent on being an "empire".

Historians have emphasized that "Manifest Destiny" was a contested concept--many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs and Republicans) rejected it.

The Whigs primarily rejected it because it would have likely meant the expansion of slavery to new states (such as the former territories of Mexico), and they would lose their influence in the Senate.

However, the U.S was specifically referred to as an empire bent on expanding its territory, by Jefferson, Jackson, and Polk.

Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.

So the word "empire" in those days must have had different meaning than the one that is being used today as the US was not an "empire" in any stance of the definition.

Unless you believe that the US as well as many other nations are ruled by oligarchy.

The U.S. is ruled by an Oligarchy of the rich, aka a Plutocracy. One citizen, one vote maybe still true***, but when a vote is cast in the Congress, or by your local legislator, that vote is rarely cast in the interest of the many. It is the power elite behind the curtain who directs how that vote will be cast and who will benefit.

***Of course efforts to suppress the vote will impact the number of votes case by the citizens and the use of Diebold Machines, or other computerized vote counting machines, can impact the results of elections more so then the CU v. FEC wrongheaded decision of the five members of the Power Elite on the Supreme Court.

See: https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt07/tech/full_papers/feldman/feldman_html/

 

[RDD_1210]

Spot on!

Botswana, Hong Kong, and Singapore beg a differ.

Notice how the far left will deny that far left policies have bankrupted most of the worlds countries and it took conservative policies to bring them from the brink of collapse.

Baaaaah, says the sheep.

 

[Againsheila]

You do understand that your sob story is not the responsibility of the federal government, don't you [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION]? It's the parents of those "1 in 100 born with autism" that are responsible.

Furthermore, it is absolutely despicable that you feign interest in these people in need. I mean, if you actually cared an ounce, you would pick up the bill for them yourself. Not demand that the federal government hold a gun to my head and make me do it for you.

I have a low functioning autistic son that is now being cared for by the state. I guess that makes me a terrible person, I know some on here think that makes me a welfare queen. You try and care for a 25 year old 220 pound 6 foot tall man that is stronger than you and has temper tantrums like a 2 years old and then tell me how I need to be taking care of him instead of the state. Your way, I'd be dead and the state would still be taking care of him. We've discussed this before and the only option that would satisfy people like you is if I commit murder (my son) and then suicide. Trust me, that isn't gonna happen, sorry you got stuck with the bill. Just remember, it's only a matter of luck that you didn't have a special needs child. (Lucky for the kids, that is)

Again [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION], your sob story is not the responsibility of the state. Furthermore, just because he's too big for you somehow means that you can't pay for the help you need to provide the proper care for your own son? You wanted to have children, you foot the bill sweetie. He's not our responsibility.

By the way - God forbid you take your parenting responsibility serious enough to start seriously lifting weights so that you can be strong enough to do what you need to do. Nope! Easier to sit on the couch and demand that strangers who did not bring him into the world be forced to care for him.

Here we go again. The only thing that will make you happy is if I kill my son and then myself. Like I said before, it ain't gonna happen.

BTW, all the weight lifting in the world is not going to make my ribs or heart stronger. The radiation from the cancer killed that. Yeah, I know, not your fault, not your fault my husband has Parkinson's either. Have to wonder if you have ever had kids or anyone you love who's had "problems". In your would people like my family wouldn't exist.

 

[Againsheila]

Again [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION], your sob story is not the responsibility of the state. Furthermore, just because he's too big for you somehow means that you can't pay for the help you need to provide the proper care for your own son? You wanted to have children, you foot the bill sweetie. He's not our responsibility.

By the way - God forbid you take your parenting responsibility serious enough to start seriously lifting weights so that you can be strong enough to do what you need to do. Nope! Easier to sit on the couch and demand that strangers who did not bring him into the world be forced to care for him.

I think you must be one of the biggest Richard Craniums I've ever encountered.

I hope you don't profess "Christian Values".

Isn't it remarkable how Seawytch tries to pervert the Bible (like she does the Constitution) so she can avoid all personal responsibility in her life.

I'm sorry SW, I just can't seem to recall the part where Jesus said to use him to avoid personal responsibility.

When is the last time you read the Bible? If you are a Christian, which I doubt, you are a poor one.

 

[rightwinger]

I have a low functioning autistic son that is now being cared for by the state. I guess that makes me a terrible person, I know some on here think that makes me a welfare queen. You try and care for a 25 year old 220 pound 6 foot tall man that is stronger than you and has temper tantrums like a 2 years old and then tell me how I need to be taking care of him instead of the state. Your way, I'd be dead and the state would still be taking care of him. We've discussed this before and the only option that would satisfy people like you is if I commit murder (my son) and then suicide. Trust me, that isn't gonna happen, sorry you got stuck with the bill. Just remember, it's only a matter of luck that you didn't have a special needs child. (Lucky for the kids, that is)

Again [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION], your sob story is not the responsibility of the state. Furthermore, just because he's too big for you somehow means that you can't pay for the help you need to provide the proper care for your own son? You wanted to have children, you foot the bill sweetie. He's not our responsibility.

By the way - God forbid you take your parenting responsibility serious enough to start seriously lifting weights so that you can be strong enough to do what you need to do. Nope! Easier to sit on the couch and demand that strangers who did not bring him into the world be forced to care for him.

Here we go again. The only thing that will make you happy is if I kill my son and then myself. Like I said before, it ain't gonna happen.

BTW, all the weight lifting in the world is not going to make my ribs or heart stronger. The radiation from the cancer killed that. Yeah, I know, not your fault, not your fault my husband has Parkinson's either. Have to wonder if you have ever had kids or anyone you love who's had "problems". In your would people like my family wouldn't exist.

Rott believes in societal Darwinism

You do not fit in

 

[Againsheila]

Not sure what the point of this thread is. I've never served and I don't get any kind of government assistance. I also give to charity.

Dunno what else to say I guess.

The point of the thread is that asshole Dumbocrats expect 18 year olds to have their heads blown off for the survival of the United States, but they are not willing to give up entitlements for the survival of the United States.

In other words, while they expect others to make sacrifices on their behalf, they are not willing to make any themselves. This has liberals really pissed off because there is no intelligent response to dispute a statement that is correct.

The point of this thread seems to be to take from the disabled because you don't want your money supporting anybody, including the military but you feel that if your money must go towards something it should only go towards the military.

Are you related to Hitler? You want all special needs people dead so I'm just wondering here....

 

[Againsheila]

You know the government could try fewer regulations to help the poor. I took in a big pot of soup to the church yesterday. The church gives out sack lunches every Mon-Thurs to those in need. My friend, my oldest son and I work on Mondays. The soup was a hit but I was told not to do it again because I made it at home and my kitchen isn't certified. It's not like a was selling the soup. I was giving away hot soup on a cold day to people in need and according to the government, that's a no-no.

 

[Againsheila]

Not sure what the point of this thread is. I've never served and I don't get any kind of government assistance. I also give to charity.

Dunno what else to say I guess.

The point of the thread is that asshole Dumbocrats expect 18 year olds to have their heads blown off for the survival of the United States, but they are not willing to give up entitlements for the survival of the United States.

In other words, while they expect others to make sacrifices on their behalf, they are not willing to make any themselves. This has liberals really pissed off because there is no intelligent response to dispute a statement that is correct.

You are laboring under the delusion that the only people getting help from the government are liberals. You are also laboring under the delusion that nobody getting that help has ever served.

 

[Againsheila]

We spend 19% of our national budget on our most critical need and our #1 Constitutional responsibility. We spend 62% of our federal budget ensuring that the poor remain poor so that Dumbocrats like Nancy Pelosi can remain in power and worth millions. What is wrong with this picture?

It's time we cut at minimum of 50% from entitlements. Those parasites need to lose 50% of their gravy train (food stamps, housing, healthcare). It's the least sacrifice they can make for America. Learn to live on less or learn to get up off of your ass and earn a living for yourself. Either one.

Charts on Federal Entitlement Spending as a Percentage of US Budget

If it were so simple I would agree. Thees days a strong back and a good word isn't enough to make a living.

Sure it is. I know more than a couple of millionaires who have done it.

Name ONE!

 

[rightwinger]

You know the government could try fewer regulations to help the poor. I took in a big pot of soup to the church yesterday. The church gives out sack lunches every Mon-Thurs to those in need. My friend, my oldest son and I work on Mondays. The soup was a hit but I was told not to do it again because I made it at home and my kitchen isn't certified. It's not like a was selling the soup. I was giving away hot soup on a cold day to people in need and according to the government, that's a no-no.

No question that you have the best of intentions and probably make good soup.

But what of those who have questionable meat and rather than throw it out figure it is good enough for the homeless? What about people who don't keep the best sanitary standards in their kitchens?