Pocahontas: We Need Big Government! 'Nobody In America Succeeds On Their Own'

[Cecilie1200]

She's got the same mindset as Barack 'You Didn't Build That' Obama, the non-natural born Citizen Constitutionally ineligible ex-president. Her presidential aspirations will fail.

Elizabeth Warren: ‘Nobody in America Succeeds on Their Own'

Why do strong women scare you?

Why do you define "strong women" as "women who believe what I think they should"?

If anybody is scared of strong women, it's the left. Look how they bash successful women in the Republican party. They are only for the women on the plantation. Every other woman can go to hell as far as they're concerned.

Exactly. If they can only call a woman "strong" when she's doing what they tell her to, then they're not understanding the meaning of the word at all.

 

[jc456]

then she should step down and let me do her job. I know I can do a hellofalot better.

 

[Cecilie1200]

She's got the same mindset as Barack 'You Didn't Build That' Obama, the non-natural born Citizen Constitutionally ineligible ex-president. Her presidential aspirations will fail.

Elizabeth Warren: ‘Nobody in America Succeeds on Their Own'

Why do strong women scare you?

Why do you define "strong women" as "women who believe what I think they should"?

If anybody is scared of strong women, it's the left. Look how they bash successful women in the Republican party. They are only for the women on the plantation. Every other woman can go to hell as far as they're concerned.

Why do Republicans elect so few women

Because we base our vote on who we believe will do the best job. Voting for people based on race, gender, sexual preference, good looks is a Democrat criteria for office. I don't believe we have as many women running for office as Democrats either. The ones who do are moderates or Rino's like Collins or Murkowski.

At least when we run a woman, you know she's there because she's really earned it, not because she's an intersectional token.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do strong women scare you?

Why do you define "strong women" as "women who believe what I think they should"?

If anybody is scared of strong women, it's the left. Look how they bash successful women in the Republican party. They are only for the women on the plantation. Every other woman can go to hell as far as they're concerned.

Why do Republicans elect so few women

Because we base our vote on who we believe will do the best job. Voting for people based on race, gender, sexual preference, good looks is a Democrat criteria for office. I don't believe we have as many women running for office as Democrats either. The ones who do are moderates or Rino's like Collins or Murkowski.

At least when we run a woman, you know she's there because she's really earned it, not because she's an intersectional token.

LOL

That is why Republicans run so few women

They don’t believe they earned it like men do

 

[Harpy Eagle]

GOVERNMENT did not do any of those things. People did.

Might be the dumbest post ever

Government ≠ society.

Um yeah son, in this case it kinda does.

No, pipsqueak, it kinda doesn't. You're presuming that government is the only reason we have any sane norms in society - that without government we'd all just wallow in our own feces and expire from starvation. Speak for yourself.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the government is what sticks all of that together and makes sure things that need done get done, although not necessarily in a timely or efficient manner. Things might actually be better if all that was handled by non government agencies but the fact is that they aren't, and haven't been.

You are welcome to dream about how you wish it was, but that doesn't change the way it is.

That's the dream, the lurid fantasy of statists everywhere. But it's BS. By and large, people do what they do because it's what they want to do - not because laws tell them too. They government is just skimming.

You are mostly correct, but also miss a point or two.

We have clean water laws because most of us did not want to see raw sewage in our rivers or industrial waste in our drinking water. But it was happening because of few people/companies were doing such things to make extra money. So we complained and our representatives made it illegal.

Most of us do not wish to rape or murder another person, thus the laws against such things are not really there for us, but to deal with those that do wish to do such things.

The problem is of course when people get power and want more, then we end up with seatbelt laws, helmet laws,smoking bans and 1000 other stupid laws meant to keep us safe from ourselves...which was never the purpose of government.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Cecilie1200]

It was 1927

KKK riots were common. Nothing to get worked up about

What would I be worked up about? You're the one posting lies, not me.

Why would you care about a Klan meeting?

Bunch of Good old Boys

I don't. You're the one passing off your CNN lies about Trump's father being in the Klan. I was just pointing out how you've been duped. You brought it up--I didn't.

I just thought all he did was arrested at a KKK rally?.
And fined for refusing to rent to blacks?.
Good ol German white boy with an illegal brothel owner dad.
That's all, great genes.
At least I'm proud he paid off a doc to get the cons 5 deferments.
Terrific dad and role model.
I love him.
Bring back lynching, that's what I say.
Coming with me Ray? Bring your daughter

He was arrested and not charged. And how do you know he wasn't arrested for going against the Klan? The Klan back then was the Democrat's Anti-Fa of today.

For that matter, how do we know he wasn't just present in the area and swept up in a general "clear the area" maneuver?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I wonder if anyone will ever get to ask her why blue states with the biggest state governments have the worst economies, the biggest deficits, the highest costs of living, etc. Her argument is that no one could succeed without the infrastructure that government provides, but the poor performance of so many blue states, among other facts, refutes her argument.

Blue states support the Red States with their taxes
They are wealthier and have higher standards of living

Wrong. You've been corrected on these falsehoods before.

State Fiscal Rankings

Best States to Retire 2018: All 50 States Ranked for Retirement

Cost of living: The purchasing power of a dollar in every state

Your fiscal rankings have nothing to do with the wealth of a state
All it reflects is a balanced budget

Those red states have good fiscal ratings because they don’t do shit for their people. They have low wages and few public services
They receive more in federal aid than they contribute

They make less because they have a much lower cost of living. A house that costs 800K in Mass costs about 200K in those red states. So you have to make much more than people in red states to live the same lifestyle. The more you make, the more you are taxed.

'Tis true. My BIL and his wife moved to LA for his job, and bought their "dream house" for $300,000-400,000 . . . and it was smaller than my house in Tucson, with a smaller lot. My house was assessed at about $180,000.

 

[Moonglow]

Why do strong women scare you?

Why do you define "strong women" as "women who believe what I think they should"?

If anybody is scared of strong women, it's the left. Look how they bash successful women in the Republican party. They are only for the women on the plantation. Every other woman can go to hell as far as they're concerned.

Why do Republicans elect so few women

Because we base our vote on who we believe will do the best job. Voting for people based on race, gender, sexual preference, good looks is a Democrat criteria for office. I don't believe we have as many women running for office as Democrats either. The ones who do are moderates or Rino's like Collins or Murkowski.

At least when we run a woman, you know she's there because she's really earned it, not because she's an intersectional token.

Thank gawd for Palin..She made it on her bust alone.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Everyone of the dem hopefuls are promising to undo everything Trump has done....they want to cancel his tax cut...the tax cut that put us all back to work...why would anyone vote for that?...even if you hate Trump why would you vote against your own interest?......

Will it hurt Cult45?

 

[Mac1958]

This remains a silly argument, just as does "you didn't build that".

Obviously every successful person receives some measure of support along the way. And that certainly isn't limited to America. That happens pretty much anywhere. But that doesn't give some the excuse to tear them down and minimize their accomplishments, which is generally the point.

"You didn't build that" and "You didn't earn that" are just games played by some because it's much easier to tear people at the top down than it is to inspire others to achieve more. That would require maintaining standards and expectations, and we aren't allowed to do that any more. It's mean.

It's not one or the other. Silly binary arguments.
.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do you define "strong women" as "women who believe what I think they should"?

If anybody is scared of strong women, it's the left. Look how they bash successful women in the Republican party. They are only for the women on the plantation. Every other woman can go to hell as far as they're concerned.

Why do Republicans elect so few women

Because we base our vote on who we believe will do the best job. Voting for people based on race, gender, sexual preference, good looks is a Democrat criteria for office. I don't believe we have as many women running for office as Democrats either. The ones who do are moderates or Rino's like Collins or Murkowski.

At least when we run a woman, you know she's there because she's really earned it, not because she's an intersectional token.

Thank gawd for Palin..She made it on her bust alone.

Would it shock you to know that the ability of the left to endlessly parrot insults at a conservative woman neither makes them true, nor makes them matter a ******* iota to anyone on the right? "She was obviously only there because she was a woman, because WE don't think she had any good qualities, so no one else could have either!"

Would it shock you to know anything at all, given that it would be the first time in your life that happened?

 

[rightwinger]

This remains a silly argument, just as does "you didn't build that".

Obviously every successful person receives some measure of support along the way. And that certainly isn't limited to America. That happens pretty much anywhere. But that doesn't give some the excuse to tear them down and minimize their accomplishments, which is generally the point.

"You didn't build that" and "You didn't earn that" are just games played by some because it's much easier to tear people at the top down than it is to inspire others to achieve more. That would require maintaining standards and expectations, and we aren't allowed to do that any more. It's mean.

It's not one or the other. Silly binary arguments.
.

You are missing the origin of the statement

These arguments came as a response to those demanding that corporate taxes be reduced or eliminated
It is an assertion that businesses receive great benefit from government programs and have a responsibility to contribute.

You didn’t build that.....Government provided roads, bridges, infrastructure, security, educated workers

Business has an obligation to contribute to that government

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This remains a silly argument, just as does "you didn't build that".

Obviously every successful person receives some measure of support along the way. And that certainly isn't limited to America. That happens pretty much anywhere. But that doesn't give some the excuse to tear them down and minimize their accomplishments, which is generally the point.

"You didn't build that" and "You didn't earn that" are just games played by some because it's much easier to tear people at the top down than it is to inspire others to achieve more. That would require maintaining standards and expectations, and we aren't allowed to do that any more. It's mean.

It's not one or the other. Silly binary arguments.
.

It's just ripping the fantasy "It Takes a Village."

People like Warren are part of the klan that wants to brainwash people that nothing can be accomplished without your federal government. Business only exists because of your federal government. You can only breathe because of your federal government. You only have fuel because of your federal government. You have food thanks to the federal government. You can walk and talk thanks to your federal government.

Democrats understand that the less we need federal government, the less we need Democrats around. Saying we can survive without the federal government is like saying our planet can survive without the sun according to the left.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What would I be worked up about? You're the one posting lies, not me.

Why would you care about a Klan meeting?

Bunch of Good old Boys

I don't. You're the one passing off your CNN lies about Trump's father being in the Klan. I was just pointing out how you've been duped. You brought it up--I didn't.

I just thought all he did was arrested at a KKK rally?.
And fined for refusing to rent to blacks?.
Good ol German white boy with an illegal brothel owner dad.
That's all, great genes.
At least I'm proud he paid off a doc to get the cons 5 deferments.
Terrific dad and role model.
I love him.
Bring back lynching, that's what I say.
Coming with me Ray? Bring your daughter

He was arrested and not charged. And how do you know he wasn't arrested for going against the Klan? The Klan back then was the Democrat's Anti-Fa of today.

For that matter, how do we know he wasn't just present in the area and swept up in a general "clear the area" maneuver?

Liberals really love to add to the story, don't they? Lies are how they come up with lines like Trump called all Mexicans rapists and thieves. Or Trump said all white supremacists are good people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Government ≠ society.

Um yeah son, in this case it kinda does.

No, pipsqueak, it kinda doesn't. You're presuming that government is the only reason we have any sane norms in society - that without government we'd all just wallow in our own feces and expire from starvation. Speak for yourself.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the government is what sticks all of that together and makes sure things that need done get done, although not necessarily in a timely or efficient manner. Things might actually be better if all that was handled by non government agencies but the fact is that they aren't, and haven't been.

You are welcome to dream about how you wish it was, but that doesn't change the way it is.

That's the dream, the lurid fantasy of statists everywhere. But it's BS. By and large, people do what they do because it's what they want to do - not because laws tell them too. They government is just skimming.

You are mostly correct, but also miss a point or two.

We have clean water laws because most of us did not want to see raw sewage in our rivers or industrial waste in our drinking water. But it was happening because of few people/companies were doing such things to make extra money. So we complained and our representatives made it illegal.

Most of us do not wish to rape or murder another person, thus the laws against such things are not really there for us, but to deal with those that do wish to do such things.

The problem is of course when people get power and want more, then we end up with seatbelt laws, helmet laws,smoking bans and 1000 other stupid laws meant to keep us safe from ourselves...which was never the purpose of government.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Seat belt laws, helmet laws, national speed limits, BAC were set by the insurance companies, again, never dreamt of by our founders.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do you define "strong women" as "women who believe what I think they should"?

If anybody is scared of strong women, it's the left. Look how they bash successful women in the Republican party. They are only for the women on the plantation. Every other woman can go to hell as far as they're concerned.

Why do Republicans elect so few women

Because we base our vote on who we believe will do the best job. Voting for people based on race, gender, sexual preference, good looks is a Democrat criteria for office. I don't believe we have as many women running for office as Democrats either. The ones who do are moderates or Rino's like Collins or Murkowski.

At least when we run a woman, you know she's there because she's really earned it, not because she's an intersectional token.

LOL

That is why Republicans run so few women

They don’t believe they earned it like men do

Is that why? Can you show me the last woman that wanted to run as a Republican that was stopped by the RNC?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

She's got the same mindset as Barack 'You Didn't Build That' Obama, the non-natural born Citizen Constitutionally ineligible ex-president. Her presidential aspirations will fail.

Elizabeth Warren: ‘Nobody in America Succeeds on Their Own'

Why do strong women scare you?

Why do you define "strong women" as "women who believe what I think they should"?

If anybody is scared of strong women, it's the left. Look how they bash successful women in the Republican party. They are only for the women on the plantation. Every other woman can go to hell as far as they're concerned.

Exactly. If they can only call a woman "strong" when she's doing what they tell her to, then they're not understanding the meaning of the word at all.

The last strong woman they ran did half the campaigning her challenger did. She was so strong she couldn't make public appearances without passing out from being drunk. She was so strong she threw a hissy fit after she lost an election and was so drunk she couldn't come out and make a concession speech.

 

[dblack]

You are mostly correct, but also miss a point or two.

We have clean water laws because most of us did not want to see raw sewage in our rivers or industrial waste in our drinking water.

I'm aware of that. Government has a legitimate responsibility to look after the commons. What I'm rejecting is this inflated sense of what government does and its role in relation to society. People caught up in politics seem to think government and laws define society, and I don't buy that.

Most of society gets by most of the time without instructions from the government. The vast bulk of our interactions aren't guided by laws. They're governed by basic human decency. Only in rare circumstances is it necessary to get the police involved. We should strive to keep it that way and not give in to the deluded "reformers" who think everything single social issue should to be subjected to legislation.

 

[rightwinger]

This remains a silly argument, just as does "you didn't build that".

Obviously every successful person receives some measure of support along the way. And that certainly isn't limited to America. That happens pretty much anywhere. But that doesn't give some the excuse to tear them down and minimize their accomplishments, which is generally the point.

"You didn't build that" and "You didn't earn that" are just games played by some because it's much easier to tear people at the top down than it is to inspire others to achieve more. That would require maintaining standards and expectations, and we aren't allowed to do that any more. It's mean.

It's not one or the other. Silly binary arguments.
.

It's just ripping the fantasy "It Takes a Village."

People like Warren are part of the klan that wants to brainwash people that nothing can be accomplished without your federal government. Business only exists because of your federal government. You can only breathe because of your federal government. You only have fuel because of your federal government. You have food thanks to the federal government. You can walk and talk thanks to your federal government.

Democrats understand that the less we need federal government, the less we need Democrats around. Saying we can survive without the federal government is like saying our planet can survive without the sun according to the left.

Who has ever said......Nothing can be accomplished without the Federal Government

Only Conservatives

 

[rightwinger]

You are mostly correct, but also miss a point or two.

We have clean water laws because most of us did not want to see raw sewage in our rivers or industrial waste in our drinking water.

I'm aware of that. Government has a legitimate responsibility to look after the commons. What I'm rejecting is this inflated sense of what government does and its role in relation to society. People caught up in politics seem to think government and laws define society, and I don't buy that.

Most of society gets by most of the time without instructions from the government. The vast bulk of our interactions aren't guided by laws. They're governed by basic human decency. Only in rare circumstances is it necessary to get the police involved. We should strive to keep it that way and not give in to the deluded "reformers" who think everything single social issue should to be subjected to legislation.

Some things are best accomplished as an individual
Others are more effective as part of a group