We should be ALL be "Principled at heart" regardless of partisanship

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
21,672
Reaction score
4,118
Points
280
There was a thread on the board titled "We're All Bipartisan at Heart".

"Bipartisanship" should be secondary though as we've had "bipartisanship" on issues that weren't principled.

Principled defined as using fundamental rules of behavior that have over the centuries have shown to be positive guidelines as to how to advance a
civilized and beneficial society.

For example, the bill regarding unemployment extension certainly appears on the surface as legislation that needs "bipartisanship".

But is it principled?

The basic principle to be used is will the extension harm the country?

The extension is based on paying people NOT to work.
The harm done to the country comes from:
1) increased taxes PAID by employers which again millions don't seem to comprehend that FUTA is a tax paid by employers.
2) If the unemployed continue to receive money they don't pay taxes or SS/Medicare on the unemployment. This means lower tax revenue.
3) This lower tax revenue means continued dependence on the largest lender China an avowed enemy that wants to see USA destroyed.

Fed Approves First Communist Chinese Takeover of U.S. Bank China take over American Banks –
The Federal Reserve Private Banking Families Allowed the Sale CHINA TAKES OVER BOISE IDAHO Idaho to be first Chinese State A Soft Invasion of America?
Fed Approves First Communist Chinese Takeover of U.S. Bank China take over American Banks - The Federal Reserve Private Banking Families Allowed the Sale CHINA TAKES OVER BOISE IDAHO Idaho to be first Chinese State A Soft Invasion of America? | Beyon

Is that against the principle of protecting the USA from all invaders?
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
21,672
Reaction score
4,118
Points
280
What do you fight for besides giving control of the rest of the control to the 1%? You have to real solutions to grow the middle class.
I was as the idiot thread about "bipartisan" showing the 30,000 ft picture i.e. "bipartisanship" for "bipartisanship sake" is idiotic!
YOU don't vote for things just to get along!
You vote for principles.
As 76% of Democrats agree with this clip you will understand that voting on "principles" not just to get along.
Watch this clip and understand a MAJORITY of people including Democrats want the majority of us to be represented!

Now this was what got a Democrat audience approval of 76%...

"There is a problem in Washington, and the problem is bigger than a continuing resolution.
It’s bigger than Obamacare.
It’s even bigger than the budget.
The most fundamental problem, the frustration, is that the men and women in Washington aren’t listening.
You talk to the man or woman on the street, that’s the message you hear over and over again. “Why don’t they listen to me? Why don’t they hear what we have to say?”
They aren’t listening to the millions of people–democrats, republicans, independents, libertarians across the spectrum who say our elected officials, they get to Washington,
and they stop listening to the people. "


This is remarkable, and this is what 2014 is going to be about. who’s listening and learning from the American people…
and I’ll tell you something…2016 may be part of that as well.
The Best Political Soundbite of 2013
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
21,672
Reaction score
4,118
Points
280
The other major obstacle to people being represented is our MSM is so biased and protective of Obama/Democrats.
Most people are unaware that 85% of the donations of top ABC,CBS,NBC personnel went to Democrats! So is it any wonder
we don't get stories like these?
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
There was a thread on the board titled "We're All Bipartisan at Heart".

"Bipartisanship" should be secondary though as we've had "bipartisanship" on issues that weren't principled.

Principled defined as using fundamental rules of behavior that have over the centuries have shown to be positive guidelines as to how to advance a
civilized and beneficial society.

For example, the bill regarding unemployment extension certainly appears on the surface as legislation that needs "bipartisanship".

But is it principled?

The basic principle to be used is will the extension harm the country?

The extension is based on paying people NOT to work.
The harm done to the country comes from:
1) increased taxes PAID by employers which again millions don't seem to comprehend that FUTA is a tax paid by employers.
2) If the unemployed continue to receive money they don't pay taxes or SS/Medicare on the unemployment. This means lower tax revenue.
3) This lower tax revenue means continued dependence on the largest lender China an avowed enemy that wants to see USA destroyed.

Fed Approves First Communist Chinese Takeover of U.S. Bank China take over American Banks –
The Federal Reserve Private Banking Families Allowed the Sale CHINA TAKES OVER BOISE IDAHO Idaho to be first Chinese State A Soft Invasion of America?
Fed Approves First Communist Chinese Takeover of U.S. Bank China take over American Banks - The Federal Reserve Private Banking Families Allowed the Sale CHINA TAKES OVER BOISE IDAHO Idaho to be first Chinese State A Soft Invasion of America? | Beyon

Is that against the principle of protecting the USA from all invaders?
Jesus! There is so much wrong with this OP it is almost impossible to select a point to start at...

but...

Reminds me of libertarians who would take a principle to its logical end no matter the cost to the people and society the principle is created to serve.
 

Freemason9

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
280
Points
130
What do you fight for besides giving control of the rest of the control to the 1%? You have to real solutions to grow the middle class.
Instead the far left wants all to be slaves to the government.
The "far left" is simply partisan rhetoric. No, I don't believe there is really a "far left" that wants Americans to be "slaves of the government." If you explore the roots and ideals of liberalism, you will see the so-called "left" and "right" aren't that far apart. I believe that there are certain powers at play that keep the left/right tension going--for political benefit, and to maintain control of the citizenry.

By repeating the rhetoric you are trained to respond to, you perpetuate the real problem--this government is not responsive to the needs of the citizenry.
 

Freemason9

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
280
Points
130
The other major obstacle to people being represented is our MSM is so biased and protective of Obama/Democrats.
Most people are unaware that 85% of the donations of top ABC,CBS,NBC personnel went to Democrats! So is it any wonder
we don't get stories like these?
Yeah, and FOX news, and Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Brietbart, and the freepers, and EVERY "talk radio" program available over the airwaves, in EVERY market in the U.S.

Yeah, right. It's just a stupid game, and you're a game piece.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
What do you fight for besides giving control of the rest of the control to the 1%? You have to real solutions to grow the middle class.
Instead the far left wants all to be slaves to the government.
The "far left" is simply partisan rhetoric. No, I don't believe there is really a "far left" that wants Americans to be "slaves of the government." If you explore the roots and ideals of liberalism, you will see the so-called "left" and "right" aren't that far apart. I believe that there are certain powers at play that keep the left/right tension going--for political benefit, and to maintain control of the citizenry.

By repeating the rhetoric you are trained to respond to, you perpetuate the real problem--this government is not responsive to the needs of the citizenry.
There has always been a far right and a far left in modern American politics. During the 1970s the far right took a stance of creating a left/right split with the parties gop/dem. They've succeeded
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
The other major obstacle to people being represented is our MSM is so biased and protective of Obama/Democrats.
Most people are unaware that 85% of the donations of top ABC,CBS,NBC personnel went to Democrats! So is it any wonder
we don't get stories like these?
Funny, most people know about Whitewater, Monica, Benghazi, Rev Wright...from the MSM. H...:eusa_whistle:
 

Freemason9

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
280
Points
130
Instead the far left wants all to be slaves to the government.
The "far left" is simply partisan rhetoric. No, I don't believe there is really a "far left" that wants Americans to be "slaves of the government." If you explore the roots and ideals of liberalism, you will see the so-called "left" and "right" aren't that far apart. I believe that there are certain powers at play that keep the left/right tension going--for political benefit, and to maintain control of the citizenry.

By repeating the rhetoric you are trained to respond to, you perpetuate the real problem--this government is not responsive to the needs of the citizenry.
There has always been a far right and a far left in modern American politics. During the 1970s the far right took a stance of creating a left/right split with the parties gop/dem. They've succeeded
Actually, the "far left" and the "far right" on the same page in terms of opposing government interference in our lives, and in terms of government transparency. More or less, that is.
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
21,672
Reaction score
4,118
Points
280
The other major obstacle to people being represented is our MSM is so biased and protective of Obama/Democrats.
Most people are unaware that 85% of the donations of top ABC,CBS,NBC personnel went to Democrats! So is it any wonder
we don't get stories like these?
Funny, most people know about Whitewater, Monica, Benghazi, Rev Wright...from the MSM. H...:eusa_whistle:
A) Whitewater/Monica are Clinton idiot not Obama...

B) Benghazi is Obama's scandal BUT where is the SAME enthusiastic coverage about Obama that was done about Bush?
For example EVERYONE has seen pictures of Obama in command when Osama was killed...
But where was Obama after 5:00 on Benghazi? Where did he go the next day after Benghazi? Did you read ANY press stories criticizing Obama for his absence?
Where were the pictures after Benghazi???
Sept. 11, 2012. It’s a little bit longer of a time period to track (the Christie news broke mid-week so we have just four days of search results), but stick with us.
There were more than 2,800 stories that contain "Benghazi" in newspapers and wire services, though that also includes international newspapers. Domestically, the New York Times wrote 69 stories and the Washington Post had 49.
So that is an average of 233 stories over 12 months... or average of 58 per week!

But when it came to Christie??
Using the same news outlets we tracked for Christie, we found 250 transcripts that mentioned "Benghazi."
The Christie scandal started Jan 2014 total of 3 weeks at the most or 3 weeks into 250 equals 83 stories per week.
Karl Rove says media coverage of Benghazi pales to coverage of Chris Christie bridge scandal | PunditFact
Tell me there wasn't MSM bias at play here!!!

B) Rev. Wright??? MORE on that later!!!
 

hazlnut

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
12,387
Reaction score
1,918
Points
290
Location
Chicago
What do you fight for besides giving control of the rest of the control to the 1%? You have to real solutions to grow the middle class.
Instead the far left wants all to be slaves to the government.
Yeah, because that's what liberal means… Slavery.

Conservatives want to refight the civil war. Or War of Northern Aggression.
 

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
The "far left" is simply partisan rhetoric. No, I don't believe there is really a "far left" that wants Americans to be "slaves of the government." If you explore the roots and ideals of liberalism, you will see the so-called "left" and "right" aren't that far apart. I believe that there are certain powers at play that keep the left/right tension going--for political benefit, and to maintain control of the citizenry.

By repeating the rhetoric you are trained to respond to, you perpetuate the real problem--this government is not responsive to the needs of the citizenry.
There has always been a far right and a far left in modern American politics. During the 1970s the far right took a stance of creating a left/right split with the parties gop/dem. They've succeeded
Actually, the "far left" and the "far right" on the same page in terms of opposing government interference in our lives, and in terms of government transparency. More or less, that is.


[MENTION=38998]Freemason9[/MENTION]

sure, extremists have similar thinking processes or else they would not succumb to sophomoric extremist crap
 
Last edited:

Dante

On leave
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
52,462
Reaction score
3,366
Points
1,825
Location
On leave
The other major obstacle to people being represented is our MSM is so biased and protective of Obama/Democrats.
Most people are unaware that 85% of the donations of top ABC,CBS,NBC personnel went to Democrats! So is it any wonder
we don't get stories like these?
Funny, most people know about Whitewater, Monica, Benghazi, Rev Wright...from the MSM. H...:eusa_whistle:
A) Whitewater/Monica are Clinton idiot not Obama...

B) Benghazi is Obama's scandal BUT where is the SAME enthusiastic coverage about Obama that was done about Bush?
For example EVERYONE has seen pictures of Obama in command when Osama was killed...
But where was Obama after 5:00 on Benghazi? Where did he go the next day after Benghazi? Did you read ANY press stories criticizing Obama for his absence?
Where were the pictures after Benghazi???
Sept. 11, 2012. It’s a little bit longer of a time period to track (the Christie news broke mid-week so we have just four days of search results), but stick with us.
There were more than 2,800 stories that contain "Benghazi" in newspapers and wire services, though that also includes international newspapers. Domestically, the New York Times wrote 69 stories and the Washington Post had 49.
So that is an average of 233 stories over 12 months... or average of 58 per week!

But when it came to Christie??
Using the same news outlets we tracked for Christie, we found 250 transcripts that mentioned "Benghazi."
The Christie scandal started Jan 2014 total of 3 weeks at the most or 3 weeks into 250 equals 83 stories per week.
Karl Rove says media coverage of Benghazi pales to coverage of Chris Christie bridge scandal | PunditFact
Tell me there wasn't MSM bias at play here!!!

B) Rev. Wright??? MORE on that later!!!
So the msm loved hated the Clintons but loves Obama?

Karl Rove says lots of batcrazy shit
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
21,672
Reaction score
4,118
Points
280
Funny, most people know about Whitewater, Monica, Benghazi, Rev Wright...from the MSM. H...:eusa_whistle:
A) Whitewater/Monica are Clinton idiot not Obama...

B) Benghazi is Obama's scandal BUT where is the SAME enthusiastic coverage about Obama that was done about Bush?
For example EVERYONE has seen pictures of Obama in command when Osama was killed...
But where was Obama after 5:00 on Benghazi? Where did he go the next day after Benghazi? Did you read ANY press stories criticizing Obama for his absence?
Where were the pictures after Benghazi???
Sept. 11, 2012. It’s a little bit longer of a time period to track (the Christie news broke mid-week so we have just four days of search results), but stick with us.
There were more than 2,800 stories that contain "Benghazi" in newspapers and wire services, though that also includes international newspapers. Domestically, the New York Times wrote 69 stories and the Washington Post had 49.
So that is an average of 233 stories over 12 months... or average of 58 per week!

But when it came to Christie??
Using the same news outlets we tracked for Christie, we found 250 transcripts that mentioned "Benghazi."
The Christie scandal started Jan 2014 total of 3 weeks at the most or 3 weeks into 250 equals 83 stories per week.
Karl Rove says media coverage of Benghazi pales to coverage of Chris Christie bridge scandal | PunditFact
Tell me there wasn't MSM bias at play here!!!

B) Rev. Wright??? MORE on that later!!!
So the msm loved hated the Clintons but loves Obama?

Karl Rove says lots of batcrazy shit
Pretty damn hard to whitewater wash a blue semen stained dress!
 
OP
H

healthmyths

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
21,672
Reaction score
4,118
Points
280
But no one seems to refute that in just 3 weeks an average of 83 Christie bridge stories a week but Benghazi only 58 per week!
Seems to prove Rove statement explicitly!
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,939
Reaction score
15,594
Points
2,180
There was a thread on the board titled "We're All Bipartisan at Heart".

"Bipartisanship" should be secondary though as we've had "bipartisanship" on issues that weren't principled.
As I can't stand any political party right now, I am not bipartisan at all. I am my own person.

The basic principle to be used is will the extension harm the country?
Sorry, but that is ass backwards. The principle for ANY government intervention in our lives is, "Will [fill in the blank] do any GOOD?"

That's the conservative approach, anyway. If you are going to make more rules or take more of my money, you better prove it will do some good.
 
Last edited:

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,939
Reaction score
15,594
Points
2,180
Oh. And anyone who thinks Benghazi got less coverage when the story first broke than Christie's bridge problem got coverage when the story first broke was either in a coma after Benghazi, or is one of the more retarded hacks out there.

Do you see what Karl Rove is doing there? He is comparing apples and oranges. Over a year after Benghazi compared to immediately after New Jersey.

See how much coverage the bridge thing is getting six months from now if nothing new breaks. You won't be hearing a peep.

It's been well over a year since Benghazi and we are still being bombarded with coverage about it.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top