Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Kerry delivers.Follow

#52 Jul 30 2004 at 10:35 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
You know what it is that bothers me so much about most people that vote Republican?

It's not that they might hold views that I disagree with, that honestly doesn't bother me, they have right to advocate for what's best for them.

What bothers me is that most of them, not all, but most of them, are being duped. They think they are voting in their own self intrest when really, they're not.

My wife's parents are Republicans. They're what used to be referred to as "country club" Republicans. They benefit from Republican policies. They have a large amount of investment income, they're socialy conservative, aren't fond of change, and so on.

I don't begrudge them voting Republican. I don't agree them on most issues, but it really doesn't bother me.

People like Moe, though, I just can't fathom. Unless he has a great deal of wealth or an income in the high six figures and is exceptionaly conservative socially, he's actually harming his own self intrest by voting for Bush.

He's loosing money long term, loosing services that he's probably going to have some reliance on when he's elderly and he's willfully surrenduering civil liberties for no discernable reason.

That's the part that bothers me. That people who make 80k a year have been sold a bill of goods that high bracket and capital gains tax cuts benefit them somehow, and that because they're middle aged white guys that the civil liberties lost won't effect them, just the brown skinned people and the ********


If you've paid attention, this is exactly what bothers me, too.
It's frigging ludicrous. The South turned Republican for the same damn reason.

People think by voting for the "Rich" that somehow that makes them better or might make them rich by osmosis.

IT AIN"T HAPPENING!!!!
#53 Jul 30 2004 at 10:36 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Enlighten a brother, Moe. Why is it you'll be voting for Bush?

I think I have been quite clear on that. I disagree, at a fundamental level, with the idea of social welfare programs. These include, but are not limited to, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Head Start, USPS.

That I have my income sucked away to pay for these things really bothers me. I could never vote for a person who was a member of the party that openly advocates the expansion on social welfare programs.
#54 Jul 30 2004 at 10:37 AM Rating: Decent
Well, Moe, you certainly are a man of principles.

And a godda[/i]mned idiot.


[i]Edited, Fri Jul 30 11:38:04 2004 by pickleprince
#55 Jul 30 2004 at 10:38 AM Rating: Decent
**
764 posts
Quote:
The Republican mantra is: We got ours, f*ck everyone else. You embody that philosophy better than just about any other poster here.


Do you honestly believe that? That certainly is not my philosophy at all. I generally lean on the Repulican side (I do not agree with everything the party stands for)and that statement is just absurd to me. I didn't just get "mine"... I worked hard for it. I payed my own way through college because I appreciated my goals more and it made me work harder. Sure there are places where individuals have it bad but believe it or not you can get yourself out of that situation if you put your mind to it and have the determination. Sure some have more advantages than others from the beginning but for those that don't should be an incentive for them to work that much harder and to be proud for what they accomplished. Hand-outs simply don't do that, and the "f*ck them" philosophy is just an easy way out.

Edited, Fri Jul 30 11:39:37 2004 by Pulseczar
#56 Jul 30 2004 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
And a goddamned idiot.

You needed a political discussion to come to this conclusion?!? I moved from Napa, CA to Minnesota, then proceeded to have a family, ensuring that I will never move back. And you needed my views on social welfare? ;)
#57 Jul 30 2004 at 10:41 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

That I have my income sucked away to pay for these things really bothers me. I could never vote for a person who was a member of the party that openly advocates the expansion on social welfare programs.


This is going to sound like rhetoric, but it's an honest question.

You'd rather that your income is sucked away to benefit the 1% of the population that is extroadnarily wealthy largely by virtue of being born into the right set of circumstances?

The reality is that you're paying for the poor either way. When you vote Republican you're paying for the very rich as well.

I have difficulty understanding that postion.

Were the Republican Party actually fiscally responsible and advocates of personal reponsibility I'd understand your position. I think it's pretty clear to even a disintrested observer that thats not the case, however.

Do you disagree?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#58 Jul 30 2004 at 10:42 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
You needed a political discussion to come to this conclusion?!? I moved from Napa, CA to Minnesota, then proceeded to have a family, ensuring that I will never move back. And you needed my views on social welfare? ;)


Yep, you got me there. It was obvious from the beginning. ;)
#59 Jul 30 2004 at 10:42 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts


Do you honestly believe that? That certainly is not my philosophy at all. I generally lean on the Repulican side (I do not agree with everything the party stands for)and that statement is just absurd to me. I didn't just get "mine"... I worked hard for it. I payed my own way through college because I appreciated my goals more and it made me work harder. Sure there are places where individuals have it bad but believe it or not you can get yourself out of that situation if you put your mind to it and have the determination. Sure some have more advantages than others from the beginning but for those that don't should be an incentive for them to work that much harder and to be proud for what they accomplished. Hand-outs simply don't do that, and the "f*ck them" philosophy is just an easy way out.


How is it you think you benefit by voting Republican then?

I'm honestly curious. I don't see it in what you've written.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#60 Jul 30 2004 at 10:44 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

You needed a political discussion to come to this conclusion?!? I moved from Napa, CA to Minnesota, then proceeded to have a family, ensuring that I will never move back. And you needed my views on social welfare? ;)


Well, at least your vote is meaningless. If Kerry doesn't carry Minnesota he won't carry Massachussetts. It was in play a year ago, but now it's pretty much locked up for the Dems.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#61 Jul 30 2004 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
These include, but are not limited to [...] USPS
The post office is a social welfare program?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Jul 30 2004 at 10:47 AM Rating: Decent
It's almost a neurosis.

These people feel that "they've WORKED SO HARD", that they've done something that is of sooo much worth that helping anyone else would negate that.

It's sort of a mix of self-importance and stingyness and a bit of one-upmanship. It's neurotic.

Like Gbaji who claims that he's done this, done that, and asks why should he give any of his "hard-earned" money to these lazy people he sees all day?

I got news for you people....everyone who wants to eat in this ******* country, works. And you aren't any better than anyone else...and your money isn't anymore hard-earned that anyone else's.

So quit your frigging self-matyrdom already.
#63 Jul 30 2004 at 10:50 AM Rating: Decent
****
5,311 posts
Quote:
The post office is a social welfare program?
Why do you think there are many republicans who want to (and are in the process of) privatize postal service?
#64 Jul 30 2004 at 10:51 AM Rating: Decent
**
764 posts
Quote:
I got news for you people....everyone who wants to eat in this @#%^ing country, works. And you aren't any better than anyone else...and your money isn't anymore hard-earned that anyone else's.


I NEVER said I was better than anyone else. I am just saying generally most of the time people are able to pull themselves out of holes they have dug for themselves or others have dug for them... and when you work hard to pull yourself out you develop a sense of pride. Of course there are special cirmucumstances such as the disabled, psychological problems, etc. Which I and my fellow Repulican friends(locally) have sympathy for.

[i

Edited, Fri Jul 30 12:01:56 2004 by Pulseczar
#65 Jul 30 2004 at 10:52 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I got news for you people....everyone who wants to eat in this @#%^ing country, works. And you aren't any better than anyone else...and your money isn't anymore hard-earned that anyone else's.


It's not even that. I could understand if when Republicans were in office FICA and Soc Sec deductions halted on peoples paychecks or something and they actually had more money to work with.

That's not what happens, though. People continue to pay for welfare, Bush enacts a massive NEW Medicare entitlement guranteeing massive proffits for drug companies, but people will still vote for him...I guess I still don't understand it.

He does the diametric opposite of what you claim to be the issue they vote for him for, actually creating a program that takes more of their money to give to people as handouts, but they continue.

It would be like me voting to re-elect Clinton if he appointed 3 anti-roe pro death penalty SCOTUS justices who overturned Miranda.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#66 Jul 30 2004 at 10:58 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Why do you think there are many republicans who want to (and are in the process of) privatize postal service?
The post office hasn't received any tax money since the 70's; it's a corporation run under the auspice of the government. That's why people get in a tizzy when the USPS reports being in the black, because it's not actually supposed to be making profit, but rather meeting its own expenses.

In reality, the USPS tries to plan things so they get into the black for a few years, coast into the red and then raise stamp rates to get back into the black so the can start over. Trying to run the USPS as a zero sum operation would be impossible.

At any rate, I fail to see what's "welfare" about it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 Jul 30 2004 at 10:58 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
The reality is that you're paying for the poor either way.
I agree. This is the unfortunate fact of no one letting the New Deal come to an end.
Quote:
When you vote Republican you're paying for the very rich as well.
And if I vote Democrat, aside from the apocalypse beginning that very day, my tax rate would increase to pay for more programs that I am on principle opposed to, instead of having my tax dollars contribute to the creation of jobs through investment.
#68 Jul 30 2004 at 10:59 AM Rating: Decent
****
5,311 posts
Moebius wrote:
I think I have been quite clear on that. I disagree, at a fundamental level, with the idea of social welfare programs. These include, but are not limited to, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Head Start, USPS.
So you'll opt to not collect social security when you retire, correct?
#69 Jul 30 2004 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
At any rate, I fail to see what's "welfare" about it.

It was the tongue in cheek non sequiter at the end of a list to see who was paying attention.
#70 Jul 30 2004 at 11:03 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

And if I vote Democrat, aside from the apocalypse beginning that very day, my tax rate would increase to pay for more programs that I am on principle opposed to, instead of having my tax dollars contribute to the creation of jobs through investment


No Democrat is advocating increasing your tax rate unless you're making over $200k a year.

Bush created the new Medicare drug benefit at a cost of almost a trillion while cutting the highest marginal tax rates signfigantly. Coupled with the cut to the estate tax, and cuts in capital gains rates where do you think the money to fund it is going to come from?

Isn't that the very thing you voted for him to avoid?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#71 Jul 30 2004 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
So you'll opt to not collect social security when you retire, correct?

I will refuse social security on principle in the same manner as I would refuse to put my **** in a naked and insistant Heather Graham.
#72 Jul 30 2004 at 11:04 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

In reality, the USPS tries to plan things so they get into the black for a few years, coast into the red and then raise stamp rates to get back into the black so the can start over. Trying to run the USPS as a zero sum operation would be impossible.


They have a good cycling team too.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#73 Jul 30 2004 at 11:05 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I thought you were either being factious or else using something else that abbreviated to USPS and my original remark was tongue-in-cheek. But Yanari's comment interested me.

I did find a website of some people ******** about the postal rates going up and demanding that the USPS can't do that because they have wasteful spending. They don't, however, mention why they simply send all their mail via some other avenue and stop buying stamps if they hate the Post office so much. Then it collects zero dollars from them unlike if I had a grudge with, say, the Department of Motor Vehicles which is going to siphon my tax dollars regardless.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#74 Jul 30 2004 at 11:06 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
MoebiusLord the Flatulent wrote:
Smash is partly correct. The extent of the ferver with which I defend the right is more bait than anything else. But I do firmly believe that while "all men are created equal", they are also responsible for their own choices, and I shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes.


But it's not just a matter of being responsible for one's own choices. The point is that in a lot of cases, there are no choices. That's what "equal opportunity" means. Yes, there is an existing lower class in place. The lower class does not have the available education, social/health care in place that the middle and upper classes do. Sure, there are those who can "rise above the ghetto" and make more for themselves, but those are the exception, not the rule. You'd have to be very lucky, very gifted and able to exploit the system to break out of the status quo. When the lower class has school systems that are underfunded, understaffed and eventually shut down instead of revamped/reformed, there isn't much for them to do. The oppressio has been there for so long it's hard to get out of. Sure there were mistakes made in the past - does that mean they shouldn't be helped now? You're resigning the people already on the bottom to a harder fight to the top than others who are a lot further up anyways. When a baby is born in the ghetto, without proper health care and education, is that his fault? The fault of the crackwhore who was raised in the same ghetto in the same fashion? Who do you blame? Go back a few generations and say "this group of people were repressed and and ended up living in forsaken, ever-declining communities, so ***** anyone who comes from there"? We have to break this trend. We need to take a proactive stance and work on raising the standard of living for our own people.

Wow. What time is it? I need to get back to work...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#75 Jul 30 2004 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
where do you think the money to fund it is going to come from? Isn't that the very thing you voted for him to avoid?


He's a politician. No one is perfect. But I made more money last year and payed less in taxes than they year before. A little deficit is a good thing. Maybe to balance the budget we can cut welfare and medicaid.
#76 Jul 30 2004 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
****
6,730 posts
Quote:
That's not what happens, though. People continue to pay for welfare, Bush enacts a massive NEW Medicare entitlement guranteeing massive proffits for drug companies, but people will still vote for him...I guess I still don't understand it


It's things like this that boggles most non-republican minds. The guy not only does not do what he says he will do, he often does the opposite, yet if we disagree we are mindless liberals. This is why the so many so called liberals on this board get hostile when we are told we don't know what we are talking about. It's insulting to be called an idiot be a percieved idiot.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 389 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (389)