Obama already following in Kerry's footsteps?Follow

Without having read any other viewpoints, what else on Earth would you think he meant?

Edited, Feb 17th 2007 10:26am by Jophiel

Does anyone have the transcripts of the actual speech instead of paraphrasing bits with the word "wasted" in quotes? The two accounts tell very different stories.

There's a reason the story you linked wasn't even picked up by luminaries like Townhall.org, because it's preposterously biased and meaningless. None of this matters, of course, a darky can't become president in this country for at least 100 more years and then only if he's a Republican or whatever the appropriate knuckledragging conservative party of the moment is.

You know, not all conservatives are knuckle draggers, and not all Republicans are morons either...most are just as blind as the Democrat faithful.

I agree with the statement about Fox and AOL. Neither are reliable, but information can be gained from either, but then again, I throw all media sources in with them because they all are biased.

No, that is being honest, because MANY if not MOST conservatives contribute to the betterment of mankind out of their personal monies and time as well. To say otherwise is being dishonest.

The major difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives want a smaller government, and tend to contribute private funds to charities vs. liberals wanting larger governments to do the donating for them.

Yeah, it's a broad brush I just painted with, but no different than you, Smash. I paint the majority of the populace as being willing to help others (and polls indicate this), where you would like to think that all of us that are conservative are selfish bastards that don't want to help anyone. I'd like to remind you that FAR more private donations went into aid programs for Asia, the Mid East, and U.S. based needs than ANY goverment money. That's the way it should be. I'd like more of my money to stay on my paycheck so that I can give it where I see fit. I don't want you to give my money away, where I know I could do a better job of it.

This just pissed me off after re-reading it. Your statement is FALSE. Those that contribute to charity help those less fortunate at personal cost (to themselves is redundant).

Democrats (most) want to take everyone elses monies to do help others (the famous "tax the rich more" filth being spewed by Hil and co.). Plain and simple, if you want your government to excede it's allowed grasp and take your money to give to someone else, no matter how noble the cause, you are a socialist. If you want your government to leave your money in your pocket, so that YOU can decide what to do with it, you're a Constitutionalist (well on this matter anyway).

No, that is being honest, because MANY if not MOST conservatives contribute to the betterment of mankind out of their personal monies and time as well. To say otherwise is being dishonest.


I'm saying otherwise, and being honest. Without government forcing them to, people don't give anything approaching enough to charity to keep people from starving to death. It's no where near close at all.

Sorry.



The major difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives want a smaller government, and tend to contribute private funds to charities vs. liberals wanting larger governments to do the donating for them.


No, the major difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives want to spend money without collecting any and want controlling civil liberties eroding laws and policies.



Yeah, it's a broad brush I just painted with, but no different than you, Smash.


Aside from being completely inaccurate and a ludicrous fantasy based on as much fact as my pet unicorn's dinner, you're right. No different.



I paint the majority of the populace as being willing to help others (and polls indicate this)

I'm sure they're willing, they just *don't*.


, where you would like to think that all of us that are conservative are selfish bastards that don't want to help anyone.


No, I'm sure you want to, just as I'm equally sure you won't. Good intentions don't feed anyone.



I'd like to remind you that FAR more private donations went into aid programs for Asia, the Mid East, and U.S. based needs than ANY goverment money.

Patently false by any measure.


That's the way it should be. I'd like more of my money to stay on my paycheck so that I can give it where I see fit. I don't want you to give my money away, where I know I could do a better job of it.

That's a nice fantasy. Maybe someday when the gumdrop rains wash away the hazy chocolate covered residue from the diamond trees it'll actually apply at all to reality.

Even then though, it'd be a stretch.

Your statement about national defense, that's covered under the Constitution of the United States.

Do I need to dig up more?

Evidence to support my case? Nope. You're doing a fine job.


Your statement about national defense, that's covered under the Constitution of the United States.

You mean right before it states that Congress has the power to levy taxes for the GENERAL WELFARE of the people? I know it does. I'm fuzzy on how that would effect if it was socialism or not by your arbitrary ignorant whack job definition.

If I could predict how uneducated suckers with no actual grasp of political or socio-economic theories would define things I'd be less likely to ask. To be fair though, probably not that less likely as it'd still be funny.

Huh? Who is the United States if not the people?

I can't decide if asinine or obtuse is the best word.

Both are less accurate than cUnt.