When is enough enough, liberals?

[Wehrwolfen]

By DrJohn
10-09-13

image courtesy swordattheready.com

Flopping Aces has extensively documented the pain Barack Obama has chosen to inflict on this country because his highness is displeased that his servants in the GOP refuse to kneel.

It seems that Obama still has the pedal to the metal screaming down Agony Avenue in the Hurt Limo.

Priests in the military apparently have been banned from serving mass. I they do try to perform a mass, they will be subject to arrest.

(Excerpt)

Read more:
When is enough enough, liberals? | Flopping Aces


Each of Obama's choices have been to inflict pain upon the PEOPLE of AMERICA not the Federal government. It's not Congress, but Obama's Senate led by Harry Reid. The definition of a "Clean Bill" according to Obama is to give him everything he wants. Not what the Congress or People want.

 

[Redress]

DrJohn, the definitive source of information...for those who don't want to be bothered to think for themselves and will buy into anyone telling them what they want to hear, even when it has no basis in reality...

 

[jaeger19]

By DrJohn
10-09-13

image courtesy swordattheready.com

Flopping Aces has extensively documented the pain Barack Obama has chosen to inflict on this country because his highness is displeased that his servants in the GOP refuse to kneel.

It seems that Obama still has the pedal to the metal screaming down Agony Avenue in the Hurt Limo.

Priests in the military apparently have been banned from serving mass. I they do try to perform a mass, they will be subject to arrest.



(Excerpt)

Read more:
When is enough enough, liberals? | Flopping Aces


Each of Obama's choices have been to inflict pain upon the PEOPLE of AMERICA not the Federal government. It's not Congress, but Obama's Senate led by Harry Reid. The definition of a "Clean Bill" according to Obama is to give him everything he wants. Not what the Congress or People want.

Seriously man.. you need to read the facts. the democrats had already agreed to the cuts that the republicans wanted.. In fact they still agree to cuts below the Ryan budget even.. (that's the clean bill you refer too)... it was the Republicans that went back and refused unless Obamacare was defunded.

Which as a conservative makes absolutely no sense... so you want to defund Obamacare? Which puts the mandate still in place..but eliminates the tax credits for business and individuals to purchase healthcare insurance?
And why? because you don't like the bill... Well I got it.. and I agree... but quite frankly.. pushing us into another recession because you are afraid what Obamacare "might do" down the road is the largest intellectual disconnect.

 

[Comunitee]

Enough will be enough... when all have enough.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough for those who have little."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

I can't make it any more simple than that.

Liberals are committed to that principle.

Conservatives are committed to its opposite.

Conservatism doesn't merely not work, it is inherently selfish, and therefore it is evil.

 

[Kobie]

Yet another thread of conservative misinformation, innuendo and outright lies, courtesy of Wehrwolfen.

 

[pbrauer]

Each of Obama's choices have been to inflict pain upon the PEOPLE of AMERICA not the Federal government. It's not Congress, but Obama's Senate led by Harry Reid. The definition of a "Clean Bill" according to Obama is to give him everything he wants. Not what the Congress or People want.

How about having The Speaker put that clean bill up for a vote so we can actually see if Congress wants it or not?

 

[Henrin]

Enough will be enough... when all have enough.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough for those who have little."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

How is making everyone pay for the poor progress? I thought protecting the rights of people was progress.

Conservatism doesn't merely not work, it is inherently selfish, and therefore it is evil.

I think using the domain of force of the state to take the property of people to assist other people is evil.

 

[Linc]

This thread is appropriate for what I am currently excreting on the throne, while using my IPhone.
Too bad the OP is blocked when I'm logged in.
Being a guest or timing out solves that.

 

[Comunitee]

nough will be enough... when all have enough.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough for those who have little."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

How is making everyone pay for the poor progress? I thought protecting the rights of people was progress.

Conservatives don't do that, either.

Making everyone pay for the poor is progress because, right now, the payments being made to lift people out of poverty isn't enough.

*

Conservatism doesn't merely not work, it is inherently selfish, and therefore it is evil.

I think using the domain of force of the state to take the property of people to assist other people is evil.

When that property is, itself, unfairly obtained, it is evil. So is favoring property over people.

Conservatism is about property. Liberalism is about people.

Liberalism is about everybody's rights. Conservatism is about "My rights, and only my rights, and screw you."

 

[APACHERAT]

DrJohn, the definitive source of information...for those who don't want to be bothered to think for themselves and will buy into anyone telling them what they want to hear, even when it has no basis in reality...

You quoted MSNBC.

 

[Redress]

You quoted MSNBC.

Where?

 

[Henrin]

Conservatives don't do that, either.

I never said they did.

Making everyone pay for the poor is progress because, right now, the payments being made to lift people out of poverty isn't enough.

When that property is, itself, unfairly obtained, it is evil. So is favoring property over people.

Conservatism is about property. Liberalism is about people.

Liberalism is about everybody's rights. Conservatism is about "My rights, and only my rights, and screw you."

What is property that is unfairly obtained or for that matter fairly obtained? I would think the only way to measure this would be to call property that is taken without the permission of it's owner unfairly obtained, but somehow I doubt that is how you're using it. If that was how you saw it then you would have to agree the gains that one gets from forced charity are unfairly obtained. Of course, I have little doubt that you disagree with that.

The property that one owns is an extension of their person and as they have the right to protect their person they have the right to protect their property. Since government has the duty to protect the property of people it makes little sense to say that they should in turn take the property of people to give benefits to other people. Such a thing would lead to very clear contradiction of duties.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Seriously man.. you need to read the facts. the democrats had already agreed to the cuts that the republicans wanted.. In fact they still agree to cuts below the Ryan budget even.. (that's the clean bill you refer too)... it was the Republicans that went back and refused unless Obamacare was defunded.

Which as a conservative makes absolutely no sense... so you want to defund Obamacare? Which puts the mandate still in place..but eliminates the tax credits for business and individuals to purchase healthcare insurance?
And why? because you don't like the bill... Well I got it.. and I agree... but quite frankly.. pushing us into another recession because you are afraid what Obamacare "might do" down the road is the largest intellectual disconnect.

Really? Then why has Hairy Reid blocked passage of the numerous Congressional Budgetary Bills. Obama has called for what he says is a "Clean Bill" giving him everything he wants.

 

[MaggieD]

DrJohn, the definitive source of information...for those who don't want to be bothered to think for themselves and will buy into anyone telling them what they want to hear, even when it has no basis in reality...

Didn't you just post something to me yesterday?! about attacking the source when you don't like the information? Is what the guy says true? Or not. That's the important thing, isn't it?

 

[Redress]

Didn't you just post something to me yesterday?! about attacking the source when you don't like the information? Is what the guy says true? Or not. That's the important thing, isn't it?

It is an editorial, not a news article. There is a large, unsubtle difference.

 

[APACHERAT]

Making everyone pay for the poor is progress because, right now, the payments being made to lift people out of poverty isn't enough.

*

Conservatism doesn't merely not work, it is inherently selfish, and therefore it is evil.



When that property is, itself, unfairly obtained, it is evil. So is favoring property over people.

Conservatism is about property. Liberalism is about people.

Liberalism is about everybody's rights. Conservatism is about "My rights, and only my rights, and screw you."

So only spending $15 TILLION DOLLARS on the "War on Poverty" isn't enough and someone gets a "screw you."

 

[nota bene]

I never said they did.



What is property that is unfairly obtained or for that matter fairly obtained? I would think the only way to measure this would be to call property that is taken without the permission of it's owner unfairly obtained, but somehow I doubt that is how you're using it. If that was how you saw it then you would have to agree the gains that one gets from forced charity are unfairly obtained. Of course, I have little doubt that you disagree with that.

The property that one owns is an extension of their person and as they have the right to protect their person they have the right to protect their property. Since government has the duty to protect the property of people it makes little sense to say that they should in turn take the property of people to give benefits to other people. Such a thing would lead to very clear contradiction of duties.

Tell that to the municipalities who are, IMO, abusing the notion of "eminent domain," sigh.

 

[MaggieD]

It is an editorial, not a news article. There is a large, unsubtle difference.

See, that would have been the right answer to, "Is the OP a news article or an editorial."

But that wasn't what I asked.

 

[TheNextEra]

So only spending $15 TILLION DOLLARS on the "War on Poverty" isn't enough and someone gets a "screw you."

It's about as successful as the war on drugs that the conservatives like to throw money at.

 

[Kobie]

It is an editorial, not a news article. There is a large, unsubtle difference.

Not only that, but the claims made within are ... specious, at best.

 

[APACHERAT]

Where?

MSNBC.

Now the right is going to jump all over me for watching MSNBC. I only watch it for the laughs.

 

[Perotista]

This thread is appropriate for what I am currently excreting on the throne, while using my IPhone.
Too bad the OP is blocked when I'm logged in.
Being a guest or timing out solves that.

Hey Buddy, Both Sabato and Cook update their out look on the house today, 9 October.
Sabato has 6 D seats and 3 R seats in the toss up column
he also has 13 R seats in the lean R column and 19 D seats in the lean Democrat column which means as of today, Sabato sees 16 R seats and 24 D seats in play.

Cook lists 205 R seats as solid Republican and 163 D seats as solid Democratic
Cook has 27 R seats that lean Republican and 29 D seats that lean Democratic. Both the R and D seats are more than Sabato's.
Toss ups 2 R seats and 9 D seats. So Cook has one less R seat and 3 more D seats

Just thought these latest numbers might be of interest as they now take the shut down into play.

 

[Redress]

MSNBC.

Now the right is going to jump all over me for watching MSNBC. I only watch it for the laughs.

Where did I quote MSNBC? And a link to the source please. You tend to make things up too often for me to take you at your word.

 

[polgara]

Hey Buddy, Both Sabato and Cook update their out look on the house today, 9 October.
Sabato has 6 D seats and 3 R seats in the toss up column
he also has 13 R seats in the lean R column and 19 D seats in the lean Democrat column which means as of today, Sabato sees 16 R seats and 24 D seats in play.

Cook lists 205 R seats as solid Republican and 163 D seats as solid Democratic
Cook has 27 R seats that lean Republican and 29 D seats that lean Democratic. Both the R and D seats are more than Sabato's.
Toss ups 2 R seats and 9 D seats. So Cook has one less R seat and 3 more D seats

Just thought these latest numbers might be of interest as they now take the shut down into play.

Pero, just to make sure I understand what you are saying....

Toss up means they could truly go either way?

Lean also means they could go either way, but likely would go they way they have before?

Solid is self-explanatory.

 

[Henrin]

Tell that to the municipalities who are, IMO, abusing the notion of "eminent domain," sigh.

I don't agree with eminent domain. I agree that someone needs to resell the property when there is no heirs, and that the government needs a way to acquire land, but this idea that they can just take whatever they want while offering you whatever they desire in return is one that is not fit for an entity sworn with the duty of protecting the property of people.