My definition of the current Republican Party?

They're like opponents of the Pure Food & Drug Act of 1906 ...who were frozen in suspended animation and then dethawed 100 years later...

and elected to Congress by people taking Social Security checks, having Medicare pay their doctor bills, and drinking tap water checked by the EPA, talking about how much they "hate Big Gub'mint."


((BTW, just to save time, the rightwing response will be "Well, Democrats are a bunch of baby-killin', gun confiscatin', terr'urrist lovin' COMMUNISTS"....rather than any actual rejection of my defintion. ))

 

This is some pretty lame flamebait, Gorn. I'm not drawing SS, Medicare doesn't pay my doctor bills, and the EPA doesn't check my tap water.

And God forbid an American should subscribe to the principles of limited, fiscally responsible government that our Founders established. Better to subscribe to the "progressive" fondness for over-sized, over-intrusive, over-expensive government that their socialist friends in Europe devised.

 

GOP: People opposed to free stuff for moochers paid for by taxpayers.

 

Over intrusive government? You mean like government mandated (forced) ultrasounds to women whether they need it or not? Like the governor of Virginia (Republican party idol) does?

Maybe, you mean like oil welfare subsidies for fat cat executives that don't actually need them cause they're already fat?

Please direct me on which line of hypocrisy you subscribe to, and then perhaps a serious discussion of "over-sized, over-intrusive, over-expensive" government. (God forbid).

 

I'm pro-choice, RWF, and I never supported the vaginal ultrasound measure and all the other obstacles that the social conservatives in the Virginia GOP have proposed. It's my position that if the GOP wants to oppose abortion, they should just stick to opposing its funding by the government.

You realize that those subsidies go to pay for things like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program?

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energys...il-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/

Should we get rid of that?

Certainly, some corporate subsidies should be eliminated. I don't have a problem with that.

So, what's up with your opposition to the principles of limited, fiscally responsible government that our Founders established?

 

So when you turn 65 and "if" the Social Security checks start arriving at your mailbox....you're going to return them to the Government?

And when your doctor says "That'll be $5000, Mr. Talon. Do you want to write me a check or have me process it through your Medicare"....you'll pull out the checkbook and start writing???

And SOMEWHERE along the line in your water table....I'll bet the EPA or another Federal agency is involved. If by funds-in-kind to your State water and sewer management.

- - - Updated - - -

That include Social Security and Medicare, TC???

 

They also established the principles that women and non-property owners couldn't vote and blacks were 3/5ths of a person. Why is it SOME of their principles like that, are okay to ignore???

 

I think you are being a little unfair there - I mean, in the day the Democrats fought tooth and nail to keep slavery

 

If you liked that gratuitous swipe at Southerners be sure slap yourself in the face.

 

Very dishonest. Southern slavery-supporting types are the base of today's Republican Party, and everyone knows it.

 

Why would I return those checks? That money came out of my paychecks - it's not the government's money.

The health insurance that I purchase - not the government - would cover that.

I'm not sure the EPA or any other government agency has anything to do with the water I'm pulling out of the ground. However, I do know the EPA doesn't check my well water - I do that myself.

Incidentally, I don't have any problem with reasonable environmental regulations, and despite all the LW propaganda, I'm sure most Righties agree with me.

 

Certain "Southerners" need to get their acts together; they should be become more 'human' and get themselves better lined-up with the truest essence or spirit of America.

 

Yeah, most people who respond in this forum refuse to factor-in the "Dixiecrats"; it's as though they draw and 'blank' on the 1960's.

 

Nice deflection. Last I checked, I was referring to the principles of limited, fiscally responsible government. So, why are you and your fellow progs opposed to it, Gorn?

 

I don't think the Southerners who really need to get their acts together know what American thought and spirit is. They've embraced the thought and spirit of Europeans.

 

One thing we must pursue is a society where the well being of as many as possible matters; focusing upon a select few, is foolish.

 

That's the collectivist line of thought, and it's not the line of thought this nation was founded on. It's the line of thought the USSR was founded on.

In America, our first responsibility has been and should be to our individual selves. Individuals that can't or won't take care of themselves can't take care of other people. Putting the good of the collective before the good of the individual is putting the cart before the horse. Unfortunately, our Dear Leader and his comrades in the Democratic party either don't realize this or they don't want us to realize this.
.

 

Define "collectivist" (as YOU understand it). I can get you a textbook version, but I want to know what's in your mind as it pertains to the same.

 

My point is things change. The point I was refuting was the argument the Republicans supported the 3/5ths rule (Which actually is incorrect) The Democrats today are no more cut from the same cloth than the Republicans of a 150 years ago

 

"That include Social Security and Medicare, TC???"

Taxcutter says:
Up to the amount they paid in...no. Beyond that...yes.

 

The principle sounds wonderful, but with corporations and CEO's running wild, taking everything that can take under the same, well, telling others to be "responsible" rings a bit hollow for me

 

FTFY. Down with tyranny.

 

You can't kill tyranny. It just comes back collectivized.

 

No, but you can hang it, and use its head as a soccer ball.

 

ANother program that did nothing. The steady decline in food poisoning was not at all affected by the passage of that act. In fact, we had our worse years after it. During the Depression. Seems wealth is a better indicator of food quality, as every rich nation has high quality food, no matter if they have these programs or not, or if they are any different, it doesn't matter one bit.

Well, it does matter when it comes to conglomeration. To be a food processor and keep up with all the government BS, it pays to be very big, and use lots of chemicals in food etc...

Your FDA inspector will watch a cow bathe in (*)(*)(*)(*) for months. Then get slaughtered while covered in (*)(*)(*)(*). They will then mark it safe for consumption. The Jungle has nothing on the industrial food process that sprang up in its place. Refrigeration has had the biggest effect on food quality.