My definition of the current Republican Party?

Progressive social experimentation is the definition of Statism where force of government is needed to make everyone comply. It is the Statists that still fight for race based legislation in this country and you would be hard pressed to accuse a Republican of that.

 

"No free stuff" is part of "smaller government."

 

No, conservatism is the definition of statism where force of government is needed to make everyone comply with traditional rules, and refrain from altering all existing social arrangements, class structures, and racial hierarchies, in the name of "God's Law."

 

That would be a theocracy. How exactly does decentralizing power give more of a need for a strong government?

 

LOL seriously?!
This is what you said:
"Nobody is telling anybody "what" to drink. Bloomberg is telling people how much they can drink"
Ohhhhh geeeee thats wayyy better. Hes only telling us how much we can drink. Ohhh wow I have no problem with this anymore. Since you want to split hairs Ill split them even further.
A 128oz MT DEW is technically a different drink than a 16OZ. If they werent you wouldnt need to specify the size when ordering, they would already know. See how irritating it is when people split hairs rather than focus on the actual issue which is a filthy liberal thinking they can tell you what food item you can and cannot put into your own body.

 

It's called accuracy. You should try it sometime instead of attributing things that are simply false and undermine your own credibility. A bartender might tell a person he won't serve him any more alcohol if he thinks the person has had too much. Since the person is likely to stagger out of the bar and drive his car into a tree, or worse...another person it's the right thing to do. You of course would complain that this is an example of the "nanny state" mentality of the left...even if the bartender happens to be a member or the Tea Party. What the bartender did not do is tell him "what" he could drink. It might be beer, it might be bourbon, it might be gin. There is a difference and you should be aware of it. Bloomberg hasn't told people what to drink, he's put a limit on the "amount" of whatever it is they want to drink when buying it from some store. I'm sure that when you're at home, you can guzzle as much of that crap as you like until your teeth fall out, and you develop type 2 diabetes, which of course is your business. You're more than welcome to be a total pig as far as I'm concerned. Think you've got that straight now? BTW...Bloomberg is not a liberal. He's also instituted "Stop and Frisk" which is nothing more than racial profiling. Hardly something supported by Liberals. Where do you stand on that?

No it isn't. It's still a Mountain Dew. And you know it. And so does everyone else. A bottle of Bud or a Keg of Bud is still Bud. The quantity doesn't change the brand. It only changes the amount of consumption.

So now because I corrected your obvious mistake, which everyone can see, including you...you need to resort to the term "filthy liberal". Does that mean that I'm a "filthy liberal" as well, for pointing out your error? You're irritated over that FACT that you were wrong in your comment about Bloomberg telling people what they can drink, when the truth is that it's about the amount of what they drink, and of course being the conservative that you are ( or should that be "filthy conservative"??) have to resort to an ad hominem response. Your capacity for hate is on display here you know. Try getting your facts straight and you won't have this problem of running into people like me that are going to hold your comments up to scrutiny.

 

Not only do Republicans engage in race based legislation, but gender based legislation as well. Race based is on display right now with attempts at voter suppression of minorities through voter ID laws targeting minorities. A 92 year old black woman in NC who has been voting for 70 years, is now forced to provide another form of ID that she doesn't have. Voting days are reduced from 17 to 10 days. What does that have to do with voter fraud, which doesn't even exist in NC or anywhere else for that matter? When the Supreme Court struck down section 4 of the voting rights act, the very states that it was designed to put under a microscope wasted no time in illustrating to the entire country, why they were being scrutinized in the first place, and why the voting rights act was necessary. The argument made is...Look at us. We haven't had any problems with voter suppression, since the voting rights act was passed. So we don't need it anymore. That's like walking in the rain with an umbrella...and since you aren't getting wet...closing it.

The Republicans also engage in Gender based legislation, where state legislatures that are Republican controlled are requiring women to undergo forced trans-vaginal ultra sounds despite any doctor requiring it. The state is now overruling the doctor on health issues that are between a woman and her Doctor. It's Republicans doing that. Not Democrats. That's Government intrusion in the most graphic sense. Big Big Ultra Sound Big Government. And it's all based on a self-righteous religious attitude by Republicans who demand that their morality be imposed on every woman in the state.

And of course a state like North Carolina opposes same sex marriage, so they have a lot in common with Russia now as I'm sure you've heard. The people of NC and conservatives in general have a lot in common with Putin. They hate gays and so does he. Who knew that Conservatives would be tight with the Russions on anything? Then again, if you listen to nothing but Fox you probably haven't.

As a final touch, they passed a law prohibiting Sharia Law from being applied in their state. I hear their next piece of legislation is to require "leash laws for Unicorns".

 

The capacity for hate is illustrated when individuals amongst us, filthy ones, think they can tell another individual how much and what they can and cannot eat or drink. Sure you are saying they are not telling you cant have a mt dew. They are just telling you, you cant drink a lot even if you want to. The liberal mind is fascinating to watch chug away. Last time telling you. Hope it sinks in. If I want a large soda WITH SUGAR (dreaded music here. da da duhhhh) and I am told you can only have a small one........you have just told me what beverage I can and cannot have. I want a large beverage not a small. Is this sinking in. Split the hair, but you are factually incorrect. A large beverage is different than a small, it comes in a different cup, is ordered differently, is labelled differently and is priced differetly because it is different. If you tell someone you cant have a large soda but you can have a small you have just determined what soda they can and cannot drink.
Here lets illustrate because I see baby steps are needed.
Bloomberg rules in place
One 8oz mt dew is on the table next to a 64oz mt dew. I want the 64oz. According to you since they are both identical how can bloomberg stop me from drinking the 64oz? Seeing as how you say they are identical.
In your mind I havent been infringed upon since nanny state said I could still drink the small one.
How about I tell you you can only by 1 gallon of gas per week. Thats the same as a full tank right? Its still gas why would you disagree?

 

Hah. Conservatives really want a very strong government. They just want it to be defending the status quo, quashing dissent, and using draconian force against minorities. For the last, look at all the giant threads on this board cheering violence against blacks and Muslims, and calling for more.

 

Ah, I am glad you bring of voter ID and how you play it as a racial issue; thereby, showing that you think less of minorities than Republicans do and proving that you are biased against minorities. Republicans believe that minorities are smart enough to get an ID, you don't.

Also, you conveniently leave out the fact that anti abortion Republicans are against murder, not women. Aren't you against murder?

I understand that you want to "fundamentally change America" like Obama because you do not like the country but your Statist idea of forcing everyone to believe as you do is more in line with Russia than anything else.

After your whole diatribe you then defend Islam, the most intolerant religion on earth that stands for everything you claim to be against. How disconnected from reality is that?

 

I don't believe in free stuff, but I do believe in return of stolen property.

Once individual income gets into the six figure range a lot of that is not earned, but rather made off the backs of others.

There are a few people that are capable of earning as much as 500,000 a year on their own merit, but virtually all of anything above that has been made off other people's backs. I consider that theft, and I consider it the governments responsibility to confiscate that property via high rates of taxation and return it to those from which it was stolen.

Take that back to your Bossman.

 

Can't you tell the difference between defending Islam, and scoffing at silly legislative posturing? There will never be Sharia law in an American state unless the legislature passes it. So all they have to do to not have Sharia law is nothing. Further, a legislature can't bind itself with a law it passes. If they later pass something different, the first law has no effect.

I'd say you're disconnected from reality here, but I think it's more that you'll throw mud if you think you have some.

 

The push will never end as seen in the UK. If you think things cannot change here then you have ignored the last four years.

 

Whatever. Scoffing at silly Republicans remains a different thing than 'defending Islam.'

 

"Once individual income gets into the six figure range a lot of that is not earned, but rather made off the backs of others."

Taxcutter says:
What a load of malarkey!

Either you are intensely envious of anybody who does what he/she has to be successful or you are just throwing another mindless diversion out there to divert attention from the egregious failures of the Democrats.

 

Why should I? He here's enough out right lies adself serving BS witout meadding to his stack.

 

Ah yes...we all know about the Republicans soft spot for minorities, which is exactly why they overwhelmingly won the minority vote in the past several elections. Oh yeah...they didn't did they? You seem to think that you can prove your nonsense, with more nonsense. The Republicans overwhelmingly lost the Black vote, the Hispanic vote, the Asian vote, the women's vote, the gay vote, the youth vote. In fact, they lost the election because minorities when put together were actually a majority. You don't win the vote of minorities by insulting them, calling them names and directing your stereotypes at them. That's not how you win friends or influence people. Minorities know all too well, who stands against them, and they show it at the polls. The Democratic Party is made up entirely of minorities. That's because that's what America looks like. The Repugs on the other hand; seem to have an image problem as you can see.



And then you actually take the absurd position that changing the rules to target minorities somehow equates to the assumption that it implies that they aren't smart to simply allow this kind of crap to go on without pointing out what the Repugnants are attempting to do.

That's a moral position based on your supposed "values" which not everyone shares. You can't even demonstrate what makes that view true. Most rational people do not consider this murder. And directing your morality at women that make this decision as it relates to them and NOT YOU... is typical of your hypocritical position on "Big Government". You would have the Government make that decision for them. What is that morality based on? It's based on a religious view. And your religion is irrelevant when it comes to other peoples rights. You haven't come to grips with that yet, but you should. Nobody cares about your religious or moral views. We don't legislate religion in this country. You have us confused with Saudi Arabia or Iran.

From your narrow minded concept of taking us back 200 years?? Yeah we do. That's not leading, that's wrapping yourself in the past. And you completely miss the point by stating that anybody is attempting to "force" anybody to believe as we do. The object here is to encourage people to think whatever they choose. Ahhh....there's that word choice again. We already know your position on matters of choice. And yes...you now share the same views as the Russians on homo-sexuality and the human rights of gays. You're also in line with Iran and other theocratic and autocratic societies around that world. Congrats...It's back to the Future with the Repugnants.

I defended Islam?? Where did I do that?? You mean this statement; "As a final touch, they passed a law prohibiting Sharia Law from being applied in their state. I hear their next piece of legislation is to require "leash laws for Unicorns". That wasn't a defense of Islam dude. That was a slam on feeble minded morons that actually think that Sharia Law would EVER have a chance of being implemented in this country. The reference to "leash laws for Unicorns" should have tipped you off. It would never happen any more than offering a law for a non-existent animal. Obviously that went right over your head. We don't even legislate Christian or Biblical Law in this country. What on earth would ever make anybody think that Sharia of all things would ever be tolerated as a basis for law in this country. Again its another example of looking for a solution to a non-existent problem, and a waste of peoples time and money. Nothing new for Repugs, but your inability to see that and then imply that somehow this indicates a defense of something is an example of the inability of the conservative to grasp the most basic concepts. Apparently it's a bit too abstract for you.

Pretty disconnected alright.

 

Maybe they should try to figure out just who Tom Joad was.

 

Targeting minorities, the left wing talking point invented by the left wing to make sure dead people could still vote in Chicago.

 

Went right over his head.

Repugs are not part of the "reality based community". They live in a bubble of their own creation.

 

Speaking of bubbles, how is that left wing utopian War on Poverty working out?

 

Two things you need to understand. 1. We are not the UK, and 2. demonstrators in the UK are simply that. Demonstrators. That doesn't = a change in the UK. It means that a small minority of religious crazies is making their voices heard. Kind of like here.

 

The UK didn't used to have this problem either. It is a teaching moment for anyone that can pay attention.

 

He hasn't figured that out yet. It takes a while for Repugs to grasp sarcasm.

 

Oh yeah! A question that would lead to much more enlightenment than that one about that Galt guy....