Eric Holder gets burned by Texas senator.

Post Reply New Topic

How many times must it be repeated? Dixiecrats were not liberal! They were conservatives with a D next to their name!

Also, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was arguably the forefather of the modern liberal movement. He was a trust-buster and an environmentalist. He was not the corporate big-business lackey today's Republicans are. You're particular brand of conservatism only goes back to Ronald Reagan and perhaps Barry Goldwater.


Apparently not allowing you to have your Christian beliefs institutionalized through government is atheistic oppression. In your bizarro world, telling you that you can't force your views down everyone's throat via government is the same as forcing a non-belief down your own throat. I simply have no response to this. By your logic it's either you or me getting something forced down our throat, in which case you don't admit the possibility for mutual tolerance and peaceful coexistence. It's simply your way or the high way. I suppose all politics ultimately comes down to this. But at least in this country we can vote to resolve our differences rather than having it come down to physical violence and other nastiness.

Oh, boy. I just have to rip this one to shreds. To begin with, you may want to check out my latest response to Arrant - I can't remember the second part of the handle - what it does is it outlines the true history of the liberal democrats in their support of slavery and their fight against civil rights - which as been documented by historians on both sides of the aisle.

Second - Since Eisenhower's enactment and enforcement of laws on the books placed into effect by Republican administrations and Republican dominated congresses and since the drastic changes made in the seventies and eighties, the minority complaints of "repression" have been truly false and nothing but hype. And if people woud truly educate themselves instead of watching football and drinking vast amounts of beer, this discussion wouldn't even be occuring.

Third - You welcome dissent as much as Hitler welcomed the Russians into Berlin. I cite your past posts as proof of that point. Your arrogant condescendtion and mockeries would make Obama proud. I have yet to meet any liberal that welcomes dissent at any time.

Fourth - You advocate larger government and more programs, huh? Now here's reality slapping that approach on the mat hard! From 1990 to 1994, I was an investigator for the Civilian Health and Medical Program for the Uniform Services (CHAMPUS), now known as Tri-Care. My biggest fraud case involved some $72.4 Billion defrauded tax dollars. And that was just one of 68 cases on my desk at any given time. There were, during my tenure, 115 investigators nationwide. The average amount of cases was also 68 per investigator. The average fraud case was worth $403 Million. Now do the math. 115 x 68 x $403 Million. None of this money ever gets recouped. This is nothing compared to what Medicare/Medicaid is now dealing with. And now Obama wants to create his own program with the only fraud control is one sentence saying fraud is illegal? Get real! White-collar crime may be the easiest crime to prove but it takes the longest to investigate. This is because you have to prove a series of patterns in a court of law. What's more, is, in order to control medical fraud, we would have to literally double the size of government as it is now - and even then - we will never recover the money. Now do you understand why we're in a deficit? Are so uneducated that you can't do simple math? This is the result of your programs. Oh, but there's more! Many of the people defrauding the government were paying off the very politicians supporting the programs! I've had to lock horns with Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas, and a number of other democrat wackos. Conversely, the rupblican attitude was, "If they're innocent, clear them. If they did it and they're found guilty - hang 'em high!" This stuff is all a matter of public record. My case was on 60 Minutes and 20/20.

Having said all of that, "What are you thinking?"

Longshanks

Since it got brought up- preserving the sanctity of marriage...I do not remember Giving cattle being mainstream anymore. How well has the sanctity of marriage really been preserved? Not all christians disagree with gay marriage, my family doesn't.

You have just proved yourself delusionsal. Get some help.

Longshanks

You're good! Staying in character, now that I've ripped your mask off

The irony meter is simply off the charts with you. Adding the odd "sir" here and there does not make your posts appear any more respectful or non-condescending. The most condescending thing of all is when you have to place your own imaginary thoughts and beliefs into other people's heads in order to shoot them down.

A law professor of mine once said "You can't explain crazy." This post in response to mine certainly falls into this catagory. To begin with, your so-called Dixie-crats advocated some pretty liberal stuff for their day to be called conservatives - and I cite the various bills they put through Congress as proof - and that is already on the record. I've seen some liberal lies but that one is a doozy!

Second, my brand of conservatism goes back to George Washington. Obvioulsy you have no idea what conservatisim really is. Oh, and Washington freed his slaves.

Third, after seeing your past posts, you're far from tolerant.

Longshanks

Ladies and Gentlemen, introducing Marshall, Master of Condescention and Intolerance. His response to me is proof.

Longshanks

Satire at its best.

Are you glorifying Marshall, or yourself?

You may want to look at my latest post to viasgrunt. You're not as claravoyant as you think.

Longshanks

I'll admit to my own condescension and intolerance. I don't believe in entering a gun fight with a knife or always turning the other cheek. But can you ever admit that you aren't Mr. Perfect and Mr. Holier Than Thou?

Thank you for wasting thirty seconds of my life that I shall never recover. However, its pointlessness cannot be overstated.



Criminalizing sex between members of the same sex is a false claim of repression? That one was on the books in some states until 2003--well past Eisenhower, last time I checked.

Depriving people in hospital of visits from those that they love is hype? That is still going on to this day in some parts of your country.

Depriving children of access to and guardianship by one of the parents that has raised them? Depriving the surviving member of a couple of inheritance of the family property that they have accumulated? Taking away medical benefits coverage and pension entitlements? These things are all happening, right now, in states throughout your country. And this is false and nothing but hype?

Put your self-satified feet into those shoes and walk a mile before you are so quick to categorize.



You should get out more. Meanwhile, welcoming dissent does not mean agreeing with it.

You might take note--I have tried carefully to ensure that I never attribute things to you personally. I have accused the leadership of your church of wantonly causing harm--but not you. I have accused your church of meddling in legal and political affairs--but not you. You, on the other hand, consistently make assumptions about my views, my emotions and my attitudes. If you cannot participate in a debate without resort to personal jibes, then perhaps you had best log off for a while.



Or perhaps you are in deficit because your legislature is so cowardly that they will not levy the taxes that are necessary to fund the level of government activity that your citizens expect. If you can't pay for medicare and social security from existing sources of funds, then the problem might not be that the programs are spending too much, but you aren't providing enough in taxes to fund them. Maybe the solution is not to cut spending, but to increase revenues.

As to what I am thinking that I live in a country which spends less government money per capita and less of it's GDP on public spending on health care than yours. And even though we spend fewer dollars and a smaller amount of our GDP, our public spending can provide medical insurance to every citizen, permanent resident, refugee claimant, temporary foreign work and foreign student in this country (and all of their dependents, too).

And at the end of the day, we outperform your health care system on most leading health indicators. We spend less, we accomplish more, and we do it with public spending.

We have a publicly managed pension system that is fully funded on a going-forward basis. We can continue to pay Canada Pension Plan benefits (the equivalent of your Social Security) to every single contributor without raising premium rates for 75 years. And the only reason we are limited to 75 years is that the actuaries can't figure out the period after that without the confidence intervals dropping off.

That's what I'm thinking.

Are programs like these the solution for your country? It's not for me to say. But they do stand for the principle that Government can play a proper role in the economic life of the country, and in some cases it can do it more efficiently and more effectively than the private sector.

Now, where's that ripping to shreds you were promising? I really don't mean to be condesending, but you are making it so tempting, and one of my faults is a lack of impulse control.

and that part is far from unique in so called "socialistic societies"

false dichotomy if there ever were one.

"Viasgrunt?" "Claravoyant?" Of course, you are deliberately misspelling words to cover your tracks. I'm onto you, Sweetie!

Go back under your bridge where u belong.....