Page 2 of 2 [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Dec 2010, 1:25 pm

marshall wrote:

I'm not saying we shouldn't cut spending. I'm just saying the Repugs are bloody hypocrites. The bastards only make a huge effing fuss about spending when the spending goes to help people. They don't break into chicken little hysteria about wasteful spending that suits their interests such as Ray-guns missile defense program (an epic fail).



Cant and hypocrisy are an integral part of American politics. Grin and bear it.

ruveyn



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

24 Dec 2010, 4:11 pm

marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
It seems the standard protocol for republicans is to go into a chicken little sky is falling hysteria on how the federal government is completely "broke" and can't afford anything regarding social welfare. I think the people who voted against this aught to have their government benefits and government paycheck slashed to help pay for the bill.


What happens when the amount of money the government owes exceeds the gross domestic product?

What happens when we owe more than we can ever earn?

It is time for our government to spend less than it takes in in taxes. One place to cut is our excessive military spending. That is something like 1/3 of the budget. Another place to cut is subsidies and bail-outs to businesses that no longer function. Let them go bankrupt and recycle their material assets to be better producers. Another place to cut is to stop spending money to keep people idle. One place to spend is to reward businesses that hire people to perform productive labor in producing services and making stuff that people can and will buy.

If the Netherlands could recover from the tulip bulb fever of the 17th century, we can recover from the madness of the last 70 or 80 years. Part of that madness is the doctrine of Perpetual War. We cannot afford war. We should only do war when the alternative is anihilation.


I'm not saying we shouldn't cut spending. I'm just saying the Repugs are bloody hypocrites. The bastards only make a huge effing fuss about spending when the spending goes to help people. They don't break into chicken little hysteria about wasteful spending that suits their interests such as Ray-guns missile defense program (an epic fail).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2010/space-101216-inhofe01.htm
Republicans believe the government's role is defending the rights of citizens and defending the nation. How is it hypocritical? Or did you take their "Less government" philosophy too literally and crated a false dichotomy?



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

24 Dec 2010, 4:20 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Republicans believe the government's role is defending the rights of citizens



That's just straight up a load of diuretic BS.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

24 Dec 2010, 4:52 pm

A thief who steals your car is violating your rights, therefore the government's role is to get the cops to arrest the person who violated them.

Rights are spelled out by the constitution and the law, I didn't put any spin on that word. I don't give a s**t about what that word means to anyone or what you consider real rights, I used it in the most literal sense so let's not argue semantics and open a can of s**t worms.

I'm not talking about moral rights, I'm talking about legal rights.

How is it a load of diuretic BS? He's saying it's hypocritical that Republicans want to reduce spending on social programs, yet increase spending on a missile defense program. It would be hypocritical if Republicans were about less government in all aspects of issues. But since Republicans believe the government's role is to protect the right of citizens and protect the nation from attacks from other nations, how is that incongruent with their belief in the government's role?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

24 Dec 2010, 6:52 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
A thief who steals your car is violating your rights, therefore the government's role is to get the cops to arrest the person who violated them.

Rights are spelled out by the constitution and the law, I didn't put any spin on that word. I don't give a sh** about what that word means to anyone or what you consider real rights, I used it in the most literal sense so let's not argue semantics and open a can of sh** worms.

I'm not talking about moral rights, I'm talking about legal rights.

How is it a load of diuretic BS? He's saying it's hypocritical that Republicans want to reduce spending on social programs, yet increase spending on a missile defense program. It would be hypocritical if Republicans were about less government in all aspects of issues. But since Republicans believe the government's role is to protect the right of citizens and protect the nation from attacks from other nations, how is that incongruent with their belief in the government's role?


Republicans are pretty much on record as fighting social programs because they care little for citizens who are in real trouble for lack of jobs or debilitating illnesses or maintaining the infrastructure. The whole missile defense business is a scam since any half assed attack can easily evade all the missile defense systems now devised. Beyond that the end of the cold war destroyed all reasons for a massive missile attack and the billions thrown away for imaginary fears are the result of the armament manufacturers' lobbies which contribute to congressional election funds.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

24 Dec 2010, 9:39 pm

Quote:
How is it a load of diuretic BS? He's saying it's hypocritical that Republicans want to reduce spending on social programs, yet increase spending on a missile defense program. It would be hypocritical if Republicans were about less government in all aspects of issues. But since Republicans believe the government's role is to protect the right of citizens and protect the nation from attacks from other nations, how is that incongruent with their belief in the government's role?

Perhaps hypocritical isn't the right word. I should have said cynical and hateful. It's telling that conservatives are always complaining loudly about social programs that don't apply to them. It's always welfare this and welfare that. They're so concerned about "less worthy" people supposedly getting a "free ride". They don't talk about wasteful spending in other areas of government. No, they have to take out their hate on some faceless foe.