The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: jinxmchue on March 23, 2010, 01:54:04 PM
-
On Facebook, I made mention that I only filled out the number of people living here on my census form. I wrote:
Mailed our census form out today. Guess how much of it I filled out.
To which a left-of-center friend responded:
The space that says I will listen to anything Michelle Bachmann says?
Which prompted me to write this:
Shouldn't we listen to what everyone says and decide whether or not we agree with them? But no, I did not make my decision about the census based on what Michele Bachmann has said about it. In fact, until just now, I did not know what she had said about it.
When my census form arrived, plastered on the front of the envelope in big, bold letters was "YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW." That along with the very intrusive questions put me off a bit and I decided to do some research. I searched for that phrase and found that the law in question is Title 13 of the United States Code -- a lesser set of laws than the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution protects my right to privacy and limits the government to collecting only the count of people in this country for the census. From that, I decided that I am only required by law to provide the count of people living in my home. No one else influenced my decision.
Now, you can certainly go on believing that I'm some mindless Republican twit who bases all of my political decisions on what Bachmann, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh or some other person you don't particularly like says, but it's not the truth. I hardly ever watch TV (and when I do, it's 99% entertainment) and when I listen to the radio, it's primarily Christian music.
You can also certainly go on believing that I am only doing this because the Democrats control Washington, but that, too, is not the truth. If the Republicans controlled Washington, I'd have made the same decision. I don't trust anyone in government and very few people outside of government with my right to privacy.
Finally, you can go on believing that the government -- no matter who controls it -- is, at worst, some innocuous force or, at best, the purveyor of all things beneficial to the American people, but that's not how I view it nor is it how the Founding Fathers viewed it -- and they created it! They viewed the government as a necessary evil that needed to be severely limited as to prevent its intrusion on our God-given rights. What we saw this past Sunday was a gross violation of those principles. We now have a government that can force us under penalty of law to purchase a product (i.e. health care). Pandora's box has been opened, and Pelosi, Reid and many other Democrats are gleeful about what they now have free reign to accomplish. I personally shudder at the thought of that as I would had Republicans been in their places. Government needs to be limited or it will eventually run our lives. We've seen it happen before elsewhere and unless we do something soon -- say, in November -- we will see it happen here.
-
Excellent response, jinx. Even-tempered, rational, thoughtful. :cheersmate:
-
:clap: :clap: :clap:
-
I saw that but I thought that it was praise for her. It is hard to tell sometimes with idiots. There is no way to see the sarcasm.
-
He changed the subject!
I hate to admit it, but I've filled out census forms since 1980. This one didn't appear to have many different questions than the others. I'm glad you weren't following Bachmann's advice. I don't share your concern about the Health care plan. I am more concerned about the ramifications of the war we were coerced into. Talk about being gleeful. Mission Accomplished? Right.
:whatever:
-
He changed the subject!
:whatever:
:lmao:
-
Here's his rationale, such as it is, for changing the subject:
I believe you took it from the census to talk about the "gleeful Democrats" and the health care reform. I took the natural progression of the discussion to the "gleeful Republicans" and their war.
"Natural progression." Riiiiiiiight. My response:
That's not a natural progression and the latter part isn't even true. I will not go down this road beyond stating this: Bush isn't president anymore and the Republicans are not in power in Congress. If Obama and the congressional Democrats truly stood against our presences in Afghanistan and Iraq, they'd have pulled all the troops out en masse long before now. Sorry, but if it wasn't their war before (which it was due to them having to vote in approval of it), it would be their war now, too.
-
Here's his rationale, such as it is, for changing the subject:
"Natural progression." Riiiiiiiight. My response:
Quote
That's not a natural progression and the latter part isn't even true. I will not go down this road beyond stating this: Bush isn't president anymore and the Republicans are not in power in Congress. If Obama and the congressional Democrats truly stood against our presences in Afghanistan and Iraq, they'd have pulled all the troops out en masse long before now. Sorry, but if it wasn't their war before (which it was due to them having to vote in approval of it), it would be their war now, too.
Dude. That one will get you the Gold Medal!
Exemplary!
(Would love to see the response to that one)
-
Dude. That one will get you the Gold Medal!
Exemplary!
(Would love to see the response to that one)
With Lord Zero's stonewalling and refusal to make a decision vis a vis Afghanistan until the shit was ready to collapse, he ultimately did.
Obama OWNS Afghanistan now.
After 14 months in office, Obama OWNS Iraq now.
He can put whatever kinds of timetables and restrictions on the thing, but the fact is, WE'RE STILL IN BOTH PLACES.
In short, he lost his opportunity to play that bullshit card.
As far as Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned, Obama is in bed with Bush.