Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
samsingh (1000+ posts) Sun Sep-13-09 09:53 AMOriginal messageSorry to say it, but i HATE many Repubs i am very tolerant overall. But after all the evil that the repugs have thrown at the country and this world, i do not understand how any decent person can be a repug period.
elocs (1000+ posts) Sun Sep-13-09 11:45 AMResponse to Reply #1419. Just ask yourself: what would Ted Kennedy have done? Would he hate? To hate is easy, especially with just reason. Choosing not to hate is hard, and it is a choice.
Centrist_Bob (7 posts) Sun Sep-13-09 11:50 AMResponse to Reply #1924. Reaching for a scotch bottle isn't the solution either When did Ted Kennedy become the messiah?
Link, sir?I want to know if the Bob primitive is still alive.
Ooops , sorry. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6538098
Name removed (0 posts) Sun Sep-13-09 11:50 AMResponse to Reply #19 24. Deleted message Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
He broke the 5th commandment of liberalsim: Thou shalt not speak truth of a Kennedy.
Centrist_Bob (8 posts) Sun Sep-13-09 01:12 PMResponse to Reply #30 37. Ok, let's take them one at a time... First, "what they've done to American" democracy isn't specific. If it's just the last 8 years, obviously that guy is gone now. Many people like to see the country as the work of one person -- it's not. No matter which party controls the branches of government, even when one controls all three, the other still get their 'licks' in. And Federal bureaucracy is wide and deep -- not everything goes across the President's desk. No matter who the President is."THEY" didn't shout "LIAR" at the President. One guy did. A back-bencher no one had heard of until last week. It was inappropriate. He apologized.However, H.R. 3200, as available to the public has no provision for verification of eligibility, and those in control of the House have rejected every attempt at remedying that deficiency. Claiming people will not seek to exploit that loophole is like claiming a law prohibiting children from buying tobacco and alcohol with NO provision for ID checking will work -- it's simply disingenuous. Saying it to Congress is insulting to them, and saying it to the American people insults them too."I hate the wars they cause".Hmmm. CAUSE? I'll give you "engage in" although a lot of Democrats voted for it too, but I'm not sure about the cause part unless you feel Republicans are solely responsible for the world we find ourselves in. That is certainly a larger question and issue than your statement suggests.I'm not aware of any effort to withhold medical care from the needy. We have Medicare and Medicaid. They're a financial tsunami, but we HAVE them. Anyone can go into an emergency room and get emergency care. There are many free clinics and no legislation prohibiting more. As harsh as this probably sounds to you, medical care is a commodity, not a right. A "Right" does not impose a burden on anyone else, other than not violating that right. You can go without medical coverage longer than you can go without housing and food, and they're not "rights"."They" don't hate you because you "care about other people". Some may disagree with you because you want to actuate your "caring" with other people's money. And didn't President Johnson declare "war on poverty" over forty years ago? How is that going? What we've spent on THAT war would fund both gulf wars fifty times over. Odd that you're not upset about that failed war.Republicans (actually conservatives) don't have a "war on the poor". They do have a war on poverty though, and the primary weapon is called "work". You work and you get paid, and then you're not poor. If you are physically unable to work, there are programs to deal with that (Social Security being one). If you just don't want to work, then you've CHOSEN poverty -- it wasn't thrust upon you.
Centrist_Bob (8 posts) Sun Sep-13-09 02:52 PMResponse to Reply #44 47. I've heard of the working poor Some people can't get jobs that pay enough to live above the "poverty level", but the causes are complex and not the exclusive fault of Republicans, if at all.If you cannot get a job that pays enough, get a better job. If you can't, then either there aren't enough higher-paying jobs, or you aren't prepared to do any jobs that pay better.Higher-paying jobs are those that represent a higher net monetary return to your employer, balanced against the number of people able to do those jobs. If you have three times the number of candidates for a job than there are positions to be filled, the VALUE of that job is reduced, because some of the applicants will do the job for less in order to get the job, and only a third of the applicants are going to get hired. So you either need to acquire skills in a job that pays more, or adjust your lifestyle to the pay you can get from the job you can do.On the job front, we used to do more manufacturing than we do now. For two reasons. First, many manufacturing processes create pollution which is unacceptable HERE, (but not elsewhere -- same planet, same air, go figure). And second, if it costs less to manufacture something somewhere else, more people will buy the thing made elsewhere at a lower cost than the thing made here at a higher cost. Neither of these realities is the fault of Republicans. If you want to stop products from entering the country (tariffs & trade barriers), are you going to stop everything? And aren't other countries going to stop OUR products from entering THEIR countries? Ever hear of NAFTA? Know who signed it? Bill Clinton. Why aren't you pissed at him?Forcing jobs to pay more (unions), while stopping lower-cost products from competing, forces consumers to pay more. So either they don't buy the things, or they have to make more to pay for them, so you have to make THEIR jobs pay more too, which makes what they make or do cost more... You cannot legislate bounty for all! Were you just going to legislate bounty for SOME? And if so, WHO? And why just THEM? You need to think this clever plan all the way through.On the war front, Saddam, after he was captured, freely admitted that he did everything he could think of to convince everyone that he had WMDs. Is it so surprising that people did? If he'd had them and used them (as he'd done repeatedly in the past), the drumbeat would have been on why more wasn't done to prevent THAT. Also, after the first gulf war, his regime continued to stymie inspections and persisted in aggression in the no-fly zone and elsewhere despite several "stern warnings" from the U.N. It would have been great if he'd just gone back to repressing his people and acting as a balance against a radical Iran, but he insisted on being a festering boil and he had to be lanced.
