Kansas Republicans attempting to remove Obama from ballot over “birther” concerns

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Your loss. Tis' a shame to be so uninformed as to what the politically active and most passionate are thinking on each side.

I guess once you have the party talking point memo of the day, what else do you really need, eh? It IS fun to watch you repeat certan words and phrases to the letter as they're spurged on talk radio the exact same day on the exact same topics.....but you wouldn't know anything about that. Gosh no.

I wouldn't know.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Always is more like it. Being against drug laws while being for limits on soda size and universal sinlge-source state healthcare doesn't exactly win you over any freedom and liberty credentials...

Right, because you're version of totalitarian state collectivism will avoid all the pitfalls and problems of previous versions, right?

I.e. Utopia is a cool place, why don't I join you there?

Yea, see, I brought up drug laws because I know you know I don't support them. We've had that conversation before.

And I couldn't give a flying f*** about soda size and think it's ridiculous to regulate.

And I think you misunderstand the word "always". Because you say "always" and then in the very next sentence concede I don't support the drug laws... hmm.

I do think Universal healthcare yields more freedom, though - freer movement of labor and it costs less, keeps more money in your pocket to buy weed and big gulp cola.

And yea, every instance of a greater degree of socialism than the current status quo in America leads to Stalinism. Foolproof argument.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

I wouldn't know.

No, I guess you wouldn't.

Yea, see, I brought up drug laws because I know you know I don't support them. We've had that conversation before.

You vote in (D) who support them or ignore them (tacit support).

And I couldn't give a flying f*** about soda size and think it's ridiculous to regulate.

Something you're not ready and willing to regulate?

Or more likely a temporary restraint to make a point? I highly doubt you're actually against such types of regulation unless it effects you personally.

I do think Universal healthcare yields more freedom, though - freer movement of labor and it costs less, keeps more money in your pocket to buy weed and big gulp cola.

Provide "freedom", i.e. free stuff, for some, at the cost of freedom from others against their will. Pretty much the definition of liberal collectivist welfare. Goes hand in hand with the liberal definitions of "fairness" and "opportunity", both of which boil down to "wealth redistribution/equalization by State Power".

And yea, every instance of a greater degree of socialism than the current status quo in America leads to Stalinism. Foolproof argument.

You stand and defend what you love, I'll stand for what I do.

I stand against ideals of collectivism enforced by the state against the will of the individual, and against where such ideals inevitably lead. when controlled by actual human beings in the real world.

There are no Libertarian Stalins, but there is no shortage of collectivist/socialist/communist Stalins-types.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

You vote in (D) who support them or ignore them (tacit support).

I have not found a party that represents my beliefs perfectly, Warfish.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Something you're not ready and willing to regulate?

Or more likely a temporary restraint to make a point? I highly doubt you're actually against such types of regulation unless it effects you personally.

The vast majority of things in life I'm not willing to regulate, Warfish - whether they affect me or not.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Provide "freedom", i.e. free stuff, for some, at the cost of freedom from others against their will. Pretty much the definition of liberal collectivist welfare. Goes hand in hand with the liberal definitions of "fairness" and "opportunity", both of which boil down to "wealth redistribution/equalization by State Power".

Yes, wealth redistribution. That's what government and taxation is based on. But not all are the same degree, hence different forms of government. And universal healthcare is not free for the vast majority of the population, it's a form taxation that replaces private insurance, which has higher overheads, costs more as a % of GDP than socialized medicine and is tied to your job.

Originally Posted by Warfish

You stand and defend what you love, I'll stand for what I do.

I stand against ideals of collectivism enforced by the state against the will of the individual, and against where such ideals inevitably lead. when controlled by actual human beings in the real world.

There are no Libertarian Stalins, but there is no shortage of collectivist/socialist/communist Stalins-types.

But there were libertarian slave-owners - they're called the founding fathers!

And there were other socialist leaning American Presidents that were not tyrants or evil. TR, FDR, Truman.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

No, it's not.

First, I don't know the views of "all elected Democrats".

Second, comments of this nature by "elected democrats" do not get the same media coverage as birtherism by Republicans.

Third, I'm not going to waste my time searching the web for something, much less some local represenative in a state I don't live in, to make you feel better/worse about being a member of a party who thinks Bush was behind 9/11.

With that said, this would be a good start: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...Bush_knew.html

Or this: http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Or perhaps the comments of Cynthia McKinney (D) regarding trutherism. All found in ` 10 secnds of google, all (I'm sure) to be denied or denounced by you as "fringe" or "lies" or the like.



As stated, both have a meaningful foothold on either "side" from my perspective as a non-pariticpant of either "side".

I should also add (stealth edit) that (D) is generally alot better at not sounding off liek total morons on what they really believe than (R) is, and generally (IMO) are fare more experienced at covering their views with langauge. Hence "collectivism" becomes "fairness", for example.



Lol all you like Safety, there is no doubt in my mind that if you and IJF were offered a choice of teh current status quo, or a Euro-style Social Welfare/Socialist State run by a Dictator with reduced or limited personal freedom and liberty, that both of you would choose the Dictator-led Socialists. I see you and you as a strong supporter of collectivism > liberty/responsabillity, and central power > enumerated limited powers.

At no point can I recall you choosing the route of personal freedom over "the greater good" in our policy disagreements. Not once.

What a ridiculous statement to make.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

I have not found a party that represents my beliefs perfectly, Warfish.

Riiiight.

The vast majority of things in life I'm not willing to regulate, Warfish - whether they affect me or not.

Put simply, I don't belive you. I don't believe you have a libertarian bone in your body when it comes right down to the rubber meeting the road, election wise.

Yes, wealth redistribution. That's what government and taxation is based on.

And here we have, finally, the crux of our usual disagreements.

I disagree completely with the above claim.

But there were libertarian slave-owners - they're called the founding fathers!

That old Liberal chestnut, eh?

Never tire of that do you.

And there were other socialist leaning American Presidents that were not tyrants or evil. TR, FDR, Truman.

Suffice to say, we don't agree on your opinion of those men and their policies in this regard. But thats a whole other thread topic (FDR especially, given his record).

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

What a ridiculous statement to make.

Isn;t there a "FOX is bad, evil and horrible and liars" thread you should be spurging in somewhere? Or better yet, a Teacher's Union "We Strike for the Kids" thread?

[SafetyBlitz]

Are we up to the part where we both exchange GFY's and get back to our daily routine?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Are we up to the part where we both exchange GFY's and get back to our daily routine?

I hadn't planned on it.

But you can if you like. I think we've found our core disagreement, which is a step I suppose.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Riiiight.



Put simply, I don't belive you. I don't believe you have a libertarian bone in your body when it comes right down to the rubber meeting the road, election wise.



And here we have, finally, the crux of our usual disagreements.

I disagree completely with the above claim.



That old Liberal chestnut, eh?

Never tire of that do you.



Suffice to say, we don't agree on your opinion of those men and their policies in this regard. But thats a whole other thread topic (FDR especially, given his record).



Isn;t there a "FOX is bad, evil and horrible and liars" thread you should be spurging in somewhere? Or better yet, a Teacher's Union "We Strike for the Kids" thread?

Are you out of your mind today? When did I comment one way or the other, on the merits of the strike?

But see, it does not matter whether I did or not. Just like you assumed that I was pro-choice or against religion or a communist . For someone that loves to call liberals collectivists it is you who fall right in line with the stereotypes.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Are you out of your mind today? When did I comment one way or the other, on the merits of the strike?

But see, it does not matter whether I did or not. Just like you assumed that I was pro-choice or against religion or a communist . For someone that loves to call liberals collectivists it is you who fall right in line with the stereotypes.

I thought the Libertarian Sterotype was a pot-smoking doper who didn;t care enough to vote, rode the middle-of-road fense cause he was too stones or uncaring to form an opinion, and generally liked anarchy over other forms of governence?

No IJF, I'm not out of my mind. I'm just tired of your schtick of "FOX BAD, FOX BAD, SMASH FOX!!!!! Oh, and all media is bad really....sorta. maybe.".

As for teachers, like Copernicus, it's pretty obviosu where you've stood based on your posts here over the years. But by all means, the thread is down there someplace, feel free toc omment on it if you disagree. /shrug.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I thought the Libertarian Sterotype was a pot-smoking doper who didn;t care enough to vote, rode the middle-of-road fense cause he was too stones or uncaring to form an opinion, and generally liked anarchy over other forms of governence?

No IJF, I'm not out of my mind. I'm just tired of your schtick of "FOX BAD, FOX BAD, SMASH FOX!!!!! Oh, and all media is bad really....sorta. maybe.".

As for teachers, like Copernicus, it's pretty obviosu where you've stood based on your posts here over the years. But by all means, the thread is down there someplace, feel free toc omment on it if you disagree. /shrug.

you swung and missed on many of your assumptions with me countless times (abortion, religion, stance on Obama etc) and you are obviously not embarrassed to keep flailing away. I give you points for tenacity though.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

you swung and missed on many of your assumptions with me countless times (abortion, religion, stance on Obama etc) and you are obviously not embarrassed to keep flailing away. I give you points for tenacity though.

I havn't missed a thing on you IJF. You're exactly what I think you are (socio-politically).

But hey, in your world if you say something enough, it can be considered true, so I guess you're sticking with what works.

Like alot of folks here, you might say you're not voting for Obama, but that doesn't make it true. Just like your "FOX BAD!!! Other media bad too sorta kinda maybe?" rantings.

[kennyo7]

What is so surprising with this is that KANSAS was the state where "birthers" were trying to remove Obama from the ballot. I would expect something like this in New York, California, Massachussets, or Washington, not a place like Kansas

[Trades]

Originally Posted by kennyo7

What is so surprising with this is that KANSAS was the state where "birthers" were trying to remove Obama from the ballot. I would expect something like this in New York, California, Massachussets, or Washington, not a place like Kansas

Why?

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I havn't missed a thing on you IJF. You're exactly what I think you are (socio-politically).

But hey, in your world if you say something enough, it can be considered true, so I guess you're sticking with what works.

Like alot of folks here, you might say you're not voting for Obama, but that doesn't make it true. Just like your "FOX BAD!!! Other media bad too sorta kinda maybe?" rantings.

round in round we go....

If YOU say something enough, it can be considered true...in your world.

You like to marginalize and compartmentalize people that you disagree with. It seems to make things easier to digest that way;

Example all liberals are communists, collectivists, want to be lead by a dictator and don't celebrate Christmas.

Enjoy your version of the reality that you create. It probably would not matter that I could link the posts where you swung and missed on assumptions about me (abortion, religion, opinion on Obama). It would not matter because you would simply say; I am not being honest . Carry on..........

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Example all liberals are communists, collectivists, want to be lead by a dictator

Most liberals/democrats, including most here at JI, are supporters of increased redistribution of wealth in a variety of forms, increased federal/central power and regulation, increased welfare and social support programs for more people, reduced individual liberty in areas they think we can't be trusted to our own decisionmaking on or are "too important" to leave to the free market, reduced freedom in that same free market, increased govt. control over private business and support organized labor almost exclusively over private business.

Yes, I belive emost liberals are either outright socialists at heart in their policy beliefs, at at the very least, euro-style social warfare statists.

and don't celebrate Christmas.

I have no idea if you celebrate Christmas. I do know that most of our resident liberals are indeed anti-religion, but as is somewhat clear, so am I generally.

Enjoy your version of the reality that you create.

Have you posted your opinion in the teachers trike thread yet?

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I hadn't planned on it.

But you can if you like. I think we've found our core disagreement, which is a step I suppose.

My problem is that you continually call me a liar. There can't be a reasonable debate if I say "I believe x, y and z" and then you say "I don't believe you."

I support universal healthcare (German model), a higher tax rate than right now (which is at its lowest in 80 years), greater financial regulation (which is at its weakest since the Great Depression) and an investment in job training/higher education paid for by the government.

I support strict campaign finance reform.

I also think we should close down at least 1/3 of our bases around the world, and slash the military budget by a 1/3. I also think drugs should be legalized, taxed and regulated. I think we should leave Afghanistan, today. I think we should lower the corporate tax rate AND end all subsidies.

Now when you say I have no libertarianism in my positions, I disagree. And then you qualify it with "in terms of electorally rubber meeting the road". Which really, I mean, neither party is libertarian. The Democrats have some libertarian ideas with regards to social policy and the Republicans have some libertarian ideas with regards to fiscal policy. But neither are uniform. And if you vote for either one, you're not supporting a completely libertarian agenda.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

My problem is that you continually call me a liar. There can't be a reasonable debate if I say "I believe x, y and z" and then you say "I don't believe you."

Given the inherant and blatant dishonesty and "message manipulation" by both Political parties, and their many loyalists, you'll simply have to live with the fact that some of us non-aligned have a very hard time believeing anything some folks say.

For example, I could waste my day sorting through your list of "I support and why" and point out the dishonesties therin, but why? No matter what source I'd present, you'll have your own (biased/party) source supporting your claim, and we'd be right at the same place. Far easier to simply say "right, whatever" and move on generally. As it is, you'll read my comments below and say the same thing, claim I'm dishonest, claim redistribution and State mandated Social welfareism/Socialim/Collectivism have nothing in comon, etc, etc, etc.

I support:

Universal healthcare (i.e. State Healthcare, More Redistribution, More Federal Power, Less Freedom, Less Personal Retention of Earned Weath)

A higher tax rate (More Redistribution, More Federal Power via Choice of Spending/Picking Winners in the Market, Breaking teh Free Market)

Greater financial regulation (Yet More Federal Power, Yet More Picking of Winners and Losers due to Political Reasons, etc, etc, etc,)

And in job training/higher education paid for by the government (More Redistribution, More Entilements, More Federal Power, More Picking Winners (by what the State will Allow/Pay for Trained, etc, etc, etc).

Pretty much, right down the line, a Redistribution-Heavy, Federal power-Heavy, Control Economy-Heavy, Freedom and Liberty-weak agenda of policies that abandons personal responsabillity, hold the state to no account for effientcy or responsabillity in spending, and promotes a State-based authoritarian babysitting and mandate "we know whats good for you, and what we say is good is the law" culture. It's not exactly a far walk from this core, to outright socialism or forms of communism.

I support strict campaign finance reform.

Sure you do. Let me know when that "strict" applies to (D) fundraisers like Hollywood and Unions as well as to free market busiensses. Perfect example where I do not believe you or trust your intentions, or are speaking partially in what you actually support. I see no possible point where you'ds upport banning Union-based campaigning, funding or political cause work (labor donation) by Unions.

I also think we should close down at least 1/3 of our bases around the world, and slash the military budget by a 1/3. I also think drugs should be legalized, taxed and regulated. I think we should leave Afghanistan, today. I think we should lower the corporate tax rate AND end all subsidies.

Democrats want less Millitary and instead more "diplomacy", i.e. more free aid to foeign regimes. Thats a new one.

Maybe, if you had the integrity you claim, you would not vote for an Obama who has done absolutely nothing you liberals demanded when he was elected. He is, in every way, Bush Term III. A great example of party-based, you do it it's bad, we do it it's bad but we'll ignore it, politics.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Given the inherant and blatant dishonesty and "message manipulation" by both Political parties, and their many loyalists, you'll simply have to live with the fact that some of us non-aligned have a very hard time believeing anything some folks say.

For example, I could waste my day sorting through your list of "I support and why" and point out the dishonesties therin, but why? No matter what source I'd present, you'll have your own (biased/party) source supporting your claim, and we'd be right at the same place. Far easier to simply say "right, whatever" and move on generally. As it is, you'll read my comments below and say the same thing, claim I'm dishonest, claim redistribution and State mandated Social welfareism/Socialim/Collectivism have nothing in comon, etc, etc, etc.

Yes, everyone who supports a political party is a liar.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Pretty much, right down the line, a Redistribution-Heavy, Federal power-Heavy, Control Economy-Heavy, Freedom and Liberty-weak agenda of policies that abandons personal responsabillity, hold the state to no account for effientcy or responsabillity in spending, and promotes a State-based authoritarian babysitting and mandate "we know whats good for you, and what we say is good is the law" culture. It's not exactly a far walk from this core, to outright socialism or forms of communism.

The difference between you and I is that you are an absolutist. I see grey and vote accordingly.

You have exaggerated policies that have been already been done in this country, like stricter financial regulation, higher tax rates than currently on the books and investment in the middle class, and have classified them as un-American and communist, even Stalinist.

You have disavowed the last 80 years of American history.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Sure you do. Let me know when that "strict" applies to (D) fundraisers like Hollywood and Unions as well as to free market busiensses. Perfect example where I do not believe you or trust your intentions, or are speaking partially in what you actually support. I see no possible point where you'ds upport banning Union-based campaigning, funding or political cause work (labor donation) by Unions.

See I don't know the answer specifically. But there are some interesting proposals:

Voting with dollars
The voting with dollars plan would establish a system of modified public financing coupled with an anonymous campaign contribution process. It has two parts: patriot dollars and the secret donation booth. It was originally described in detail by Yale Law School professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres in their 2004 book Voting with Dollars: A new paradigm for campaign finance.[7] All voters would be given a $50 publicly funded voucher (Patriot dollars) to donate to federal political campaigns. All donations including both the $50 voucher and additional private contributions, must be made anonymously through the FEC. Ackerman and Ayres include model legislation in their book in addition to detailed discussion as to how such a system could be achieved and its legal basis.
Of the Patriot dollars (e.g. $50 per voter) given to voters to allocate, they propose $25 going to presidential campaigns, $15 to Senate campaigns, and $10 to House campaigns. Within those restrictions the voucher can be split among any number of candidates for any federal race and between the primary and general elections. At the end of the current election cycle any unspent portions of this voucher would expire and could not be rolled over to subsequent elections for that voter. In the context of the 2004 election cycle $50 multiplied by the approximately 120 million people who voted would have yielded about $6 billion in “public financing” compared to the approximate $4 billion spent in 2004 for all federal elections (House, Senate and Presidential races) combined.[8] Ackerman and Ayres argue that this system would pool voter money and force candidates to address issues of importance to a broad spectrum of voters. Additionally they argue this public finance scheme would address taxpayers' concerns that they have "no say" in where public financing monies are spent, whereas in the Voting with dollars system each taxpayer who votes has discretion over their contribution.
The second aspect of the system increases some private donation limits, but all contributions must be made anonymously through the FEC. In this system, when a contributor make a donation to a campaign they send their money to the FEC indicating which campaign they want it to go to. The FEC masks the money and distributes it directly to the campaigns in randomized chunks over a number of days. Ackerman and Ayres compare this system to the reforms adopted in the late 19th century aimed to prevent vote buying, which led to our current secret ballot process. Prior to that time voting was conducted openly, allowing campaigns to confirm that voters cast ballots for the candidates they had been paid to support. Ackerman and Ayres contend that if candidates do not know for sure who is contributing to their campaigns they are unlikely to take unpopular stances to court large donors which could jeopardize donations flowing from voter vouchers. Conversely, large potential donors will not be able to gain political access or favorable legislation in return for their contributions since they cannot prove to candidates the supposed extent of their financial support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaig..._United_States

Originally Posted by Warfish

Democrats want less Millitary and instead more "diplomacy", i.e. more free aid to foeign regimes. Thats a new one.

Maybe, if you had the integrity you claim, you would not vote for an Obama who has done absolutely nothing you liberals demanded when he was elected. He is, in every way, Bush Term III. A great example of party-based, you do it it's bad, we do it it's bad but we'll ignore it, politics.

But see, I don't support everything every Democrat does or say. Nothing is absolute in a democratic politics. I don't support the continued war in Afghanistan, and disagree with Obama's actions there. I don't support GITMO remaining open and I have serious issues with the Drone program.

But does Mitt Romney differ on any of those?

And I disagree with the Bush III claim. Bush started those wars and executed the first 7 and 5 years of those wars. Obama was one of the few Democrats in the leadup to the Iraq war who opposed it and during his first term as President, he ended that war. Furthermore, Obama's approach to anti-terrorism has not been invasion of unstable countries to fight Al Qaeda. His approach has been using unmanned aircraft and special forces to combat Al Qaeda directly. My issue with that policy is the process, not the idea. I like the idea of fighting Al Qaeda directly, instead of indirectly - like invading countries and toppling governments.

[SafetyBlitz]

In my view, universal healthcare, a reasonable degree of redistribution (greater than we currently have), stronger financial regulation and campaign finance reform yield greater freedom for Americans.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Yes, everyone who supports a political party is a liar.

Yes, to some degree, because both parties use dishonest or manipulative language almost constantly in an effort to win voters to their cause.

Good example, "fairness". Better yet, from your post above "reasonable". So much meaningless nothing-words, so little actual definition of policy.

What you see as "fair" I see as a horrible affront, taking my ****ing money to give to a lazy or stupid **** who refuses to work as hard as I do, all to placate your guilt about it, and ensure you don't have to step up and give your OWN money away to feel better? Liberal Govt. policy in a nutshell.

What you might see as reasonable, I might see as my paycheck being raped to make you feel better, knowing your own paycheck, lower-middle-class thart it is, will actually see more in it because of my state-forced "sacrifice". All while I can;t afford to buy a House, but the so-called "poor", and their related bad-decision-makers, get every benefit, every policy, every handout and are sitting in hoems today that I can't even dream of buying???

And you wonder why I am angry some days, living in a ****hole rental townhouse 2 hours from work, while people who make far less than me, but get vastly more handouts, can afford to live 15 minutes from my office?

The difference between you and I is that you are an absolutist. I see grey and vote accordingly.

50 Shades of Grey, I'm sure.

You have exaggerated policies that have been already been done in this country, like stricter financial regulation, higher tax rates than currently on the books and investment in the middle class, and have classified them as un-American and communist, even Stalinist.

We disagree on this.

You have disavowed the last 80 years of American history.

We disagree on the value of these policies and their purpose and growth over that period.

For example, programs meant to serve the poor, who now serve far more than just the poor.

But see, I don't support everything every Democrat does or say. Nothing is absolute in a democratic politics. I don't support the continued war in Afghanistan, and disagree with Obama's actions there. I don't support GITMO remaining open and I have serious issues with the Drone program.

But does Mitt Romney differ on any of those?

Yet you're an absolute vote for (D) regardless.

You may be unaware of this, but there ARE more than two options. By choosing one, you side with that one and ALL they do and support. No free passes when other options existed and you choose to ignore them due to social pressure or supposed pragmatism.

And I disagree with the Bush III claim.

/facepalm

Of course you do.....this is exactly what I mean about dishonesty based on party affiliation. No objective, honest person would claim any meaningful difference between Bush and Obama on millitary and war policy. If anything, the fact that Obama has lost more troops in 4 years than Bush in 8, and opened fronts/attacks in more countries in 4 than Bush in 8, or had more major dissapointments in foreign policy (like the recent Libya killings), all while keeping GITMO open and running, indefinite holding, patriot act, etc, etc, etc, would elad any objective, non-party-based viewer to a rather clear cut comparison between the two men.

But because you support him, you're chmping at the bit to make excuses and rationalizations and "but, but, but...." arguments to defend him.

And you rally wonder why I doubt your honesty and integrity on political issues? Seriously? When you defend Obama on even this, and probably think his "getting Bin ladin" was as "gutsy" a move as the emdia told you it was?

/sigh

Agree to disagree, universally, I guess. Given your posting histroy, you're going to be very hard pressed to convince me you're not a party-loayalist, and strong supporter of socialism/social welfare stateism/collectivism by force and state power. It is a core of everything you support. Arguments about "degrees" is a waste of time, given the obvioust fact that collectivists accept degrees now, then immediately work for the NEXT degree. For example, Universal Healthcare. Nothing but 100% covered, 100% state controlled healthcare will suffice. The "degree" of today is only a step.

Why on earth would you expect me to take it at face value that liberals like yourself don;t feel the same way on these other issues you support involving more State power, less freedom, more regulation, more redistribution, etc, etc, etc.

Ok, lets raise taxes from say 32% to 35%. We done? Now we can talk cutting spending?

Lol, no. Five seconds after the increase goes into effect, guys just liek you are saying 35% isn't enough, it must be 40%. And 16 trillion in debt isn't so bad, we simply MUST spend more (for the peopel, the children, right?) and so spending must be increased, and that has to be paid for, so 40% really isn;t enough, it must be 50% really.....and on, and on, and on.

The right is just as bad, just on different issues. And worse, their hypocrites, who do exactly the same thing you (D) do, they just outright lie up front, and say their against it, then then turn right around and do just that.

It's enough to make a man want to give up ont he whole shebang, frankly. To make me question everythign about being honest in life, working hard, and expecting that work to be rewarded, when I see the cheaters, the leaches, the handout kings and queens doing better, far vastly less labor, than me. Yet, I'm angry. Something you, young and just starting out, may not yet understand. Or, in truth, may simply not care about, because my anger pales in front of your own idealism of the "greater good".

I don;t want toget any angrier or end up at the aforementioned "GFY" point. Lets agree we simply don't agree, and move on. There is a great new trhead on Fishing in the Hampur, and I'd rather be there tbh.