Many of you all pass this word around like it a four letter word. It's not, it stands for personal freedom and reasonability, something more of you should preach, I know you practice it because you are here at TER having sex with sex providers for money (a very liberal act, by the way). The liberals are the ones that bring accountability to big business. It's liberals that created all of the safe guards and laws that keep our water and air clean (something the Bush admin. is try to over turn to benefit his wealthy campaign contributors that own coal burning plants at the cost of the health of the American people that live near these plants), our food and drugs safe, our cars safe to drive and so many other things that all of us, ever the conservatives, benefit from. If left to the conservatives, the whole country would look like Love Canal in the seventies and many more Americans would be dying from the polluting of our country by big business. Look at your lives and what you believe in and see whether those things are liberal or conservative and whether George Bush has that same vision, I doubt it.
that is Laissez faire on economic issues and Civil Libertarian on social issues. The kind of Republican that I am.
We have the lowest amount of pollution because of our market economy. Pollution is waste and waste is inefficient. Your competitors will beat you if you are more inefficient (wasteful) than them. Where was there pollution? Any of the old communist countries had horrible pollution. There was no competition to make industry get better. Case in point: India made the 1 car company in the entire country make the exact same car for 29 years!!!!!! A horrible underpowered polluter. 29 years!!!!! NO REINVESTMENT, NO DRIVE TO MAKE IT BETTER (it was stifled by the bureaucrats)NO IMPROVEMENTS/PROGRESS. India abandoned socialism in 95 and WOOSSSSHHHH. A massive middle class sprang up over night.
Wow- you started off right and then went insane. We have better pollution controls here in the weast, that business fought tooth and nail. Business WAS the Govt in the command economies, so they had no controls. Marxist Leninism did not factor in environmental damage AT ALL. We would have terrible pollution if Books like Silent spring were notr written and people like Nader got the gummint to make rules- out of fear of being voted out.
Fighting pollution requires both a govt to make rules and a strong manufacturing base to carry it out and survive with the inevitable restrictions.
You sound like the kind of republican I USED to be. Check on your party bub. They are against a woman's right to choose. Against your right to choose a woman. Against a man's right to marry another man if he so chooses. For prayer in Schools. And they championede the Patriot Act, a slippery slope all by itself.
Real Republicans can see what a swizz these guys are. Why can't you?
Why does government have to recognize a marriage between two men or two women. I'm against it cause it will cost lots (and I mean lots) more money. That's just one more headache. Let them have their union recognized in their particular church or whatever. I don't want to pay extra fica and ssi and all the rest of that crap just to make them feel good. Plus, no able bodied gay dude should be allowed to mooch of the government like he was some 85 year old widow. They can set up wills and trust funds to transfer property and assets.
I think they can because it is guaranteed by the constitution, so what you and I think is immaterial. I cannot think of a single reason why a gay person should have fewer rights than I do, however much I find gay sex personally repulsive. And I think if we all pay, it won't be that much extra, in fact it might be less. And telling people they can go out of their way to re-create a legal relationship that any straight person can fall into (Brittany spears, etc.) is a little cockeyed.
So you are against a fundamental right on cost basis. Now that's GOP of today! Get off your libertarian high horse ...
First of all, Hotforpros, the act that you describe is illegal in all States except Nevada, therefore, only a dipshit would even post this in the context that you have. I am sure there are some that post on this board that have compensated a provider for her time or companionship, though, and you could have made your point saying such. (Dipshit) To say that liberals have created ALL laws concerning safety and enviromental protected is incorrect.
The Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was formed in 1971 under Republican President Richard M. Nixon. Also during President Nixon's administration, the EPA was formed, officially opening for business on Dec 2, 1970. Just two examples of showing that Republicans can lay claim to the safety of the environment and the improvement in worker safety. Also two examples that you were wrong. Also, before I would completely dismiss the horrific act of burning coal, I might consider the thousands of good paying jobs in the coal mining business in states such as North Dakota, Pennslyvania, Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Wyoming and Kentucky. It is simple fact that the coal mining of the mid 1700's fueled the industrial revolution in the United States. Without it, we'd be bowing to the Queen and paying way to much for our tea. As far as the health and environmental issues related to coal mining/burning, there is no question that it took its toll in damage to the natural resources, air quality and humanity, BUT today's coal industry is so much more efficient and earth friendly than it used to be 200, 100 or even 30 years ago. And those people that live in those areas that you are so concerned about, well there's about 75,000 coal miners living around those mines averaging just over a 40 hour work week earning between $15 and $26 per hour depending on responsibilities and longevity. So endeth my lesson from 10 minutes of research on coal mining.
As long as we're discussing mother earth, follow the link to an interesting story related to Love Canal.
I would love to do more on the repurcussions of auto safety and the state of our food and drug industries over the last 30 years, but that's another long rant.
To be sure, I would agree that there are many pro-environment conservatives, but I think the record shows that in general, over the last 30 years at least, liberals have led on protecting the environment, and conservatives have followed.
post that states "ALL" safegaurds and laws were created by liberals and that if the "Conservatives" had their way the whole country would look like Love Canal. BTW, did you follow the link attached?
Liberals are not communists, we are socially conscience capitalists, I like to make money and lots of it, but I will not kill, cause the suffering of others or purposely pollute my planet to get it. If I have to change the way I do business for the good of our country I will because unlike the people you admire, I love my country and the people that live here and I want all of them to prosper, yes even the conservatives. So put away all that tired, old anti-commi rhetoric and deal with how the Bush admin. is fucking up our country today and stop wining how the commi's fuck up their countries, that has nothing to do with anything.
One more time, name one thing the Bush admin. has done over the last three and a half years are you proud of????
snafu929, maybe you are just not smart enough to understand what I am writing about, in that case I'm sorry. It is funny that you looked just far enough to make your point, but not far enough to prove yourself wrong. the 91st and 92nd congress (1969-1973) were controlled by the Democrats and both the OSHA and EPA bills were sponsored by Democrats and when they were passes by both houses. Nixon had little choice but to sign them (it's worse to be overridden by congress). Nixon unlike our present president was a very smart (very paranoid, too) man, and knew how to work with the opposition party. So don't even think that the republicans/conservatives had anything to do with those laws. You also missed the point on the coal plant, I was not write about mining, I was writing about the burning of coal all over our country at all different kinds of plant, i.e.: power, manufacturing etc., who's wealthy owners have contributed more than 600 million dollars to the RNC, the Bush campaign and conservative PACs so they would not have to upgrade their plants, which would have cost them billions at the health coat to the people that live around those plants, if the Bush Admin. had not come to the rescue. I was not writing about miners. As far as Gore's father, so the sins of the father are the sins of the son, get real. You really show what kind of person you are when you resort to name calling.
The reason that Government is in the marriage business at all is that it creates a societal safety net called a family unit. The purpose of this family unit is to provide a care infrastructure for the individuals in it, so as to MINIMIZE the costs to the government, and maximize the likelihood that the family unit in it's entirety, is a net-positive contributor to the society.
Encouraging a stable partnership with long term fidelity between partners is an unambigous societal benefit.
I am quite certain that statistics will show over time that married gay couples are more positive economic contributors to society than are single gays, just as they show that married heterosexual couples are more positive contributors to the economy than are unmarried heterosexuals.
George Bush cut taxes!! and wants to cut them more. If we can just cut taxes, the exono y will take off. More profit more jobs, more people w/money saving, buying spending. This is how it works- just like the money multiplier. Joe schmoe goes to the bank and depostits 50K in a 5 year Cd at 3%int. Bobby D. wants to buy 2 Harleys and goes to the bank and gets a 40k loan to buy to Harleys. He goes tot eh dealer and gives him the check for 40K to get the 2 Harleys. ?How much money is there in the economy? ANS. 90K The bank just created 40K in money, The Harley dealer has his 40K, Joe S. has his 50K CD. the bank just created 40K in money. CUTTING TAXES WORKS THE SAME WAY!!!!!!! ONLY BETTER. Plus, Goerge Bush is a steady Eddie. He's stable, and careful.
I think the George W. admnistration is allowing the scientific study of the Kennewick man (~9,300 years old), which may have bearing on the early human migrations from Asia into North America. At least, I don't think they're opposing the recent federal court ruling which permits scientists to go ahead with these studies.
Under the Clinton administration, Interior Secretary Babbit wanted to repatriate/rebury these remains, which would have been a real waste.
There, I knew I could come up with something positive to say about George W. & Co. It was a struggle, though.
Originally, a liberal was someone like Adam Smith or Karl Marx or anyone of hundreds of other historical figures, who thought that human social and economic affairs should be arranged or engineered by according reason, not by authority, whether worldly, as in an Autocrat, or in some imagined infinite authority: God.
In some ways, that point of view has won. Conservatives today are divided into two camps: economic Conservatives, who believe that the market is the ultimate authority, and reason should act no further, or the religious conservatives, who want to re-impliment the authority of holy men under the imaginary authority of God using ancient literature as the source. In all truth, the economic conservatives are really rather liberal. So, what has happened is that liberalism has become dominant and split between the modern liberals and the economic conservatives. The economic conservatives now in an uneasy alliance with the religious conservatives, who are throw-backs. The two concepts the two factions have in common is authority and stratification, each hoping their own authority and their own ranks will win.
Modern liberals are really "anybody else." It's a mashed potato hodge-podge of those who oppose the two conservatisms for some reason, but really lacking coherence to oppose them. Liberalism lost its fire and direction with Nietszche's writings and the subsequent failure of Marxism. Faced with demoralising brutality of communism enacted, in the 1960s the American left simply went insane. This is true especially of the TV generation. By the 80s, liberalism was so weakened, that even Ronald Reagan could defeat it and look like a genius.
Nevertheless, if it could get its intellectual footing again, modern liberalism can drive the direction of the nation and the world.
The people in the lowest economic levels are the ones in most need of, to use a republican catch phrase, tax relief. But they are not getting it, they are getting screwed. The rich don't need tax relief, they are rich.
What those tax cuts actually are doing is PREVENT it's being re-distributed to the poor.
Now, of course, you can try to make the social argument that re-distributing wealth from the rich to the poor is a good thing. But one should never lose sight of the fact that THIS is what is being done, NOT the other way around.
And of course, if you make that social argument that re-dstributing wealth from the rich to the poor is a good thing, any true conservative worth their salt will come back with the economic argument that it is actually inefficient to re-distribute money from the rich to the poor, because it will serve as a de-motivating disincentive to BOTH the rich and the poor to work harder.
My problem with the Bush economic policy is that it is completely irresponsible when it is not accommodated by spending cuts. And since Bush has already established that he spends like a drunken Liberal sailor on shore leave, he darn well needs to match the cash outflow with cash inflow, or he'll totally trash the U.S. economy. This is basic Econ 101. The fiction that Bush is claiming that the tax cut to the wealthy will thus re-stimulate the economy has NEVER been demonstrated on the level Bush would need for his presently MASSIVE deficits to go down significantly - This is especially true when there are currently so many incentives within our tax code to ENCOURAGE outsourcing of U.S. jobs, which makes for completely wrong-headed economic policy.
What kind of shit are you serving? The people in the lowest income brackets hardly pay any taxes after deductions and credits are applied. I'm middle class, under 100K income and I paid a substantial amount less in taxes last year than previously. I like it, thank you EvilBush(tm).
And the rich folk should get theirs too, they do a better job of spreading it around than the Gov'ment ever will. You lefties are scary sometimes.
The lower incomes in the country pay NO income tax!! How can you refund something that was never paid? Even if it is withheld during the year, they get it all back and in many cases some will get back even more than they paid due to the earned income tax credit.
The laws are not "fixed", they are created by the people we elect! Don't like this form of government, then you're in the wrong place...
Do people try to influence policy, you bet, from both sides of the aisle, so don't start compalining about a practice both parties are participating in...
it means they are already working and paying taxes and I don't believe that what ever tax break you give the middle and working class will de-motivate anyone, but I'm pretty sure many will put a great deal of that tax break back into economy.
...in practice, staff and lobbyist write the bills, with some of the staff also former lobbyists, and the Congressmen vote the bills into law much of the time without even reading part of them. Go ahead. Try to find a point here that I am wrong about.
It works in a similar way at any level of government you want to choose.
You may say, our elected officials "create laws" by doing this. But it looks to me like whoever is paying the lobbyist salary is also fixing that creation to make their boss richer.
Thank you for your kind suggestion. But rather than leave this country, I think I'll stay and try to "fix" this process so that it looks more like the picture you have mind.
I'll reiterate: do you think the rich never fix the laws, never interfere in government so that they don't get richer?
Furthermore, if the rich are one faction among many, why would they lose very often? You worry about government's interference into the economy. What about the economy's interference into government?
Remember Enron. And if you've forgotten, (or never knew) read the story.
Allowing those who make it to keep it is not "redistribution."
Taking it (as taxes) from those who make it (taxpayers) to give to those who don't (welfare recipients) is "redistribution."
Democrat/Socialist "tax relief" to those who don't make it (i.e., the Earned Income Tax "Credit," or any other tax "credits" which exceed taxes paid) is welfare with a fancy name.
I am a Libertarian, socially moderate and economically conservative, who is entirely disgusted with the duplicity which our present administration has used in foisting their war-mongering, evangelical agenda on the American public.
Kerry is by no means my most desired alternative to Bush (I've made it pretty clear that I'd be thrilled to vote for John McCain, or another capable conservative man of principle, like, say Richard Lugar).
But Kerry is SURELY a far superior alternative to another 4 years of the present fiasco.
is a lawmaker who doesn't do his/her homework. And yes, this does happen. But the check and balance is that we have a public record of the voting record and can vote an individual out of office if they vote for bad legislation. This is why the system does work...
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
