god must bless america

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Communist

Bob, my friend. The wheels of socialism were set in motion long before last november. Rebuplicans don't want to face the fact that Comrade Bush was in charge when Washington started determining how much CEO's were getting paid.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Bob, my friend. The wheels of socialism were set in motion long before last november. Rebuplicans don't want to face the fact that Comrade Bush was in charge when Washington started determining how much CEO's were getting paid.

Yep again it's all Bushies fault. He started the fall into socialism and Obama is providing a parachute to make a soft landing. I guess throwing all our money away will slow down the desent as well. If it works out we can all be one big mediocre world with no religion and little ambition. Nirvana!!!

We can then decide horse race results based on need rather than competition. Poor guys like Jeff Mullins can finally be 'understood' and will be given a win so as not to be tempted to violate rules.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Yep again it's all Bushies fault. He started the fall into socialism and Obama is providing a parachute to make a soft landing. I guess throwing all our money away will slow down the desent as well. If it works out we can all be one big mediocre world with no religion and little ambition. Nirvana!!!

We can then decide horse race results based on need rather than competition. Poor guys like Jeff Mullins can finally be 'understood' and will be given a win so as not to be tempted to violate rules.

LOL. Didnt say anything was anyone's fault. All i said was that we were socialist long before Obama got into office and we've been heading this way for a long time.

This isnt so much about religion or jeff mullins as it is about where we are and where we are headed as a society. Just as we can't spend our way out of our current problems we certainly couldn't continue to borrow our way out of the inevitable.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

LOL. Didnt say anything was anyone's fault. All i said was that we were socialist long before Obama got into office and we've been heading this way for a long time.

This isnt so much about religion or jeff mullins as it is about where we are and where we are headed as a society. Just as we can't spend our way out of our current problems we certainly couldn't continue to borrow our way out of the inevitable.

So on one hand Bush's policies were left leaning (socialist) yet they were also too right (free market economy)?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So on one hand Bush's policies were left leaning (socialist) yet they were also too right (free market economy)?

Crazy isnt it? He spent like a socialist and regulated and taxed the markets like a capitolist. Privatized profits and nationalized debt. Until the whole thing really started to cave...

Even nero eventually had to put down the fiddle.

But who said anything about Bush? The only thing i said about him was that he was in office when washington began to dictate CEO salaries.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So your "indifference " to Obamas spending is why you defend him and attack us? To maintain some kind of political thread status quo?

Come on, you would have been all over him for spending so much on the war. For us the social agenda put forth in the current administration spending spree is as big a issue as the war is to you. Perhaps you disagree with our take but the reasoning is the same. I guess the thing that is most bothersome is that you guys consistently call conservatives or Reps names or make generalizations about us which are really not true as they are generally opinions of yours while at least I only resort to calling you typical liberals which, well, is true.

There's a big difference you're failing to see. Earlier in this thread, Dell is concerned that the spending is "X" dollars and that it is more than Bush's "X" dollars.

I already admitted that I would surely have said something like I wish we would spend less money on killing people, of course I would have said that, because I believe it. But I would not have had any problem with the "X" dollars of overall spending -- that doesn't bother me now, and wouldn't have then. I can't be any more honest than that. Big government spending isn't top of my agenda for being pissed off. You're saying it is yours, so all I've been wondering here all day yesterday is where your guys' consistency is, and since there obviously is none, what about that keeps you from being hypocrites?

And ok, you don't like the name calling. I take back the calling you guys hypocrites. I'll stick to "typical conservatives," since that seems more palatable to you. It's fine by me, since "typical conservatives" have proven time and again that they mean the same thing anyway.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Being consistently wrong is nothing to brag about. Let me ask you and the other lefties that unilaterally defend Obama's spending, a question? Where are your posts on Bush's spending? Had you raised the issue perhaps the people on the right may have been willing to debate you. Of course none of you are complaining about the spending except in rebuttal to our complaints which are just as or in some cases more valid because of the enormity of the money being bandied about. My biggest question concerning the entire thread is that if this guys rights were violated why do some feel he should get "millions"? I mean does that supposed violation, not letting a guy pee during a song, really be the cause of such sustained agony that he should be rewarded by hitting the lottery? Pay his lawyers fees, give him a couple grand for his trouble and ask him not to come back seems like a fair penalty to me.

give the guy season tickets to the yankees. That could be torture these days.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And ok, you don't like the name calling. I take back the calling you guys hypocrites. I'll stick to "typical conservatives," since that seems more palatable to you. It's fine by me, since "typical conservatives" have proven time and again that they mean the same thing anyway.

So Al Gore and his larger than life carbon footprint is now a 'typical conservative' or did he give up on that whole green thing.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

So Al Gore and his larger than life carbon footprint is now a 'typical conservative' or did he give up on that whole green thing.

No, you misunderstand. It's possible to be a hypocrite and NOT a typical conservative.

Much tougher to go the other way it seems.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

No, you misunderstand. It's possible to be a hypocrite and NOT a typical conservative.

Much tougher to go the other way it seems.

Well played

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

No, you misunderstand. It's possible to be a hypocrite and NOT a typical conservative.

Much tougher to go the other way it seems.

You view your side so clearly it's blinding.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You view your side so clearly it's blinding.

Which has what to do with agreeing that Gore is a hypocrite sometimes?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Which has what to do with agreeing that Gore is a hypocrite sometimes?

Al Gore is far from the only one. That is my point.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Al Gore is far from the only one. That is my point.

Oh of course not. There are others...it's just not such a rampant, defining party trait like it is for you guys.

Never said we don't have them. The words just aren't as interchangeable as they are for you.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Oh of course not. There are others...it's just not such a rampant, defining party trait like it is for you guys.

Never said we don't have them. The words just aren't as interchangeable as they are for you.

I would argue the other way. Heck just look at the tax issues with the failed cabinet appointments. And don't get me started on the Clinton's & Co

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I would argue the other way. Heck just look at the tax issues with the failed cabinet appointments. And don't get me started on the Clinton's & Co

Ah, but like I said we have our problems.

Still, just mentioning the Party of Fiscal Responsibility, Small Government, and Values/Morality is pretty much a hypocrisy trump card for the rest of eternity...especially that last one.

Now, you personally don't fall into this...just the side you tend to fall on does.

Of course you & Chuck and others aren't necessarily socially conservative on certain issues, but it's all about the company you keep when screaming the loudest.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Crazy isnt it? He spent like a socialist and regulated and taxed the markets like a capitolist. Privatized profits and nationalized debt. Until the whole thing really started to cave...

Even nero eventually had to put down the fiddle.

But who said anything about Bush? The only thing i said about him was that he was in office when washington began to dictate CEO salaries.

Loose interpretations all

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

There's a big difference you're failing to see. Earlier in this thread, Dell is concerned that the spending is "X" dollars and that it is more than Bush's "X" dollars.

I already admitted that I would surely have said something like I wish we would spend less money on killing people, of course I would have said that, because I believe it. But I would not have had any problem with the "X" dollars of overall spending -- that doesn't bother me now, and wouldn't have then. I can't be any more honest than that. Big government spending isn't top of my agenda for being pissed off. You're saying it is yours, so all I've been wondering here all day yesterday is where your guys' consistency is, and since there obviously is none, what about that keeps you from being hypocrites?

And ok, you don't like the name calling. I take back the calling you guys hypocrites. I'll stick to "typical conservatives," since that seems more palatable to you. It's fine by me, since "typical conservatives" have proven time and again that they mean the same thing anyway.

We didn't like Bush's spending either but a lack of a thousand posts on the subject doesnt equal a lack of concern. While most conservatives concede that Bush did spend far too much, compared to obama's spending it is a drop in the bucket. Obama's spending in itself is a concern but WHAT it is spent on is the really troubling issue. And while you may feel free to call me a typical conservative I dont think that I personally fit that bill as nicely as you, Joe, Smooth Operator, and company fit the typical Liberal tag. But that's what keeps things interesting.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Ah, but like I said we have our problems.

Still, just mentioning the Party of Fiscal Responsibility, Small Government, and Values/Morality is pretty much a hypocrisy trump card for the rest of eternity...especially that last one.

Now, you personally don't fall into this...just the side you tend to fall on does.

Of course you & Chuck and others aren't necessarily socially conservative on certain issues, but it's all about the company you keep when screaming the loudest.

Have to give Brian a win here... there is nothing more hypocritical in this world than the Republicans in power and GW Bush. They are like anti-conservatives. And their "Values/Morality" comes off as a bunch of hate speech.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Ah, but like I said we have our problems.

Still, just mentioning the Party of Fiscal Responsibility, Small Government, and Values/Morality is pretty much a hypocrisy trump card for the rest of eternity...especially that last one.

Now, you personally don't fall into this...just the side you tend to fall on does.

Of course you & Chuck and others aren't necessarily socially conservative on certain issues, but it's all about the company you keep when screaming the loudest.

Arguing about politicians failings is folly because there is no lack of hypocracy on both sides. There are plenty of idiots on both sides as well. It would be nice to address the issues rather than stereotypes but rarely happens and we all fall victim to needling the other side.