# John Bolton on the the greatest misconceptions that Democrats have about Republicans.



## Stephanie (Dec 17, 2011)

Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
When John Bolton was asked the question of what he thought was the greatest misconception that Democrats have about Republicans, I honestly didnt expect such a brilliantly deep answer. I guess Ive gotten used to fluff. But Bolton hit it out of the park and I just had to start the day with it:


video and comments at site.

Bolton said..


> The core misimpression is that a fundamental belief in liberty and its implications is somehow cruel and uncaring. When in fact, liberty is absolutely central to the most massive economic change in the history of the world that has brought more concrete material advantages to people in the last few hundred years than in millennia before that. And that understanding liberty means you have to value the possibility of failure as well as the possibility of success. Because if you dont have failure as an option, youll never have success as an option.
> 
> Its not lack of compassion that drives many Republican policy preferences, its a belief in the inherent importance of individual self-worth and not being dependent on external factors like the government.



from with comments..
John Bolton on the greatest misconception that Democrats have about Republicans | The Right Scoop


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 17, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> When John Bolton was asked the question of what he thought was the greatest misconception that Democrats have about Republicans, I honestly didnt expect such a brilliantly deep answer. I guess Ive gotten used to fluff. But Bolton hit it out of the park and I just had to start the day with it:
> 
> 
> ...



The biggest misconception Republicans have is that somehow liberty is a value that only applies to their party


----------



## old navy (Dec 17, 2011)

Bolton comes across like a pompous, mean old white man which of course turns a lot of people off. 

But he is smart as hell, and like a lot of us arrogant old white fellows, we are usually right.


----------



## dblack (Dec 17, 2011)

What's not a misconception at all, is the observations that Republicans don't live up to this ideal. Don't even really try. Their passion for 'liberty' is utterly selective - perhaps even more so than it is for 'libruls'. Ask the banksters about failure as an 'option'.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 17, 2011)

> Its not lack of compassion that drives many Republican policy preferences, its a belief in the inherent importance of individual self-worth and not being dependent on external factors like the government.



And? 

No one disagrees with this, particularly democrats and progressives. It would seem the misconception belongs to the republicans. 

What the right fails to understand is that liberals and progressives dont adhere blindly to political dogma  a pragmatic approach is always best. 

The fact is for millions of Americans competition is simply not an option, for reasons of age or health, for example. And theres no point in a civilized society to allow those who fail to be left to die and rot on the roadside. 

Conservatives would be well-advised to come out of their fantasy dream-world from time to time and experience reality and the truth. It cant do them any harm.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 17, 2011)

Bolton will make a magnificent secretary of state.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 17, 2011)

For millions more Americans failure is a choice they make for themselves, then pretend they are too pathetic to take care of themselves.

The occupy movement and every protester in it was a shining example of such choice.


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 17, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Its not lack of compassion that drives many Republican policy preferences, its a belief in the inherent importance of individual self-worth and not being dependent on external factors like the government.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



good grief..


----------



## dblack (Dec 17, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is for millions of Americans competition is simply not an option, for reasons of age or health, for example. *And theres no point in a civilized society to allow those who fail to be left to die and rot on the roadside. *
> ...



Good grief indeed. Not sure it's on topic, but it's worth pointing out the core assumption behind this notion - namely that government is the *only* vehicle for compassionate society (or even a good one). Anyone who dares to  question this assumption is attacked with "let 'em die!" demagoguery.


----------



## daveman (Dec 18, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> ...


Speaking of liberal misconceptions...


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 18, 2011)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



It was liberals who gave this country liberty....


----------



## daveman (Dec 18, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> What the right fails to understand is that liberals and progressives dont adhere blindly to political dogma  a pragmatic approach is always best.



If you've made yourself believe that, you can make yourself believe anything.


----------



## daveman (Dec 18, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Indeed.  But it wasn't statists or progressives or modern liberals.


----------



## old navy (Dec 18, 2011)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Exactly. Today's lefties have bastardized the term liberal. That is why I call them lefties.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 18, 2011)

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



This country gained it's liberty despite the efforts of conservatives who remained loyal to the king

The latest victory for liberty came during the civil rights movement where conservatives fought for states rights and against "big government"


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 18, 2011)

> This country gained it's liberty despite the efforts of conservatives who remained loyal to the king
> 
> The latest victory for liberty came during the civil rights movement where conservatives fought for states rights and against "big government"


Correct. 

Since 1954 progressives have been fighting to gain and protect the civil liberties of Americans and restrict government preemption of rights, mostly with regard to state and local governments efforts to violate citizens rights. And every step of the way those efforts were opposed by conservatives, in violation of the Constitution and rule of law.


----------



## daveman (Dec 19, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


If today's liberals were around then, they'd have informed on the revolutionaries to the King.


----------



## daveman (Dec 19, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > This country gained it's liberty despite the efforts of conservatives who remained loyal to the king
> >
> > The latest victory for liberty came during the civil rights movement where conservatives fought for states rights and against "big government"
> 
> ...


Well, that's certainly one interpretation of reality.

An incorrect one.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 19, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> ...



oh what friggin ever diarrhea of the mouth for god sakes, did you actually read what he wrote? or just vomit?..... was that to deep for you? and the boiler room useful idiot who thanked you?


----------



## Trajan (Dec 19, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > This country gained it's liberty despite the efforts of conservatives who remained loyal to the king
> >
> > The latest victory for liberty came during the civil rights movement where conservatives fought for states rights and against "big government"
> 
> ...



why pick 1954? BvsBoE? you're a hack, thats why you picked 1954. 

go ahead and tell everyone why.........


----------



## Sallow (Dec 19, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> When John Bolton was asked the question of what he thought was the greatest misconception that Democrats have about Republicans, I honestly didn&#8217;t expect such a brilliantly deep answer. I guess I&#8217;ve gotten used to fluff. But Bolton hit it out of the park and I just had to start the day with it:
> 
> 
> ...



When John Bolton moves to an Island free of government services..we can talk.

Till then..he's a blooming hypocrite.


----------



## BluePhantom (Dec 19, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> For millions more Americans failure is a choice they make for themselves, then pretend they are too pathetic to take care of themselves.



This is absolutely correct and we as a society create that.  Here's what I mean.  When you tell children "it's ok that you lost, you tried your best", and we give them blue ribbons for coming in last place.  The "everyone is a winner" approach. It teaches kids that they don't *have *to try their best to be considered just as much of a success as other kids who try harder or are simply naturally better at the activity. What that means is that in adulthood when they face a difficult situation they don't understand how (or even the need) to dig down inside themselves and become better in order to meet the challenge: to become even stronger than they thought they were capable of in order to succeed. Why should they?  We have taught them that failure is acceptable.  The only problem is that in real life failure is *not *acceptable. 

I will even quote a Democrat on this point: "Show me a gracious loser and I will show you a loser." - Jimmy Carter (and he ought to know)


----------



## rdean (Dec 19, 2011)

old navy said:


> Bolton comes across like a pompous, mean old white man which of course turns a lot of people off.
> 
> But he is smart as hell, and like a lot of us arrogant old *white* fellows, we are usually *right*.



"White" is "right".  Who knew?  Now I understand the feelings about Obama.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 19, 2011)

rdean said:


> old navy said:
> 
> 
> > Bolton comes across like a pompous, mean old white man which of course turns a lot of people off.
> ...





> Now I understand



that, will be a first.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 19, 2011)

BluePhantom said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > For millions more Americans failure is a choice they make for themselves, then pretend they are too pathetic to take care of themselves.
> ...



If there is to be true equality of outcome, failure is not only acceptable, it is the equal of success.


----------



## rdean (Dec 19, 2011)

Trajan said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > old navy said:
> ...



Seems you already understood.  I get it.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 19, 2011)

bolololololololton.


----------



## BluePhantom (Dec 19, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Yes, but there *is *no equality of outcome.  Failure is the antithesis of success.  You simply must have one to recognize the other.....just as we must have rDean here for example to establish a baseline by which we can recognize and appreciate the intelligence of other posters.


----------



## Iggy (Dec 19, 2011)

Failure recognized and dealt with is often one step closer to success.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 19, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> When John Bolton was asked the question of what he thought was the greatest misconception that Democrats have about Republicans, I honestly didnt expect such a brilliantly deep answer. I guess Ive gotten used to fluff. But Bolton hit it out of the park and I just had to start the day with it:
> 
> 
> ...



LOL! What a big strawman Bolton defeated.

It says a lot that he didn't address the factual pedophile tendencies of Republicans and instead went to war with a strawman.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2011)

old navy said:


> Bolton comes across like a pompous, mean old white man which of course turns a lot of people off.
> 
> But he is smart as hell, and like a lot of us arrogant old white fellows, we are usually right.



Yeah. Way far right. Out there on the edge of lunacy.


----------



## daveman (Dec 19, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> ...


----------



## Cervantes22 (Dec 20, 2011)

After there was bipartisan agreement on the NDAA neither party can pretend they give a shit about liberty anymore.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 21, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> The biggest misconception Republicans have is that somehow liberty is a value that only applies to their party



That isn't a misconception.  Left-wingers despise liberty.  They demonstrate it every time they open their mouths.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 21, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> old navy said:
> 
> 
> > Bolton comes across like a pompous, mean old white man which of course turns a lot of people off.
> ...




He looks that way only from your vantage point from to the left of Pol Pot.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 21, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> Since 1954 progressives have been fighting to gain and protect the civil liberties of Americans and restrict government preemption of rights, mostly with regard to state and local governments&#8217; efforts to violate citizens&#8217; rights. And every step of the way those efforts were opposed by conservatives, in violation of the Constitution and rule of law.



Of course, they are launching an all out assault on all our other rights.

Take the right to keep what you earn:  Liberals have professed their undying opposition to that proposition.

The list of rights that liberals oppose is endless.  The only rights they support are the right to fornicate in any manner you choose and the right to have an abortion.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 21, 2011)

Sallow said:


> When John Bolton moves to an Island free of government services..we can talk.
> 
> Till then..he's a blooming hypocrite.



So the only people who can dispute your conception of reality are the ones who don't live in this country?

*How beautifully Stalinist of you!*


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 21, 2011)

Ravi said:


> LOL! What a big strawman Bolton defeated.
> 
> It says a lot that he didn't address the factual pedophile tendencies of Republicans and instead went to war with a strawman.




You're simply a hosebag who does nothing but hurl ad hominems, aren't you?


----------



## jillian (Dec 21, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > LOL! What a big strawman Bolton defeated.
> ...



you don't even reach the level of hosebag... 

loser.


----------



## jillian (Dec 21, 2011)

daveman said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



you put that on the wrong post... it belonged on bripat's or steffie baby's.

thanks.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 21, 2011)

jillian said:


> you don't even reach the level of hosebag...
> 
> loser.



You exceeded your usual posting standard for idiocy and utter lack of a point.


----------



## editec (Dec 21, 2011)

It always cracks me up when extremists of the far right or far left tell us what their opponents really think.

Why?

Because they always overstate the case to suit their own needs.

If you are not leaning left or right?

You cannot tell the world what the left or right stands for.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 21, 2011)

Oh good grief steffie  Bolton & his right- wingery? Everyone knows its Repubs who institute gov't on a massive scale. See: 2000-2008


----------



## jillian (Dec 21, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > you don't even reach the level of hosebag...
> ...



you do know that i think your opinion is pretty much on par with a cockroach, right?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 21, 2011)

jillian said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > You exceeded your usual posting standard for idiocy and utter lack of a point.
> ...




Obviously not.  Why would anyone care about the opinion of a cockroach?  If you didn't care about my opinion, you wouldn't reply to my posts.

You just outed yourself.


----------



## Jackson (Dec 21, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> When John Bolton was asked the question of what he thought was the greatest misconception that Democrats have about Republicans, I honestly didn&#8217;t expect such a brilliantly deep answer. I guess I&#8217;ve gotten used to fluff. But Bolton hit it out of the park and I just had to start the day with it:
> 
> 
> ...



If people would take the time or opportunity to listen to this man, they would have to be impressed.  He would be an asset in any administration.

He tells it like it is regardless of ideology especial in defense and foreign affairs matters. A very learned man who doesn't look for props.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 21, 2011)

Jackson said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> ...



Bolton has no perception of diplomacy. He was an embarrassment to this country when he represented us in the UN.


----------



## Liability (Dec 21, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> ...



Leftwhiner's post ^ has zero truth value.

What a non-surprise.


----------



## Liability (Dec 21, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



No, he wasn't.  He was terrific.  He only got under the unduly thin politically correct skin of mindless libs like you, Leftwhiner.


----------



## jillian (Dec 21, 2011)

Jackson said:


> If people would take the time or opportunity to listen to this man, they would have to be impressed.  He would be an asset in any administration.
> 
> He tells it like it is regardless of ideology especial in defense and foreign affairs matters. A very learned man who doesn't look for props.



john bolton is a very smart man. he is not, however, diplomatic, and never belonged in diplomatic service.


----------



## jillian (Dec 21, 2011)

Liability said:


> No, he wasn't.  He was terrific.  He only got under the unduly thin politically correct skin of mindless libs like you, Leftwhiner.



do you think the purpose of a diplomat is to get under people's skins?



> dip·lo·mat/&#712;dipl&#601;&#716;mat/
> Noun:
> An official representing a country abroad.
> *A person who can deal with people in a sensitive and effective way*.



Google


----------



## Liability (Dec 21, 2011)

jillian said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > If people would take the time or opportunity to listen to this man, they would have to be impressed.  He would be an asset in any administration.
> ...



Being "diplomatic" is important in one sense, but it is also highly over-rated in another sense.

I will grant you that the man was not especially tactful in all of his "diplomatic" stances, but I also contend that what he lacked in that arcane version of "tact," he made up for with a glorious supply of honesty.

This is why the term "refreshing" is used with regard to his service in that realm.  It is refreshing to hear a diplomat talking straight.  Perhaps over the years we have caused or compounded some of our big international problems by accepting "diplomacy" as something that requires doubletalk and mumbo-jumbo.


----------



## Liability (Dec 21, 2011)

jillian said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > No, he wasn't.  He was terrific.  He only got under the unduly thin politically correct skin of mindless libs like you, Leftwhiner.
> ...



Do you imagine that the value we place on the avoidance of getting under someone's skin is so high that the actual agenda of a nation's diplomatic position must be subverted to that concern?


----------



## daveman (Dec 21, 2011)

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Ummm...no.  

Unless you agree with Ravi's asshattery:  "...the factual pedophile tendencies of Republicans..."

Do you agree with her statement?


----------



## daveman (Dec 21, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


...because he didn't bow and scrape to terrorists, thugs, and their appeasers like the left wanted him to.


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 21, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Yeah, I guess because he didn't bow down and kiss their asses that would make him an embarrassment in your eyes. WE as a country don't owe the UN jackshit. I for one would like to see us get out of them and tell them to go to hell. but the Obama and Democrats believe we should be governed by them..that is the real scary part of the Democrat party.


----------



## Cervantes22 (Dec 21, 2011)

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


You think that whole "Republicans have pedo tendencies" bit has any truth to it? It just looks like mindless BS


----------



## Sallow (Dec 21, 2011)

John Bolton and the rest of republicans have these ridiculous notions about government and diplomacy. On one hand they want a government "small" enough to let American states govern themselves. But on the other hand they want a Pax Americana that establishes the kind of government every other nation on the planet is "allowed" to have by the United States. These are disparate agendas and completely unworkable.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 21, 2011)

John Bolton makes a good guest on a rightwing radio show. He dishes out what they want to hear

He makes a horrible diplomat and puts the US in a bad negotiating position. He is arrogant and dismissive which makes him a hero to the right but is disliked and distrusted by those he is negotiating with


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 21, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> John Bolton makes a good guest on a rightwing radio show. He dishes out why they want to hear
> 
> He makes a horrible diplomat and puts the US in a bad negotiating position. He is arrogant and dismissive which makes him a hero to the right but is disliked and distrusted by those he is negotiating with



wow, you know he is disliked and distrusted by those he is negotiating with.....HOW?
crystal ball?

Funny when people say the same about the Obama you blow them off as, KOOKS..


----------



## daveman (Dec 21, 2011)

Sallow said:


> John Bolton and the rest of republicans have these ridiculous notions about government and diplomacy. On one hand they want a government "small" enough to let American states govern themselves. *But on the other hand they want a Pax Americana that establishes the kind of government every other nation on the planet is "allowed" to have by the United States.* These are disparate agendas and completely unworkable.


Why do you have to lie so much?

Oh, yeah -- you're a leftist.  Kerry on.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 21, 2011)

daveman said:


> Indeed.  But it wasn't statists or progressives or modern liberals.



As modern liberals didn't exist yet, this is true.

Actually, conservatives don't believe in liberty at all. They're able to say they do, only because it's possible to achieve a net reduction in liberty by increasing the liberty of powerful private organizations and individuals to squash liberty in others.

Basically, conservatives value "big government" where the task of squashing liberty is best handled by government, and don't like "big government" in areas where that task is better handled by private business. It's a different take on the idea of government doing what we can't do as well for (or to) ourselves, but otherwise leaving things in private hands.

Thus, when it comes to slaughtering wogs, putting drug users (especially poor and black ones) in prison, or shutting down potentially subversive Internet sites, conservatives want the government to take strong action; there's little profit in these things and private business can't be relied on to take care of them. But when it comes to making people work long hours for little reward, subjecting communities to dangerous products, or smashing small-business competitors of big corporations into the dirt, conservatives quite rightly and sensibly leave this in private hands, except maybe occasionally providing a little assistance from the government in a helping-hand sort of way.

It's a myth that conservatives consistently oppose big government. That's what libertarians do, not conservatives. What conservatives consistently oppose is freedom.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 21, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> John Bolton makes a good guest on a rightwing radio show. He dishes out what they want to hear
> 
> He makes a horrible diplomat and puts the US in a bad negotiating position. He is arrogant and dismissive which makes him a hero to the right but is disliked and distrusted by those he is negotiating with




The liberal theory that groveling before our enemies puts us in a "good negotiating position" is too absurd for words.  It only puts us in a convenient position to receive  a swift kick in the ass.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 21, 2011)

Sallow said:


> John Bolton and the rest of republicans have these ridiculous notions about government and diplomacy. On one hand they want a government "small" enough to let American states govern themselves. But on the other hand they want a Pax Americana that establishes the kind of government every other nation on the planet is "allowed" to have by the United States. These are disparate agendas and completely unworkable.



ROFL! Didn't Obama just recently spew all kinds of blather about what kind of government Egypt and Libya should have?  And didn't he use bombs to enforce his opinion?

Is it possible for you to submit two posts in succession without resorting to the grossest hypocrisies?


----------



## dblack (Dec 21, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > John Bolton makes a good guest on a rightwing radio show. He dishes out what they want to hear
> ...



Yeah, arrogant and dismissive is the way to go. Gotta show 'em we don't give fuck what they think! That's the mark of righteous strength. It's the way to earn real respect.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 21, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> ...



At least you are consistent.

Can you provide a single example of Republicans wanting to throw every Democrat into jail?


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 21, 2011)

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Naaa, we should be wishy washy like Carter so a country like IRAN can hold our hostages for almost TWO YEARS. Or like Clinton with Bin laden. so that he could come back and implement ANOTHER world trade center bombing on us..


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 21, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Its not lack of compassion that drives many Republican policy preferences, its a belief in the inherent importance of individual self-worth and not being dependent on external factors like the government.
> 
> 
> And?
> ...



Aren't you the guy that keeps trying to pretend he is a lawyer? Did you give that up and decide to become Al Sharpton?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 21, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > This country gained it's liberty despite the efforts of conservatives who remained loyal to the king
> >
> > The latest victory for liberty came during the civil rights movement where conservatives fought for states rights and against "big government"
> 
> ...



Do you really want me to take the time to tear this apart? Are you aware that progressives champion the war on drugs because it helps people make good choices? Are you aware that said war on drugs has resulted in a net decrease in civil liberties?


----------



## dblack (Dec 21, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Yep. Those are the only two choices we have.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 21, 2011)

Ravi said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> ...



What about the pedophiles in Hollywood? When are Democrats going to go after them?


----------



## daveman (Dec 22, 2011)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed.  But it wasn't statists or progressives or modern liberals.
> ...


When you start with a falsehood, everything that follows may be immediately dismissed.


----------



## daveman (Dec 22, 2011)

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > John Bolton makes a good guest on a rightwing radio show. He dishes out what they want to hear
> ...


But we DESERVE it!  /leftist mode


----------



## daveman (Dec 22, 2011)

dblack said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


News flash:  They're never going to respect us.  They stick their hands out demanding foreign aid, thinking they deserve it, and still hate us when we give it to them.  

This isn't kindergarten.  We're not all going to get along.


----------



## daveman (Dec 22, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


They go after them to give them awards and accolades.


----------



## dblack (Dec 22, 2011)

daveman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, arrogant and dismissive is the way to go. Gotta show 'em we don't give fuck what they think! That's the mark of righteous strength. It's the way to earn real respect.
> ...



Hmm... cart? horse?


----------



## daveman (Dec 22, 2011)

dblack said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


No.  Reality.  They're not going to be nice to us if we kiss their ass.


----------



## dblack (Dec 22, 2011)

daveman said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Yes, and we've already determined that there are only two options, dismissive arrogance or kissing ass. Awesome.


----------



## Jackson (Dec 22, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> ...



What you don't seem to understand that with every endeavor there is a risk of reward or failure.  For the opposite is a void,  or nothing.  Not seeking anything.  The default is failure.  

Again.. you are not understanding a concept but putting a party before your own misconceptions.  Your party affiliations just color everything purple.


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 22, 2011)

Allow me a rephrase of Bolton's profundity: 'the core misinterpretation is that we believe in the tooth fairy and they do not.' See how easy it is to say something and say nothing. Of course since you don't know what I mean by the tooth fairy you'll never understand. 

"The atmosphere surrounding this problem is terrible. Dense clouds of language lie about the crucial point. It is almost impossible to get through it." Ludwig Wittgenstein


----------



## M.D. Rawlings (Dec 23, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> The biggest misconception Republicans have is that somehow liberty is a value that only applies to their party



That's not a misconception; it's a fact.  Or certainly the hardcore base of the Democratic Party is comprised of statists.  Just ask midcan5, the one who truly did write something without saying anything in the above.


----------



## midcan5 (Dec 24, 2011)

M.D. Rawlings said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest misconception Republicans have is that somehow liberty is a value that only applies to their party
> ...



LOL  Again a word, 'statist' that means nothing outside the choir of singers who pretend 'liberty' means something as they deny rights to other Americans. The magic here is that words alone lead the republicans to failure after failure and yet they repeat them like robotic puppets. Go figure. 

"The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president's principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay's ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. *This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it." *"Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 24, 2011)

Why then if they love liberty did most all republicans support the patriot act?


----------



## daveman (Dec 24, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Why then if they love liberty did most all republicans support the patriot act?



Who extended it?

Oh, yeah -- you mindless Obamabots blamed Bush for that, too.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 24, 2011)

daveman said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Why then if they love liberty did most all republicans support the patriot act?
> ...



Umm do not forget the 42 Tea Party cacus members who voted to extend it as well.


----------



## daveman (Dec 24, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


We were talking about Obama.  Who signed the extension into law.

But you refuse to hold him accountable for that.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 24, 2011)

daveman said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



If you think I have refused to hold him accountable for that then just read some of my past posts on the subject.

And no BILL can be signed into LAW unless it has been approved by the House of Representatives.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 24, 2011)

Republicans/conservatives clearly have no monopoly on liberty. Their perception of it is problematic, to say the lease. 

They focus on property rights and limiting the government in that regard yet fail to consider individual rights and advocate greater government authority accordingly. Conservatives efforts to violate homosexuals equal protection rights is but one glaring example of their contempt for the rule of law.


----------



## daveman (Dec 24, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


Once again, you're blaming Republicans, who can't sign a bill into law, instead of the man who signed the bill into law.

You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.  Actually, you'll be thrown under the bus once your utility is over.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 24, 2011)

midcan5 said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Of all the dumb things you have ever said, this one really proves you have no idea what you are talking about. Statists are people, like Newt and Obama, who advocate the statism. Notice how I picked an example from both sides? Unless you are a complete idiot you know Obama prefers state power over individual rights, he proved that with his signing statement on the NDAA.

Now comes the obligatory midcan quote of someone who actually proves the exact opposite of what he is trying to prove.



midcan5 said:


> "The collapse of the Bush presidency, in other words, is not just due to Bush's incompetence (although his administration has been incompetent beyond belief). Nor is it a response to the president's principled lack of intellectual curiosity and pitbull refusal to admit mistakes (although those character flaws are certainly real enough). And the orgy of bribery and special-interest dispensation in Congress is not the result of Tom DeLay's ruthlessness, as impressive a bully as he was. *This conservative presidency and Congress imploded, not despite their conservatism, but because of it." *"Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 24, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Why then if they love liberty did most all republicans support the patriot act?



Same reason most of the Democrats did, they are statists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 24, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Republicans/conservatives clearly have no monopoly on liberty. Their perception of it is problematic, to say the lease.
> 
> They focus on property rights and limiting the government in that regard yet fail to consider individual rights and advocate greater government authority accordingly. Conservatives efforts to violate homosexuals equal protection rights is but one glaring example of their contempt for the rule of law.



In order for your statement to be true you have to indicate that Democrats actually have a better record on liberty, good luck with that.

By the way, are you arguing that property rights are less important than other rights? If the government has the power to arbitrarily tell people they cannot build a home on their property, and then tell them they have no right to appeal that decision until the government decides to take them to court, do we really have individual liberty? Doesn't that infringe on our individual right to due process? Are you really so incredibly stupid that you think that our property rights are not individual rights?


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 25, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans/conservatives clearly have no monopoly on liberty. Their perception of it is problematic, to say the lease.
> ...



If the government owns all property as a collective of individuals there is no right for a single  individual to remove the rights of ownership from the collective.  The rights of homosexuals are juxtaposed against the rights of property ownership and found to be of greater weight so the attention of protecting rights should be removed from property and transferred to them.

That's what he's trying to say.


----------



## newpolitics (Dec 28, 2011)

actions speak louder than words


----------



## newpolitics (Dec 28, 2011)

What bothers me about this is the implication that democrats do not care about liberty. There exists a continuum of liberty, and given that we have a constitution, there will always be liberty as it is defined in our constitution and bill of rights. Nothing is going to threat that, except for the assholes who are already in Washington, taking money from corporations, listening to their lobbyists, and trading away our liberties under the guise of 'national security' against an continuously manufactured boogeyman to create the illusion that our liberty is constantly being threatened. This engenders the conservative reaction, who's focus is then not on creating the best possible life for all citizens of this country, but of safeguarding liberty, even if that means taking it away from everybody to do it, with the Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act, and SOPA. Everybody wants freedom. That is part of our existence. Republicans are delusional to say that their brand of liberty is somehow better than someone elses, as if they have a monopoly on the idea. They judge from this standpoint, everybody who they see as different, much the same as evangelicals, who, by no coincidence, make up a powerful portion of the republican base. The mainstream of both the liberal and republican camp are to some extent, full of shit, because they all bow down to money. But it is the republican following, who more often than democrats, point the finger and try to set the state for how they think things should be, rather than actually trying to fix things. They, like the terrorists, want to take us back in time, to when things were more glorious. they do not want to move forward, and actually deal with what is.


----------



## daveman (Dec 28, 2011)

newpolitics said:


> actions speak louder than words



Indeed they do.  I suggest people stop listening to what liberals say and pay attention to what they do -- because frequently the two are poles apart.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Dec 29, 2011)

Scientific geniuses are responsible for our prosperity.  Republicans claim that investors caused all our progress; this is parasite economics and is keeping us from progressing further.


----------



## daveman (Dec 29, 2011)

PrometheusBound said:


> Scientific geniuses are responsible for our prosperity.  Republicans claim that investors caused all our progress; this is parasite economics and is keeping us from progressing further.


How can a wonderful invention get to market without investors?


----------



## The T (Dec 31, 2011)

daveman said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > Scientific geniuses are responsible for our prosperity. Republicans claim that investors caused all our progress; this is parasite economics and is keeping us from progressing further.
> ...


Tenacity alone?


----------



## tenthertoo (Jan 2, 2012)

John Bolton is on my _short_ list of who I'd wish would be the President.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Jan 4, 2012)

daveman said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > Scientific geniuses are responsible for our prosperity.  Republicans claim that investors caused all our progress; this is parasite economics and is keeping us from progressing further.
> ...



How can the investment be worth anything without inventors?  Investment is static, creativity is dynamic.  The inventors create the value of the investment, so they should be in control and get 50% ownership of the patents.

Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis got a $30,000 bonus for his invention of the Polymerase Chain Reaction, which under Investor Supremacy was totally owned by the corporate parasites, who got $300,000,000 for it. 

Mullis calls his mother every night, has been married three times, and is deeply into drugs.  Our insults and ingratitude to High IQs creates such childish and escapist losers.  If superior minds would only realize that they should be treated like superior athletes are from childhood on, they could take over the privileges granted to static capital.


----------



## frazzledgear (Jan 4, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> ...



Of COURSE it only applies to the Republican party -but not necessarily every Republican though.  It does NOT apply to the Democrat party at all now that far leftwing extremists control it!  Get real! 

I can't believe you would even suggest liberals value liberty when liberty is INCOMPATIBLE with the core liberal beliefs that the proper role of government it to "take care" of perfectly normal, healthy adults.  That government should be making life more "fair" somehow -when in reality the only way to do that is by making it far more unfair for others.   In order to make life more "fair", liberals SERIOUSLY believe it is the proper role of government to protect people from the consequences of their own bad decisions -INSURING we get even more of it.  Liberals' response to that?  Shift ever more of those consequences off to the people who didn't make those bad decisions in the first place in order to avoid them!  Unless you experience the consequences of both failure and success in every area of your own life, then the incentive to strive for one while avoiding the other has been removed.  There are people who don't need to personally experience failure to understand the undesirable consequences- but there are people who do.  We all know people like that.  Liberals have yet to come up with a rational explanation as to the benefits to society by protecting people from the negative consequences of their own poor decisions making skills when that is how people LEARN TO MAKE BETTER ONES.   They know full well protecting people from their own bad decisions is in reality a reward and will result in even more of it.  They use that result to justify expanding the power of government to do even more.   They do it by pretending that is what "caring" means. 

Liberals give empty lip service to "caring" because in reality their core beliefs is all about POWER and using the force and power of government to FORCE people to live as THEY see fit.  Not as a free person may see fit.  FREEDOM is not a liberal value and liberals would gladly sell off their own, that of their children and my own for whatever cheap bauble is dangled in front of them.  Like Obamacare.  The cost to the freedom of the individual with Obamacare is in reality the nonstop liberal belief that the individual MUST be stripped of as much control over his own life and give it to government.  In exchange, the individual is "taken care of".   Liberals absolutely believe government can run your life better than you can and believe government is the rightful owner of your life to do with as the ruling elite sees fit.  Which is why in spite of overwhelming opposition -it was Democrats, without a single Republican vote -that rammed Obamacare down our throats and AGAINST OUR WILL.  

Liberty is about who makes the rules.  And you either get this one or you don't.  Republicans believe it is we the people who make those rules by which we CONSENT to be governed.  Liberals get that, they understand that -they just disagree with it.  They believe they are not only have an inherent right to rule, they believe they are justified in behaving like mini-dictators, blatantly making it obvious they don't give a rat's ass about the consent of the people -because in their world, only THEY should be making the rules. 


Liberty a Democrat value in this century?  ROFLMAO!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 4, 2012)

dblack said:


> What's not a misconception at all, is the observations that Republicans don't live up to this ideal. Don't even really try. Their passion for 'liberty' is utterly selective - perhaps even more so than it is for 'libruls'. Ask the banksters about failure as an 'option'.


This merely supports the premise that there's nearly no difference between Dems and Republicans.

Bolton's comments might have better used termed 'liberal' and 'conservative'.


----------



## daveman (Jan 4, 2012)

PrometheusBound said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PrometheusBound said:
> ...


Mullis' drug use is his own choice.  No one is responsible for it but him.

Plus, he signed a contract going in.  He knew what the terms were.  It was his choice to continue working under that contract.  

Mullis' situation is his own fault.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Jan 5, 2012)

daveman said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I am pointing out that the oppressive supremacy of the employers produces scientists who have no strength of character.  
The employers have a monopoly on contracts.  There is no union of superior minds like there are unions of superior athletes.  These contracts do not leave open a fair or reasonable choice, just as pre-union athletes had to accept what they were offered or work low-wage jobs outside of sports.  
With your attitude towards High IQs you deserve to die of a disease that only they could provide the cure to, but why should they if they have to put up with the insults and gratitude of those who worship raw power?


----------



## Iggy (Jan 5, 2012)

Bolton knows what's going on. He's just not PC enough but that's a Republican issue that follows across the board.


----------



## daveman (Jan 5, 2012)

PrometheusBound said:


> I am pointing out that the oppressive supremacy of the employers produces scientists who have no strength of character.
> The employers have a monopoly on contracts.  There is no union of superior minds like there are unions of superior athletes.  These contracts do not leave open a fair or reasonable choice, just as pre-union athletes had to accept what they were offered or work low-wage jobs outside of sports.
> With your attitude towards High IQs you deserve to die of a disease that only they could provide the cure to, but why should they if they have to put up with the insults and gratitude of those who worship raw power?


My goodness.  So much stupidity and hatred.  Yep, you're a leftist, all right.

What's keeping an inventor from going into business for himself to exploit his own ideas?

Nothing.  End of story.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Jan 5, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> Posted by  The Right Scoop on Dec 12, 2011 in Politics | 57 Comments
> When John Bolton was asked the question of what he thought was the greatest misconception that Democrats have about Republicans, I honestly didnt expect such a brilliantly deep answer. I guess Ive gotten used to fluff. But Bolton hit it out of the park and I just had to start the day with it:
> 
> 
> ...



I'm a conservative libertarian/ (real) Republican/Tea Party member and "compassion" is the first thing I thought of when I saw the thread title..

Republicans have compassion, however they're responsible. 

It's one thing to be down on your luck and use some form of assistance and it's another to abuse charity...

Republicans would go out of their way to help anyone who truly needs help, however they would do it privately.. Weather it is donating to the homeless guy on the corner or donating to a private charity that helps people. However republicans have a say in who they help.

When it comes to social programs republicans don't have a say, for example a republican would never donate to a 15-year-old that has a sign reading: "Got knocked up need money for an abortion."

A republican would however tell the girl she has nothing to fear and that her family will lover her and the baby and her fear is just illogical given the bigger picture, and if she comes from an abusive family would certainly attempt to place the girl where she and her baby will be loved and protected....

I certainly wouldn't hand out a planned parenthood card, that would be too easy and the wrong solution...

I actually had that ^^^ happen to me a few years back, I brought her to a womans shelter run by a Catholic church... I checked back last year and she was doing fine, she had her baby and was enrolled in a training program funded by the same center.

Most republicans would go the extra mile to help a person....


----------



## Dragon (Jan 5, 2012)

daveman said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



No, it may only be dismissed after you have demonstrated the alleged falsehood to be false, or at least negated the argument in favor of it. And since all the rest of my post was exactly that -- an argument supporting the assertion that conservatives don't believe in freedom -- to dismiss it "immediately" is in effect to surrender.

If that's what you want to do, fine, I accept your surrender.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 5, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Why then if they love liberty did most all republicans support the patriot act?
> ...



Let's take a look at that word, "statism." What exactly is it supposed to mean?

The only way in which the meaning is really clear is if it is presented as an opposite to "anarchism." Thus, "statists" believe in having a state, while anarchists don't. Anyone who isn't a statist is an anarchist, and vice-versa.

Failing that, it COULD mean -- but never seems to -- the same thing as totalitarianism or autocracy, so that we might refer to Nazis, fascists, and Communists as "statists." But those non-anarchists who use the word don't seem to be applying it to totalitarians (although I presume they would if any were available), so that isn't right, either.

It also COULD mean -- but again, never seems to -- support for government that works against liberty, but does not go so far as to be properly totalitarian or autocratic. Here we're coming a little closer, because a few of those who use it object to the Patriot Act and similar recent episodes of national-security and/or military overreach. But the same people also seem to refer to use of government to protect people's liberties from private power as "statist." So this isn't a universal rule, apparently.

I'm afraid we're left with the conclusion that the word "statism" has no coherent meaning at all.


----------



## newpolitics (Jan 5, 2012)

daveman said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > I am pointing out that the oppressive supremacy of the employers produces scientists who have no strength of character.
> ...



Dave. you make it sound so easy, and you vastly oversimplify all of the information that is reality, and pack it into a concise, small box that is the republican talking point of the power of personal volition, which would be fine except for the fact that you are forgetting opportunity costs, that, among the endless hours of education, research, and the hard work it takes for genius and creative minds to create their creations, they simply don not have the time to work a 9 to 5, to raise enough capital to invest in a working business... you are speaking of literally, living two lives at once. you need to get off of your personal volition talking point and come down to reality. We do have control over certain things, but not everything. We are at the mercy of forces outside ourselves, and very often, forces set in motion by other beings vying for a controlling interest in everything around us,  that we simply must accept or go elsewhere, (or challenge, but that is another lifetime of work). I see you spitting the same talking point: it is your fault if you can't do it. No. People try as hard as they can, with what they know, and other people possesses too much power, most often in the financial sectors in the forms of investment monopolies, so that anyone looking for an investor, must sacrifice a certain amount of integrity and dignity. the question then becomes, how much of yourself are you actually willing to give up. you comment on these hypotheticals from an ideological distance, and it comes off as sheer arrogance, even in how much you seem to be able to simplify the infinite complexity that is reality.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Jan 5, 2012)

daveman said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > I am pointing out that the oppressive supremacy of the employers produces scientists who have no strength of character.
> ...


 You brown-noses want us peasants to grovel in the dirt before your Masters.  Throwing you a bone or a hushpuppy for this attitude, the rich may pat you on the head and say, "Good boy!"


----------



## daveman (Jan 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Dragon said:
> ...


You can insist a turd is a rose, but it still stinks.

You failed.  Conservatives believe in individual liberties.  Liberals don't.


----------



## daveman (Jan 5, 2012)

Dragon said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


What is it with you idiot leftists?  You don't have the authority to define words.  Stop pretending you do.  

stat·ism  (sttzm)
n.
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.​You know, like you idiots want.


----------



## daveman (Jan 5, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PrometheusBound said:
> ...



Yeah, we get it.  No one is responsible for their station in life.  Some vague, amorphous, ill-defined THE MAN is keeping everyone down.

Your hand-wringing singularly fails to take into account the people who have DONE what I said:  They worked their asses off and got their products to market, and profited handsomely from it.

Now who's not dealing with reality?


----------



## daveman (Jan 5, 2012)

PrometheusBound said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PrometheusBound said:
> ...


I have no master.  I'm a citizen, not a subject, unlike you lickspittle leftists.  

I don't care what you do.  Live in a van down by the river or invent the next Pocket Fisherman and earn a million dollars.  Makes ZERO difference to me.

But stop insisting the world owes you a living, and keep your damn hands out of my wallet.  If you want my money, come up with something I want to buy from you.

But that's toooo _haaaaaard!!_, isn't it?


----------



## PrometheusBound (Jan 7, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PrometheusBound said:
> ...



That's why only 8% of those capable of inventing things support GOPer economics.  The owners of capital are low-IQ parasites and bullies.


----------



## PrometheusBound (Jan 7, 2012)

daveman said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



We don't owe those who own the world a living, which these parasites make off the rest of us by controlling our minds to think that failure in the game that they make the rules for means we are losers and that success by being one of their brown-nosing flunkies makes us winners.


----------



## newpolitics (Jan 7, 2012)

daveman said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I am not saying no one is responsible for their station in life. We have control over ourselves. That's it. As far as the world, any number of variables can be thrown our way that make a situation anywhere from easy to damn near impossible in terms of bringing a dream or concept to fruition, getting past all of the obstacles that may or may not be thrown in our way depending on where we are coming from within a society, and how that society views us. People try, but just because a few have done it, doesn't mean everyone faces the same odds, or has the same resources. Once again, you oversimplify reality based the few who have done it, without looking into greater detail. "the devil is in the details.' Painting broad strokes sounds great in motivational speeches, but in reality, there is much more. What concerns me is that it is obvious you are literally compelled to say such things because you are so invested in your republican ideology, that your brain literally will not accept anything to the contrary. Anyone so unable to see reality for what it is, is dangerous, especially when given a pulpit. Unfortunately, such is the nature with human beliefs. We form them so the world makes sense to us. Unfortunately, they have nothing to do with reality, only that which is comfortable to us to alleviate cognitive dissonance and anxiety. I don't know where I am going with this, but Dave, you say the same thing over an over again, without considering into the idea that there is far more information than simply  a talking point about personal volition. It makes impossible the possibility for empathy for the reality of an individuals situation. Instead, you hold them up to some ideal 'should' about what they should be able to accomplish. i am simply saying, don't let your beliefs cover over reality. reality is far too complex, and it is inherently arrogant to paint reality with a singular belief. what you don't realize is that your perceptions are based on beliefs you don't' even know you have, as is the case with everybody, to an extent, and with exception to those who actively challenge their own arbitrary beliefs and realize that beliefs are only beliefs. Not reality. Do I get credit for this?


----------



## daveman (Jan 7, 2012)

PrometheusBound said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PrometheusBound said:
> ...


Looks like you're going to have to stop buying stuff, Snowflake.

Put up or shut up.  Get off the grid, quit wearing Nikes, and throw away the iPhone.

_Just.  Stop.  Your.  Fucking.  Whining._


----------



## daveman (Jan 7, 2012)

newpolitics said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


I've seen your version of "reality".  It bears little resemblance to the real thing.

I have my life and my family to worry about.  I don't feel compelled to worry about anyone else's; that's _their_ job.  When I can, I donate to worthy causes.  I don't cry myself to sleep worrying over anyone else, and no one else cries himself to sleep worrying over me.  

If you want to stay up all night singing _Kum Bah Yah_, fine.  Knock yourself out.  But keep it quiet, because I have to get up in the morning and go to work.

Okay?


----------



## The T (Jan 13, 2012)

daveman said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


 Amazing isn't it the amount of supposede 'Americans' that are so fucked up in thier own lives that they worry about 'the other guy and what he has different' in the same persuit of liberty...

The guy that has more gets it, practices it, and doesn't have time to worry about the other guy until  his property/liberty is being robbed from him...such as you and me and others...

And I personally don't appreciate the Government speaking for me in matters of _charity. That's MY decision...not thiers._


----------

