The most critical difference between the political right and the political left is...

[Coyote]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

Republicans claim to favour small government, but yet it was Clinton and Obama was actually reduced the number of federal employees. Reagan massively increased the size of the civil service when the unemployment rate hit 6%, saying that it was necessary because government workers buy food, clothing and stimulate the economy too.

Republicans also over-burden government programs with excessive administration to reduce "fraud and abuse", but the increased costs of their fraud prevention efforts cost far more than the fraud they are purporting to prevent. I'm firmly of the opinion that Republicans overburden these programs administratively in the hopes of convincing voters that they're excessively expensive and inefficient. For example: drug testing of welfare recipients cost over $1 million dollars in one state, and they found a small handful of drug users and saved the state $100,000 per year.

Food stamps is another program that is expensive to administer. Why not just increase welfare payments by the amount of food stamps and end the wages and costs of processing and wage testing additional applications, send out monthly amounts to the states and adding them to the electronic cards?

Why not give people the pride of working for a living because they can. There's nothing like being like everybody else, and a little work never killed anyone. There are people too sick to work, no doubt about it, and single moms may need to be full-time housekeepers if they have more than 2 children, or just one special needs kid. Seems the current raise will be well received by those who really need help, but it's also beneficial that 700,000 people were glad to get better paying jobs and were given the incentives to get off welfare and work toward self-sufficiency. If something goes wrong, and the need a cushion, they have one. But some of those who are off welfare actually like to work if the pay raise is good enough.

There's a flip side to finding drug users and letting them know they need to clean up their lives and work toward living life without the crutch that drugs can be, incarcerating the user in a world where overdoses are killers, and dependents lose their childhood after that all too many times. If someone knows about their addiction, they can be encouraged to try life without addiction issues cluttering their lives and destroying their children's childhood.

Addiction is, I"ve come to realize in my own family - an illness, not a choice. No one takes the first hit or first drink and decides they will become an addict.

I think we need to remember that before telling them what they should be doing. I've never smoked and never done drugs. I have no idea how difficult it is to quite but for what I've seen and been told.

 

[initforme]

Less people are getting married and more people are waiting until they are older and are foregoing kids. Maybe a healthy trend for the country. Less people and kids who need assistance.

 

[Crepitus]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

THE most critical difference to me is the Right is pro-American and patriotic, the Left is anti-American and unpatriotic.

And that's just a retarded RWNJ talking point without a shred of truth to it.

 

[Coyote]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

THE most critical difference to me is the Right is pro-American and patriotic, the Left is anti-American and unpatriotic.

Wrong and arrogant.

 

[bluzman61]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

THE most critical difference to me is the Right is pro-American and patriotic, the Left is anti-American and unpatriotic.

And that's just a retarded RWNJ talking point without a shred of truth to it.

And the dumb, brainwashed ASSHOLE says what???

 

[Coyote]

The right seems to to think they own the copyright on patriotism and America.


They don't.

 

[Meister]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

THE most critical difference to me is the Right is pro-American and patriotic, the Left is anti-American and unpatriotic.

And that's just a retarded RWNJ talking point without a shred of truth to it.

Well, defining the talking points would clear it up.

 

[bluzman61]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

THE most critical difference to me is the Right is pro-American and patriotic, the Left is anti-American and unpatriotic.

Wrong and arrogant.

Correct and PROUD of my country. A pride that very few, if any, liberal loons can honestly claim. You're welcome, as always.

 

[Coyote]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

THE most critical difference to me is the Right is pro-American and patriotic, the Left is anti-American and unpatriotic.

Wrong and arrogant.

Correct and PROUD of my country. A pride that very few, if any, liberal loons can honestly claim. You're welcome, as always.

You don't know much about leftists. You should go beyond talking points.

I'm proud of my country.

But not of the direction our president is taking it.

Got it dude?

 

[Crepitus]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

THE most critical difference to me is the Right is pro-American and patriotic, the Left is anti-American and unpatriotic.

And that's just a retarded RWNJ talking point without a shred of truth to it.

And the dumb, brainwashed ASSHOLE says what???

Yes, you did.

 

[Meister]

The right seems to to think they own the copyright on patriotism and America.


They don't.

No copyright, but patriotism to me might be different than to you, Coyote.
My ideals are different than the lefts

 

[Coyote]

The right seems to to think they own the copyright on patriotism and America.


They don't.

No copyright, but patriotism to me might be different than to you, Coyote.
My ideals are different than the lefts

Maybe so Meister, but I would never dream of accusing you of being unpatriotic or hating our country simply because we occupy different ends of the political spectrum.

IMO there is something wrong with this sort of thinking

 

[bluzman61]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

THE most critical difference to me is the Right is pro-American and patriotic, the Left is anti-American and unpatriotic.

Wrong and arrogant.

Correct and PROUD of my country. A pride that very few, if any, liberal loons can honestly claim. You're welcome, as always.

You don't know much about leftists. You should go beyond talking points.

I'm proud of my country.

But not of the direction our president is taking it.

Got it dude?

If you're NOT proud of your president, you CAN'T be proud of your country. Got it, dummy? Now please go back to your "moderating", you add NOTHING to these threads.

 

[Coyote]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

THE most critical difference to me is the Right is pro-American and patriotic, the Left is anti-American and unpatriotic.

Wrong and arrogant.

Correct and PROUD of my country. A pride that very few, if any, liberal loons can honestly claim. You're welcome, as always.

You don't know much about leftists. You should go beyond talking points.

I'm proud of my country.

But not of the direction our president is taking it.

Got it dude?

If you're NOT proud of your president, you CAN'T be proud of your country. Got it, dummy? Now please go back to your "moderating", you add NOTHING to these threads.

Wrong dummy.

The office of the President.
The man/woman who occupies it.
Our country.

THREE very different things - do you comprehend that?

If not - tell me how proud you were of Obama.

I await your pathetic rationalizations.

 

[Meister]

The right seems to to think they own the copyright on patriotism and America.


They don't.

No copyright, but patriotism to me might be different than to you, Coyote.
My ideals are different than the lefts

Maybe so Meister, but I would never dream of accusing you of being unpatriotic or hating our country simply because we occupy different ends of the political spectrum.

IMO there is something wrong with this sort of thinking

I would never accuse you either, Coyote. I know you pretty well and are a good person, we occupy different areas of the spectrum, for sure.

But, it is healthy to have these differences. It would be scary if we all went left or all went right....where would that journey take us?
Having the differences keeps both sides balanced.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I totally disagree with you on that - that is just another example of assumptions. The left supports abuse? Nothing below indicates a support of abuse. No one I know supports abuse. So where do you come up with this?

Let me put it this way. It's like me saying the right doesn't support safety nets. Is that true?

It's what you said. You said the right supports limited social safety nets that are private.

That isn't an issue of "the left supporting abuse" - largely it is an issue of lack of local enforcement of basic codes and - maybe more to the point - it ignores the many occasions of people NOT HUD who also strew garbage (I know, I've seen it). It's nothing to do with supporting abuse and it's not just HUD

HUD is the only agency that places people into homes. There is no reason our tax dollars should be supporting suburban living. If you want to live in the suburbs, then make enough money to do so. But what government does is suck up taxpayer dollars to provide great housing instead of just housing. Sorry, that's an abuse of our social safety nets.

DO they? I don't think so. I think the biggest complaint with these programs is bureaucracy.

And it's the bureaucracy that places them here, because they have all the money in the world--yours and mine.

And I would you say when you see that...what ASSUMPTIONS are you making?

For one - the cheapest food, and the most accessible food I food deserts is FATTENING. Do you have any idea how many grocery stores have closed in small towns that have lost population or cities that no longer support urban grocery stores.? So..you have to throw in she is 300 lbs. Why? So she has 4 kids - so WHAT? What do you know about her? She buys dog food - good for her. Dog's offer a lot of positive health benefits to people. You against that? Welfare doesn't pay for cigarettes and wine. But again - who are you to mandate that a person can't have something good like wine occasionally? You describe a textbook description - how often do you really see that?

I don't think anyone is for actual abuse. But I seriously question how much is stereotyping.

I throw in her weight because she's obviously eating way too much. Having an animal in your home is healthy? Since when? Ever notice how they clean themselves? You support this abuse as well. What you're saying is that you have no problem with taxpayers feeding her and her kids while she uses her personal money to feed her dogs and get drunk on beer or wine and smoking two packs of cigarettes. I do have a problem with that. If you don't have enough money for food, get rid of the dog, booze and cigarettes and feed yourself.

 

[beautress]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

Republicans claim to favour small government, but yet it was Clinton and Obama was actually reduced the number of federal employees. Reagan massively increased the size of the civil service when the unemployment rate hit 6%, saying that it was necessary because government workers buy food, clothing and stimulate the economy too.

Republicans also over-burden government programs with excessive administration to reduce "fraud and abuse", but the increased costs of their fraud prevention efforts cost far more than the fraud they are purporting to prevent. I'm firmly of the opinion that Republicans overburden these programs administratively in the hopes of convincing voters that they're excessively expensive and inefficient. For example: drug testing of welfare recipients cost over $1 million dollars in one state, and they found a small handful of drug users and saved the state $100,000 per year.

Food stamps is another program that is expensive to administer. Why not just increase welfare payments by the amount of food stamps and end the wages and costs of processing and wage testing additional applications, send out monthly amounts to the states and adding them to the electronic cards?

Why not give people the pride of working for a living because they can. There's nothing like being like everybody else, and a little work never killed anyone. There are people too sick to work, no doubt about it, and single moms may need to be full-time housekeepers if they have more than 2 children, or just one special needs kid. Seems the current raise will be well received by those who really need help, but it's also beneficial that 700,000 people were glad to get better paying jobs and were given the incentives to get off welfare and work toward self-sufficiency. If something goes wrong, and the need a cushion, they have one. But some of those who are off welfare actually like to work if the pay raise is good enough.

There's a flip side to finding drug users and letting them know they need to clean up their lives and work toward living life without the crutch that drugs can be, incarcerating the user in a world where overdoses are killers, and dependents lose their childhood after that all too many times. If someone knows about their addiction, they can be encouraged to try life without addiction issues cluttering their lives and destroying their children's childhood.

Addiction is, I"ve come to realize in my own family - an illness, not a choice. No one takes the first hit or first drink and decides they will become an addict.

I think we need to remember that before telling them what they should be doing. I've never smoked and never done drugs. I have no idea how difficult it is to quite but for what I've seen and been told.

My sister's grandchild was barely a year old when his addicted parent was shot after being drugged out of his mind and refused to get off property the owner ordered him off of due to his bizarro-world drug behavior. That baby didn't deserve to lose a daddy due to drugs, and his teenage mother will need government support even more now. There are a lot of bad drugs out there that kill people or remove reality in their victim's brain. I hate those selling the crazy-maker drugs more this year than in the past.

 

[Coyote]

The right seems to to think they own the copyright on patriotism and America.


They don't.

No copyright, but patriotism to me might be different than to you, Coyote.
My ideals are different than the lefts

Maybe so Meister, but I would never dream of accusing you of being unpatriotic or hating our country simply because we occupy different ends of the political spectrum.

IMO there is something wrong with this sort of thinking

I would never accuse you either, Coyote. I know you pretty well and are a good person, we occupy different areas of the spectrum, for sure.

But, it is healthy to have these differences. It would be scary if we all went left or all went right....where would that journey take us?
Having the differences keeps both sides balanced.

I couldn't agree with you more! I support balance - not having everything in control of one party or the other. We need it to keep us, as a country from going over the edge.

And wouldn't it be boring if we all thought the same?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

Republicans claim to favour small government, but yet it was Clinton and Obama was actually reduced the number of federal employees. Reagan massively increased the size of the civil service when the unemployment rate hit 6%, saying that it was necessary because government workers buy food, clothing and stimulate the economy too.

Republicans also over-burden government programs with excessive administration to reduce "fraud and abuse", but the increased costs of their fraud prevention efforts cost far more than the fraud they are purporting to prevent. I'm firmly of the opinion that Republicans overburden these programs administratively in the hopes of convincing voters that they're excessively expensive and inefficient. For example: drug testing of welfare recipients cost over $1 million dollars in one state, and they found a small handful of drug users and saved the state $100,000 per year.

Food stamps is another program that is expensive to administer. Why not just increase welfare payments by the amount of food stamps and end the wages and costs of processing and wage testing additional applications, send out monthly amounts to the states and adding them to the electronic cards?

Why not give people the pride of working for a living because they can. There's nothing like being like everybody else, and a little work never killed anyone. There are people too sick to work, no doubt about it, and single moms may need to be full-time housekeepers if they have more than 2 children, or just one special needs kid. Seems the current raise will be well received by those who really need help, but it's also beneficial that 700,000 people were glad to get better paying jobs and were given the incentives to get off welfare and work toward self-sufficiency. If something goes wrong, and the need a cushion, they have one. But some of those who are off welfare actually like to work if the pay raise is good enough.

There's a flip side to finding drug users and letting them know they need to clean up their lives and work toward living life without the crutch that drugs can be, incarcerating the user in a world where overdoses are killers, and dependents lose their childhood after that all too many times. If someone knows about their addiction, they can be encouraged to try life without addiction issues cluttering their lives and destroying their children's childhood.

Addiction is, I"ve come to realize in my own family - an illness, not a choice. No one takes the first hit or first drink and decides they will become an addict.

I think we need to remember that before telling them what they should be doing. I've never smoked and never done drugs. I have no idea how difficult it is to quite but for what I've seen and been told.

My sister's grandchild was barely a year old when his addicted parent was shot after being drugged out of his mind and refused to get off property the owner ordered him off of due to his bizarro-world drug behavior. That baby didn't deserve to lose a daddy due to drugs, and his teenage mother will need government support even more now. There are a lot of bad drugs out there that kill people or remove reality in their victim's brain. I hate those selling the crazy-maker drugs more this year than in the past.

An old friend of mine just buried his 28 year old son because of an OD, just a week before Christmas. No family should have to go through that.

 

[Coyote]

…what they believe with regard to the size and scope of government. To me, that is what defines one as being either right or left wing. Do you agree? If not, then what is it?

Republicans claim to favour small government, but yet it was Clinton and Obama was actually reduced the number of federal employees. Reagan massively increased the size of the civil service when the unemployment rate hit 6%, saying that it was necessary because government workers buy food, clothing and stimulate the economy too.

Republicans also over-burden government programs with excessive administration to reduce "fraud and abuse", but the increased costs of their fraud prevention efforts cost far more than the fraud they are purporting to prevent. I'm firmly of the opinion that Republicans overburden these programs administratively in the hopes of convincing voters that they're excessively expensive and inefficient. For example: drug testing of welfare recipients cost over $1 million dollars in one state, and they found a small handful of drug users and saved the state $100,000 per year.

Food stamps is another program that is expensive to administer. Why not just increase welfare payments by the amount of food stamps and end the wages and costs of processing and wage testing additional applications, send out monthly amounts to the states and adding them to the electronic cards?

Why not give people the pride of working for a living because they can. There's nothing like being like everybody else, and a little work never killed anyone. There are people too sick to work, no doubt about it, and single moms may need to be full-time housekeepers if they have more than 2 children, or just one special needs kid. Seems the current raise will be well received by those who really need help, but it's also beneficial that 700,000 people were glad to get better paying jobs and were given the incentives to get off welfare and work toward self-sufficiency. If something goes wrong, and the need a cushion, they have one. But some of those who are off welfare actually like to work if the pay raise is good enough.

There's a flip side to finding drug users and letting them know they need to clean up their lives and work toward living life without the crutch that drugs can be, incarcerating the user in a world where overdoses are killers, and dependents lose their childhood after that all too many times. If someone knows about their addiction, they can be encouraged to try life without addiction issues cluttering their lives and destroying their children's childhood.

Addiction is, I"ve come to realize in my own family - an illness, not a choice. No one takes the first hit or first drink and decides they will become an addict.

I think we need to remember that before telling them what they should be doing. I've never smoked and never done drugs. I have no idea how difficult it is to quite but for what I've seen and been told.

My sister's grandchild was barely a year old when his addicted parent was shot after being drugged out of his mind and refused to get off property the owner ordered him off of due to his bizarro-world drug behavior. That baby didn't deserve to lose a daddy due to drugs, and his teenage mother will need government support even more now. There are a lot of bad drugs out there that kill people or remove reality in their victim's brain. I hate those selling the crazy-maker drugs more this year than in the past.

I hear what you are saying - we lost my sister in law a few years ago to an OD, and we are right in the middle of the opiod belt. There is no easy solution and addiction is a real devil