Which is the party of personal responsibility?

[hadit]

Says the one that supports the ideology that believes it's the government's place to force one group of people they think has too much to support another group they think has too little all the while using "fair" as the determining factor. When the left uses fair as their support, they're saying it's not right that one person not earning it doesn't have as much as someone that did earn it.

Actually it comes down to helping those who need help

The next question is....Who pays for it?
The obvious answer is those who have the most pay the most

The obvious answer is those who think it should happen pay for it and stop demanding someone else do what you won't do. To bleeding hearts like you, it's always the other guy.

I guess we can apply that theory to everything in our society

Only those who support a war should have to pay for it
Only those who support a free education should have to pay for it
Only those who want police should have to pay for it

What we should apply is what the Constitution says. It gives Congress the power to raise and support a military. It says nothing about education. When that changes, you'll have an argument.

Provide for the General Welfare

The Constitution also says nothing about maintaining a standing Army, only a permanent Navy

If you want "Provide for the General Welfare" to justify endlessly increasing unearned benefits, then you're going to have to accept "provide for the common defense" as justification for an endlessly growing military budget.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually it comes down to helping those who need help

The next question is....Who pays for it?
The obvious answer is those who have the most pay the most

The obvious answer is those who think it should happen pay for it and stop demanding someone else do what you won't do. To bleeding hearts like you, it's always the other guy.

I guess we can apply that theory to everything in our society

Only those who support a war should have to pay for it
Only those who support a free education should have to pay for it
Only those who want police should have to pay for it

What we should apply is what the Constitution says. It gives Congress the power to raise and support a military. It says nothing about education. When that changes, you'll have an argument.

Provide for the General Welfare

The Constitution also says nothing about maintaining a standing Army, only a permanent Navy

I know it say general welfare but it's your interepretation that is means taxpayers should provide those other things. See the difference? No, you probably don't.

The Constitution says to raise and support armies with a condition as to how often funding has to be approved. That means it can be standing as long as it is met.

It is not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of 200 years of case law

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make those decisions on what needs to be done in the interests of We the People

 

[Conservative65]

Actually it comes down to helping those who need help

The next question is....Who pays for it?
The obvious answer is those who have the most pay the most

The obvious answer is those who think it should happen pay for it and stop demanding someone else do what you won't do. To bleeding hearts like you, it's always the other guy.

I guess we can apply that theory to everything in our society

Only those who support a war should have to pay for it
Only those who support a free education should have to pay for it
Only those who want police should have to pay for it

What we should apply is what the Constitution says. It gives Congress the power to raise and support a military. It says nothing about education. When that changes, you'll have an argument.

Provide for the General Welfare

The Constitution also says nothing about maintaining a standing Army, only a permanent Navy

If you want "Provide for the General Welfare" to justify endlessly increasing unearned benefits, then you're going to have to accept "provide for the common defense" as justification for an endlessly growing military budget.

On another site, I asked a supporter of the 2 year community college proposal how they suggested it be funded. Their answer was in line with what you said. They stated the military budget could be cut enough to pay for it.

The lefties seem to have a problem with funding something specifically called for in the Constitution, yet think something that happens due solely to an interpretation should be added to and added to anytime they want to pander to another group.

 

[Ava]

Which is the party of personal responsibility?

I'd say the party of John Stossel. Libertarian.

Mia Love is one person to be proud of. She has grit.

 

[Conservative65]

The obvious answer is those who think it should happen pay for it and stop demanding someone else do what you won't do. To bleeding hearts like you, it's always the other guy.

I guess we can apply that theory to everything in our society

Only those who support a war should have to pay for it
Only those who support a free education should have to pay for it
Only those who want police should have to pay for it

What we should apply is what the Constitution says. It gives Congress the power to raise and support a military. It says nothing about education. When that changes, you'll have an argument.

Provide for the General Welfare

The Constitution also says nothing about maintaining a standing Army, only a permanent Navy

I know it say general welfare but it's your interepretation that is means taxpayers should provide those other things. See the difference? No, you probably don't.

The Constitution says to raise and support armies with a condition as to how often funding has to be approved. That means it can be standing as long as it is met.

It is not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of 200 years of case law

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make those decisions on what needs to be done in the interests of We the People

Taking my money to support some freeloader when it comes to social welfare isn't in my interest and I'm one of those we the people.

Then you don't have a problem with a growing military budget since "providing for the common defense" is in the Constitution. At least with those in the military we get something for our money. With social welfare leeches, we get nothing but more social welfare leeches.

 

[rightwinger]

I guess we can apply that theory to everything in our society

Only those who support a war should have to pay for it
Only those who support a free education should have to pay for it
Only those who want police should have to pay for it

What we should apply is what the Constitution says. It gives Congress the power to raise and support a military. It says nothing about education. When that changes, you'll have an argument.

Provide for the General Welfare

The Constitution also says nothing about maintaining a standing Army, only a permanent Navy

I know it say general welfare but it's your interepretation that is means taxpayers should provide those other things. See the difference? No, you probably don't.

The Constitution says to raise and support armies with a condition as to how often funding has to be approved. That means it can be standing as long as it is met.

It is not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of 200 years of case law

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make those decisions on what needs to be done in the interests of We the People

Taking my money to support some freeloader when it comes to social welfare isn't in my interest and I'm one of those we the people.

Then you don't have a problem with a growing military budget since "providing for the common defense" is in the Constitution. At least with those in the military we get something for our money. With social welfare leeches, we get nothing but more social welfare leeches.

You have every right to vote for those candidates who support your positions on social welfare . Others also have that right and the voice of the majority will decide

Same goes for defense. The Constitution call for providing for the common defense. It does not say that defense should be stronger than the next ten nations combined.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Same goes for defense. The Constitution call for providing for the common defense. It does not say that defense should be stronger than the next ten nations combined.

Hmm, so libbies want to disarm civilians and posse comitatus military men that are forbidden to bear arms against the american people on US soil.

But they want the DHS and local police to have MRAPS, that can only be used against the US people.

 

[emilynghiem]

Republicans are the party of personal responsibility for others

Not necessarily themselves

Funny that's what they say about Democrats.
Are we even now? Can we move on? Next?

Actually, we can't

The Republican "solution" to every social issue is personal responsibility. Welfare, healthcare, child support........get a freak'n job and take care of yourself

Yet, when it comes to taking responsibility for their own actions, Republicans always have a fall guy. Liberal Media, low information voters, fixed elections

You are welcome to show a similar Democratic hypocricy

Yes, Democrats including my friend D2 BLAME Republicans and conservatives for why they have to fight and get elected.

In fact, he even admitted the reason he votes Democrat is that is his only way to oppose the Conservatives.
That is the war cry, the scapegoat.

As Obama said "voting is the best REVENGE" -- it's to oppose the opposition.

As for the worst hypocrisy, I think one is worse in concept the other party is worse about the actual amounts of money

A. the rift with the Democrats claiming to be prochoice and inclusive of diversity
but then turning around and mandating fines if you choose something other that govt regulated INSURANCE to pay for health care is one example; excluding conservative blacks and other political beliefs or views in general goes against the concept of inclusion and prochoice. But that's party politics, they are designed to just lobby for their members. So it is self-contradictory. There is no way around this because it's set up that way.

B. the Republicans claim that deregulation and limited govt are to maximize personal freedom. But as I stated before, this isn't enough to check CORPORATIONS that have run amok and abused political influence with collective resources and greater power than an individual.

Only the GREENS have been calling for checks on the Corporations in a systemic way. Occupy tried to but they themselves were a collective group run amok without personal accountability, so they couldn't ask for that either.

So the Republicans know about holding GOVT to checks and balances in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, but haven't figured it out that CORPORATIONS need to commit to the same checks, particularly due process and taking responsibility for redressing grievances and petitions.

In the mean time BOTH parties are sold out to the highest bidders who can pay for their campaigns.

As a friend put it, BOTH parties are doing nothing more than "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"

The system is UNSUSTAINABLE and they are both pimping votes.

A. the Democrats go against prochoice and inclusion of diversity as they claim because they exclude and demonize the conservatives and anyone who supports them, and don't include those people or views.
The ACA punishes choices of health care outside the plans that they approve for exemptions,
so this is discriminatory on the basis of creed, not whether you pay for health care, but if you do it THEIR way.

B. the Republicans have spent even MORE on war contracts that went unchecked. The S&L bailouts under Reagan where taxpayers bailed out junk bonds that went bad, I can show you an example of ONE CASE where taxpayers paid over 1.6 billion estimated in losses including interest, and a pristine redwood forest ecosystem with endangered trees, rivers and wildlife was destroyed by a corporation bailed out after that hostile takeover using taxpaid junk bonds. So they yell about Solyndra as a 500 million dollar conflict of interest, but what about 580 million of tax money used to buy back land that taxpayers already paid for in this corporate deal. I think Democrats were also involved in that because it went past Reagan's administration.

If the Democrats went after the Republicans for war spending that went to questionable if not illicit contracts,
the dollar amounts would be in the BILLIONS not just millions, so THAT could pay for both Veteran health care and public health care, too.

But they DON'T.

The Democrats SAID they were against the war and all the costs, but never went after that.
They just pimp the Anti-War vote
the same way the Republicans pimp the Pro-Life vote and can never deliver.

They know they can't push those policies, but they know their voters want that so badly
they USE that to demonize the other party and get elected. Both do that.

The Democrats are worse in going against their principles because they won't or can't be corrected.
At least when I approach Republicans and Conservatives, citing the Constitution, they accept correction.
There are very few I cannot reach because they are too religious and not based on the Constitution.
LIkewise there are very few Democrats willing to correct things because they aren't based on the Constitution.

The Republicans with the pro-war spending unchecked are worse in terms of the amounts of tax dollars spent
on that. But they will claim it is justified for national security,w hereas Democrats cannot make that claim.

It was not in the name of national security and military that they compromise the Constitution.
It is for political gain and paying for their campaigns, so they are worse than Republicans in principle.

tl;dr

Just answer the question

I did. You refused to read it.
Tell me what did I not answer.

You have to read my answer first to tell me what I did not cover.

BTW if you really want to know what my point is
I would hold all parties responsible for collecting back on the abuses they claim other parties did.
And pay for the abuses that can be traced to their party leaders and dealings with corporations that profited at taxpayer expense.

Currently NO Parties are doing that.
The Greens are complaining about BOTH parties selling out taxpayers.

But I don't see ANY party going after and collecting on our behalf.

So NO parties have taken responsibility for fixing the problems they point out that the OTHERS have cost.

I suggest the members of the parties who WANT that money refunded,
or reimbursed as credits (and in my MESSAGE YOU DIDN'T READ I LISTED EXAMPLES)

Work TOGETHER and have the GREENS go after environmental violations and money owed to taxpayers, the Republicans refund illicit war contracts and reinvest funds into helping the Vets reform the VA and border situation, and the Democrats reform the criminal justice system and pay for health with money saved by converting prisons into medical and treatment facilities that work effectively to prevent crime and disease.

rightwinger until ALL parties actually go after the abuses they complain of by other parties,
and AREN'T JUST USING THAT TO GET political points or get elected,
then I would say that is taking responsibility.

So nobody is taking that level of responsiblity, to work together, to go after ALL abuses
and to reimburse the taxpayers with credits while holding the wrongdoers responsible for paying back
what they profited at public expense.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans are the party of personal responsibility for others

Not necessarily themselves

Funny that's what they say about Democrats.
Are we even now? Can we move on? Next?

Actually, we can't

The Republican "solution" to every social issue is personal responsibility. Welfare, healthcare, child support........get a freak'n job and take care of yourself

Yet, when it comes to taking responsibility for their own actions, Republicans always have a fall guy. Liberal Media, low information voters, fixed elections

You are welcome to show a similar Democratic hypocricy

Yes, Democrats including my friend D2 BLAME Republicans and conservatives for why they have to fight and get elected.

In fact, he even admitted the reason he votes Democrat is that is his only way to oppose the Conservatives.
That is the war cry, the scapegoat.

As Obama said "voting is the best REVENGE" -- it's to oppose the opposition.

As for the worst hypocrisy, I think one is worse in concept the other party is worse about the actual amounts of money

A. the rift with the Democrats claiming to be prochoice and inclusive of diversity
but then turning around and mandating fines if you choose something other that govt regulated INSURANCE to pay for health care is one example; excluding conservative blacks and other political beliefs or views in general goes against the concept of inclusion and prochoice. But that's party politics, they are designed to just lobby for their members. So it is self-contradictory. There is no way around this because it's set up that way.

B. the Republicans claim that deregulation and limited govt are to maximize personal freedom. But as I stated before, this isn't enough to check CORPORATIONS that have run amok and abused political influence with collective resources and greater power than an individual.

Only the GREENS have been calling for checks on the Corporations in a systemic way. Occupy tried to but they themselves were a collective group run amok without personal accountability, so they couldn't ask for that either.

So the Republicans know about holding GOVT to checks and balances in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, but haven't figured it out that CORPORATIONS need to commit to the same checks, particularly due process and taking responsibility for redressing grievances and petitions.

In the mean time BOTH parties are sold out to the highest bidders who can pay for their campaigns.

As a friend put it, BOTH parties are doing nothing more than "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"

The system is UNSUSTAINABLE and they are both pimping votes.

A. the Democrats go against prochoice and inclusion of diversity as they claim because they exclude and demonize the conservatives and anyone who supports them, and don't include those people or views.
The ACA punishes choices of health care outside the plans that they approve for exemptions,
so this is discriminatory on the basis of creed, not whether you pay for health care, but if you do it THEIR way.

B. the Republicans have spent even MORE on war contracts that went unchecked. The S&L bailouts under Reagan where taxpayers bailed out junk bonds that went bad, I can show you an example of ONE CASE where taxpayers paid over 1.6 billion estimated in losses including interest, and a pristine redwood forest ecosystem with endangered trees, rivers and wildlife was destroyed by a corporation bailed out after that hostile takeover using taxpaid junk bonds. So they yell about Solyndra as a 500 million dollar conflict of interest, but what about 580 million of tax money used to buy back land that taxpayers already paid for in this corporate deal. I think Democrats were also involved in that because it went past Reagan's administration.

If the Democrats went after the Republicans for war spending that went to questionable if not illicit contracts,
the dollar amounts would be in the BILLIONS not just millions, so THAT could pay for both Veteran health care and public health care, too.

But they DON'T.

The Democrats SAID they were against the war and all the costs, but never went after that.
They just pimp the Anti-War vote
the same way the Republicans pimp the Pro-Life vote and can never deliver.

They know they can't push those policies, but they know their voters want that so badly
they USE that to demonize the other party and get elected. Both do that.

The Democrats are worse in going against their principles because they won't or can't be corrected.
At least when I approach Republicans and Conservatives, citing the Constitution, they accept correction.
There are very few I cannot reach because they are too religious and not based on the Constitution.
LIkewise there are very few Democrats willing to correct things because they aren't based on the Constitution.

The Republicans with the pro-war spending unchecked are worse in terms of the amounts of tax dollars spent
on that. But they will claim it is justified for national security,w hereas Democrats cannot make that claim.

It was not in the name of national security and military that they compromise the Constitution.
It is for political gain and paying for their campaigns, so they are worse than Republicans in principle.

tl;dr

Just answer the question

I did. You refused to read it.
Tell me what did I not answer.

You have to read my answer first to tell me what I did not cover.

BTW if you really want to know what my point is
I would hold all parties responsible for collecting back on the abuses they claim other parties did.
And pay for the abuses that can be traced to their party leaders and dealings with corporations that profited at taxpayer expense.

Currently NO Parties are doing that.
The Greens are complaining about BOTH parties selling out taxpayers.

But I don't see ANY party going after and collecting on our behalf.

So NO parties have taken responsibility for fixing the problems they point out that the OTHERS have cost.

I suggest the members of the parties who WANT that money refunded,
or reimbursed as credits (and in my MESSAGE YOU DIDN'T READ I LISTED EXAMPLES)

Work TOGETHER and have the GREENS go after environmental violations and money owed to taxpayers, the Republicans refund illicit war contracts and reinvest funds into helping the Vets reform the VA and border situation, and the Democrats reform the criminal justice system and pay for health with money saved by converting prisons into medical and treatment facilities that work effectively to prevent crime and disease.

rightwinger until ALL parties actually go after the abuses they complain of by other parties,
and AREN'T JUST USING THAT TO GET political points or get elected,
then I would say that is taking responsibility.

So nobody is taking that level of responsiblity, to work together, to go after ALL abuses
and to reimburse the taxpayers with credits while holding the wrongdoers responsible for paying back
what they profited at public expense.

Emily

Try this

Limit yourself to three short paragraphs in every post. Ask yourself.....Is this on topic? Does it make the point I am trying to make?

More is not better

 

[emilynghiem]

What we should apply is what the Constitution says. It gives Congress the power to raise and support a military. It says nothing about education. When that changes, you'll have an argument.

Provide for the General Welfare

The Constitution also says nothing about maintaining a standing Army, only a permanent Navy

I know it say general welfare but it's your interepretation that is means taxpayers should provide those other things. See the difference? No, you probably don't.

The Constitution says to raise and support armies with a condition as to how often funding has to be approved. That means it can be standing as long as it is met.

It is not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of 200 years of case law

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make those decisions on what needs to be done in the interests of We the People

Taking my money to support some freeloader when it comes to social welfare isn't in my interest and I'm one of those we the people.

Then you don't have a problem with a growing military budget since "providing for the common defense" is in the Constitution. At least with those in the military we get something for our money. With social welfare leeches, we get nothing but more social welfare leeches.

You have every right to vote for those candidates who support your positions on social welfare . Others also have that right and the voice of the majority will decide

Same goes for defense. The Constitution call for providing for the common defense. It does not say that defense should be stronger than the next ten nations combined.

Nor does the Constitution authorize the President to abuse the IRS to go after political opposition as an enemy.
To exempt people from taxes who agree with the President's beliefs about health care and ACA
and to penalize those who disagree and believe in other choices.

The President and party are too busy demonizing their political opponents, calling them "terrorists"
and on the other hand consider real attacks such as the Fort Hood shooting to be "workplace violence" and not terrorism.

9/11 was a criminal act by specific individuals, and should have invoked due process and not blame Iraq indirectly
and punish all of Iraq collectively "by association."

But when it comes to health care, ALL the citizens are collectively fined unless we buy insurance to get an exemption.
We are already assumed to be GUILTY of not paying for our own health care, and thus REQUIRED to buy into this plan.

Because of SPECIFIC people who racked up unpaid charges at hospitals, then ALL the public is subject to lose our liberty or free choice.

So the main difference I see between Bush's strategy and Obama's strategy
is Bush was trying to go after foreign enemies,
and collectively damaged broader population than the actual parties guilty of conspiring behind the 9/11 attacks.

And Obama has made enemies of American citizens and created a political war at home.

If you are going to say Bush missed the target, I'd say that Obama missed the target where there wasn't one to begin with.
He either created or incited the very "enemies" to justify attacking them politically for power, and these are American citizens trying to defend our own Constitution which he has demonized.

You can say that Bush is worse for using military force and trillions more dollars.
Or you can say Obama is worse for dividing America at a time we need unity among our nation first,
and the resources wasting fighting over a "made up conflict over ACA" could have been used to help our vets and solve our economic problems. But instead, all those resources got diverted over a conflict created by Obama by pushing ACA in an unconstitutional format that violated the beliefs of Constitutionalists and keeps our nation divided against ourselves.

I think that is worse, because we have to solve this before we can address the other conflicts.
We have to be united around the Constitution principles that are common to all people and parties.

We cannot afford to demean the Constitution and demonize the supporters trying to enforce it.
That is shooting ourselves in the foot, and Obama keeps doing this, keeps dividing against half the nation.

You can't lead a nation that way by demonizing, demeaning and demoralizing half your citizens.
Especially if Obama and Democrats criticize and oppose BUSH for doing that, they have no business doing that either.

 

[rightwinger]

Provide for the General Welfare

The Constitution also says nothing about maintaining a standing Army, only a permanent Navy

I know it say general welfare but it's your interepretation that is means taxpayers should provide those other things. See the difference? No, you probably don't.

The Constitution says to raise and support armies with a condition as to how often funding has to be approved. That means it can be standing as long as it is met.

It is not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of 200 years of case law

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make those decisions on what needs to be done in the interests of We the People

Taking my money to support some freeloader when it comes to social welfare isn't in my interest and I'm one of those we the people.

Then you don't have a problem with a growing military budget since "providing for the common defense" is in the Constitution. At least with those in the military we get something for our money. With social welfare leeches, we get nothing but more social welfare leeches.

You have every right to vote for those candidates who support your positions on social welfare . Others also have that right and the voice of the majority will decide

Same goes for defense. The Constitution call for providing for the common defense. It does not say that defense should be stronger than the next ten nations combined.

Nor does the Constitution authorize the President to abuse the IRS to go after political opposition as an enemy.
To exempt people from taxes who agree with the President's beliefs about health care and ACA
and to penalize those who disagree and believe in other choices.

The President and party are too busy demonizing their political opponents, calling them "terrorists"
and on the other hand consider real attacks such as the Fort Hood shooting to be "workplace violence" and not terrorism.

9/11 was a criminal act by specific individuals, and should have invoked due process and not blame Iraq indirectly
and punish all of Iraq collectively "by association."

But when it comes to health care, ALL the citizens are collectively fined unless we buy insurance to get an exemption.
We are already assumed to be GUILTY of not paying for our own health care, and thus REQUIRED to buy into this plan.

Because of SPECIFIC people who racked up unpaid charges at hospitals, then ALL the public is subject to lose our liberty or free choice.

So the main difference I see between Bush's strategy and Obama's strategy
is Bush was trying to go after foreign enemies,
and collectively damaged broader population than the actual parties guilty of conspiring behind the 9/11 attacks.

And Obama has made enemies of American citizens and created a political war at home.

If you are going to say Bush missed the target, I'd say that Obama missed the target where there wasn't one to begin with.
He either created or incited the very "enemies" to justify attacking them politically for power, and these are American citizens trying to defend our own Constitution which he has demonized.

You can say that Bush is worse for using military force and trillions more dollars.
Or you can say Obama is worse for dividing America at a time we need unity among our nation first,
and the resources wasting fighting over a "made up conflict over ACA" could have been used to help our vets and solve our economic problems. But instead, all those resources got diverted over a conflict created by Obama by pushing ACA in an unconstitutional format that violated the beliefs of Constitutionalists and keeps our nation divided against ourselves.

I think that is worse, because we have to solve this before we can address the other conflicts.
We have to be united around the Constitution principles that are common to all people and parties.

We cannot afford to demean the Constitution and demonize the supporters trying to enforce it.
That is shooting ourselves in the foot, and Obama keeps doing this, keeps dividing against half the nation.

You can't lead a nation that way by demonizing, demeaning and demoralizing half your citizens.
Especially if Obama and Democrats criticize and oppose BUSH for doing that, they have no business doing that either.

tl;dr

 

[emilynghiem]

Funny that's what they say about Democrats.
Are we even now? Can we move on? Next?

Actually, we can't

The Republican "solution" to every social issue is personal responsibility. Welfare, healthcare, child support........get a freak'n job and take care of yourself

Yet, when it comes to taking responsibility for their own actions, Republicans always have a fall guy. Liberal Media, low information voters, fixed elections

You are welcome to show a similar Democratic hypocricy

Yes, Democrats including my friend D2 BLAME Republicans and conservatives for why they have to fight and get elected.

In fact, he even admitted the reason he votes Democrat is that is his only way to oppose the Conservatives.
That is the war cry, the scapegoat.

As Obama said "voting is the best REVENGE" -- it's to oppose the opposition.

As for the worst hypocrisy, I think one is worse in concept the other party is worse about the actual amounts of money

A. the rift with the Democrats claiming to be prochoice and inclusive of diversity
but then turning around and mandating fines if you choose something other that govt regulated INSURANCE to pay for health care is one example; excluding conservative blacks and other political beliefs or views in general goes against the concept of inclusion and prochoice. But that's party politics, they are designed to just lobby for their members. So it is self-contradictory. There is no way around this because it's set up that way.

B. the Republicans claim that deregulation and limited govt are to maximize personal freedom. But as I stated before, this isn't enough to check CORPORATIONS that have run amok and abused political influence with collective resources and greater power than an individual.

Only the GREENS have been calling for checks on the Corporations in a systemic way. Occupy tried to but they themselves were a collective group run amok without personal accountability, so they couldn't ask for that either.

So the Republicans know about holding GOVT to checks and balances in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, but haven't figured it out that CORPORATIONS need to commit to the same checks, particularly due process and taking responsibility for redressing grievances and petitions.

In the mean time BOTH parties are sold out to the highest bidders who can pay for their campaigns.

As a friend put it, BOTH parties are doing nothing more than "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"

The system is UNSUSTAINABLE and they are both pimping votes.

A. the Democrats go against prochoice and inclusion of diversity as they claim because they exclude and demonize the conservatives and anyone who supports them, and don't include those people or views.
The ACA punishes choices of health care outside the plans that they approve for exemptions,
so this is discriminatory on the basis of creed, not whether you pay for health care, but if you do it THEIR way.

B. the Republicans have spent even MORE on war contracts that went unchecked. The S&L bailouts under Reagan where taxpayers bailed out junk bonds that went bad, I can show you an example of ONE CASE where taxpayers paid over 1.6 billion estimated in losses including interest, and a pristine redwood forest ecosystem with endangered trees, rivers and wildlife was destroyed by a corporation bailed out after that hostile takeover using taxpaid junk bonds. So they yell about Solyndra as a 500 million dollar conflict of interest, but what about 580 million of tax money used to buy back land that taxpayers already paid for in this corporate deal. I think Democrats were also involved in that because it went past Reagan's administration.

If the Democrats went after the Republicans for war spending that went to questionable if not illicit contracts,
the dollar amounts would be in the BILLIONS not just millions, so THAT could pay for both Veteran health care and public health care, too.

But they DON'T.

The Democrats SAID they were against the war and all the costs, but never went after that.
They just pimp the Anti-War vote
the same way the Republicans pimp the Pro-Life vote and can never deliver.

They know they can't push those policies, but they know their voters want that so badly
they USE that to demonize the other party and get elected. Both do that.

The Democrats are worse in going against their principles because they won't or can't be corrected.
At least when I approach Republicans and Conservatives, citing the Constitution, they accept correction.
There are very few I cannot reach because they are too religious and not based on the Constitution.
LIkewise there are very few Democrats willing to correct things because they aren't based on the Constitution.

The Republicans with the pro-war spending unchecked are worse in terms of the amounts of tax dollars spent
on that. But they will claim it is justified for national security,w hereas Democrats cannot make that claim.

It was not in the name of national security and military that they compromise the Constitution.
It is for political gain and paying for their campaigns, so they are worse than Republicans in principle.

tl;dr

Just answer the question

I did. You refused to read it.
Tell me what did I not answer.

You have to read my answer first to tell me what I did not cover.

BTW if you really want to know what my point is
I would hold all parties responsible for collecting back on the abuses they claim other parties did.
And pay for the abuses that can be traced to their party leaders and dealings with corporations that profited at taxpayer expense.

Currently NO Parties are doing that.
The Greens are complaining about BOTH parties selling out taxpayers.

But I don't see ANY party going after and collecting on our behalf.

So NO parties have taken responsibility for fixing the problems they point out that the OTHERS have cost.

I suggest the members of the parties who WANT that money refunded,
or reimbursed as credits (and in my MESSAGE YOU DIDN'T READ I LISTED EXAMPLES)

Work TOGETHER and have the GREENS go after environmental violations and money owed to taxpayers, the Republicans refund illicit war contracts and reinvest funds into helping the Vets reform the VA and border situation, and the Democrats reform the criminal justice system and pay for health with money saved by converting prisons into medical and treatment facilities that work effectively to prevent crime and disease.

rightwinger until ALL parties actually go after the abuses they complain of by other parties,
and AREN'T JUST USING THAT TO GET political points or get elected,
then I would say that is taking responsibility.

So nobody is taking that level of responsiblity, to work together, to go after ALL abuses
and to reimburse the taxpayers with credits while holding the wrongdoers responsible for paying back
what they profited at public expense.

Emily

Try this

Limit yourself to three short paragraphs in every post. Ask yourself.....Is this on topic? Does it make the point I am trying to make?

More is not better

I am not trying to write more.
I am trying to express myself the way I think.

(Also I am at work, I do not have time to get help to edit.)

If you can point out which parts to focus on, one at a time,
we can break it down.

This *IS* how I talk, I work very holistically because I INCLUDE all sides to issues in solutions.

If you are part of the party of inclusion I ask you to include my way of processing and communicating.

Can you pick one point at a time, and we can go through the important ones first.

 

[emilynghiem]

I know it say general welfare but it's your interepretation that is means taxpayers should provide those other things. See the difference? No, you probably don't.

The Constitution says to raise and support armies with a condition as to how often funding has to be approved. That means it can be standing as long as it is met.

It is not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of 200 years of case law

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make those decisions on what needs to be done in the interests of We the People

Taking my money to support some freeloader when it comes to social welfare isn't in my interest and I'm one of those we the people.

Then you don't have a problem with a growing military budget since "providing for the common defense" is in the Constitution. At least with those in the military we get something for our money. With social welfare leeches, we get nothing but more social welfare leeches.

You have every right to vote for those candidates who support your positions on social welfare . Others also have that right and the voice of the majority will decide

Same goes for defense. The Constitution call for providing for the common defense. It does not say that defense should be stronger than the next ten nations combined.

Nor does the Constitution authorize the President to abuse the IRS to go after political opposition as an enemy.
To exempt people from taxes who agree with the President's beliefs about health care and ACA
and to penalize those who disagree and believe in other choices.

The President and party are too busy demonizing their political opponents, calling them "terrorists"
and on the other hand consider real attacks such as the Fort Hood shooting to be "workplace violence" and not terrorism.

9/11 was a criminal act by specific individuals, and should have invoked due process and not blame Iraq indirectly
and punish all of Iraq collectively "by association."

But when it comes to health care, ALL the citizens are collectively fined unless we buy insurance to get an exemption.
We are already assumed to be GUILTY of not paying for our own health care, and thus REQUIRED to buy into this plan.

Because of SPECIFIC people who racked up unpaid charges at hospitals, then ALL the public is subject to lose our liberty or free choice.

So the main difference I see between Bush's strategy and Obama's strategy
is Bush was trying to go after foreign enemies,
and collectively damaged broader population than the actual parties guilty of conspiring behind the 9/11 attacks.

And Obama has made enemies of American citizens and created a political war at home.

If you are going to say Bush missed the target, I'd say that Obama missed the target where there wasn't one to begin with.
He either created or incited the very "enemies" to justify attacking them politically for power, and these are American citizens trying to defend our own Constitution which he has demonized.

You can say that Bush is worse for using military force and trillions more dollars.
Or you can say Obama is worse for dividing America at a time we need unity among our nation first,
and the resources wasting fighting over a "made up conflict over ACA" could have been used to help our vets and solve our economic problems. But instead, all those resources got diverted over a conflict created by Obama by pushing ACA in an unconstitutional format that violated the beliefs of Constitutionalists and keeps our nation divided against ourselves.

I think that is worse, because we have to solve this before we can address the other conflicts.
We have to be united around the Constitution principles that are common to all people and parties.

We cannot afford to demean the Constitution and demonize the supporters trying to enforce it.
That is shooting ourselves in the foot, and Obama keeps doing this, keeps dividing against half the nation.

You can't lead a nation that way by demonizing, demeaning and demoralizing half your citizens.
Especially if Obama and Democrats criticize and oppose BUSH for doing that, they have no business doing that either.

tl;dr

Dante drifter can you please help moderate between rightwinger and me?

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, we can't

The Republican "solution" to every social issue is personal responsibility. Welfare, healthcare, child support........get a freak'n job and take care of yourself

Yet, when it comes to taking responsibility for their own actions, Republicans always have a fall guy. Liberal Media, low information voters, fixed elections

You are welcome to show a similar Democratic hypocricy

Yes, Democrats including my friend D2 BLAME Republicans and conservatives for why they have to fight and get elected.

In fact, he even admitted the reason he votes Democrat is that is his only way to oppose the Conservatives.
That is the war cry, the scapegoat.

As Obama said "voting is the best REVENGE" -- it's to oppose the opposition.

As for the worst hypocrisy, I think one is worse in concept the other party is worse about the actual amounts of money

A. the rift with the Democrats claiming to be prochoice and inclusive of diversity
but then turning around and mandating fines if you choose something other that govt regulated INSURANCE to pay for health care is one example; excluding conservative blacks and other political beliefs or views in general goes against the concept of inclusion and prochoice. But that's party politics, they are designed to just lobby for their members. So it is self-contradictory. There is no way around this because it's set up that way.

B. the Republicans claim that deregulation and limited govt are to maximize personal freedom. But as I stated before, this isn't enough to check CORPORATIONS that have run amok and abused political influence with collective resources and greater power than an individual.

Only the GREENS have been calling for checks on the Corporations in a systemic way. Occupy tried to but they themselves were a collective group run amok without personal accountability, so they couldn't ask for that either.

So the Republicans know about holding GOVT to checks and balances in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, but haven't figured it out that CORPORATIONS need to commit to the same checks, particularly due process and taking responsibility for redressing grievances and petitions.

In the mean time BOTH parties are sold out to the highest bidders who can pay for their campaigns.

As a friend put it, BOTH parties are doing nothing more than "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"

The system is UNSUSTAINABLE and they are both pimping votes.

A. the Democrats go against prochoice and inclusion of diversity as they claim because they exclude and demonize the conservatives and anyone who supports them, and don't include those people or views.
The ACA punishes choices of health care outside the plans that they approve for exemptions,
so this is discriminatory on the basis of creed, not whether you pay for health care, but if you do it THEIR way.

B. the Republicans have spent even MORE on war contracts that went unchecked. The S&L bailouts under Reagan where taxpayers bailed out junk bonds that went bad, I can show you an example of ONE CASE where taxpayers paid over 1.6 billion estimated in losses including interest, and a pristine redwood forest ecosystem with endangered trees, rivers and wildlife was destroyed by a corporation bailed out after that hostile takeover using taxpaid junk bonds. So they yell about Solyndra as a 500 million dollar conflict of interest, but what about 580 million of tax money used to buy back land that taxpayers already paid for in this corporate deal. I think Democrats were also involved in that because it went past Reagan's administration.

If the Democrats went after the Republicans for war spending that went to questionable if not illicit contracts,
the dollar amounts would be in the BILLIONS not just millions, so THAT could pay for both Veteran health care and public health care, too.

But they DON'T.

The Democrats SAID they were against the war and all the costs, but never went after that.
They just pimp the Anti-War vote
the same way the Republicans pimp the Pro-Life vote and can never deliver.

They know they can't push those policies, but they know their voters want that so badly
they USE that to demonize the other party and get elected. Both do that.

The Democrats are worse in going against their principles because they won't or can't be corrected.
At least when I approach Republicans and Conservatives, citing the Constitution, they accept correction.
There are very few I cannot reach because they are too religious and not based on the Constitution.
LIkewise there are very few Democrats willing to correct things because they aren't based on the Constitution.

The Republicans with the pro-war spending unchecked are worse in terms of the amounts of tax dollars spent
on that. But they will claim it is justified for national security,w hereas Democrats cannot make that claim.

It was not in the name of national security and military that they compromise the Constitution.
It is for political gain and paying for their campaigns, so they are worse than Republicans in principle.

tl;dr

Just answer the question

I did. You refused to read it.
Tell me what did I not answer.

You have to read my answer first to tell me what I did not cover.

BTW if you really want to know what my point is
I would hold all parties responsible for collecting back on the abuses they claim other parties did.
And pay for the abuses that can be traced to their party leaders and dealings with corporations that profited at taxpayer expense.

Currently NO Parties are doing that.
The Greens are complaining about BOTH parties selling out taxpayers.

But I don't see ANY party going after and collecting on our behalf.

So NO parties have taken responsibility for fixing the problems they point out that the OTHERS have cost.

I suggest the members of the parties who WANT that money refunded,
or reimbursed as credits (and in my MESSAGE YOU DIDN'T READ I LISTED EXAMPLES)

Work TOGETHER and have the GREENS go after environmental violations and money owed to taxpayers, the Republicans refund illicit war contracts and reinvest funds into helping the Vets reform the VA and border situation, and the Democrats reform the criminal justice system and pay for health with money saved by converting prisons into medical and treatment facilities that work effectively to prevent crime and disease.

rightwinger until ALL parties actually go after the abuses they complain of by other parties,
and AREN'T JUST USING THAT TO GET political points or get elected,
then I would say that is taking responsibility.

So nobody is taking that level of responsiblity, to work together, to go after ALL abuses
and to reimburse the taxpayers with credits while holding the wrongdoers responsible for paying back
what they profited at public expense.

Emily

Try this

Limit yourself to three short paragraphs in every post. Ask yourself.....Is this on topic? Does it make the point I am trying to make?

More is not better

I am not trying to write more.
I am trying to express myself the way I think.

(Also I am at work, I do not have time to get help to edit.)

If you can point out which parts to focus on, one at a time,
we can break it down.

This *IS* how I talk, I work very holistically because I INCLUDE all sides to issues in solutions.

If you are part of the party of inclusion I ask you to include my way of processing and communicating.

Can you pick one point at a time, and we can go through the important ones first.

You type random thoughts that do nothing to help prove your point

Think about the point you are trying to make and then write two or three thoughts to support your point

I am done trying to figure out your posts

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, Democrats including my friend D2 BLAME Republicans and conservatives for why they have to fight and get elected.

In fact, he even admitted the reason he votes Democrat is that is his only way to oppose the Conservatives.
That is the war cry, the scapegoat.

As Obama said "voting is the best REVENGE" -- it's to oppose the opposition.

As for the worst hypocrisy, I think one is worse in concept the other party is worse about the actual amounts of money

A. the rift with the Democrats claiming to be prochoice and inclusive of diversity
but then turning around and mandating fines if you choose something other that govt regulated INSURANCE to pay for health care is one example; excluding conservative blacks and other political beliefs or views in general goes against the concept of inclusion and prochoice. But that's party politics, they are designed to just lobby for their members. So it is self-contradictory. There is no way around this because it's set up that way.

B. the Republicans claim that deregulation and limited govt are to maximize personal freedom. But as I stated before, this isn't enough to check CORPORATIONS that have run amok and abused political influence with collective resources and greater power than an individual.

Only the GREENS have been calling for checks on the Corporations in a systemic way. Occupy tried to but they themselves were a collective group run amok without personal accountability, so they couldn't ask for that either.

So the Republicans know about holding GOVT to checks and balances in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, but haven't figured it out that CORPORATIONS need to commit to the same checks, particularly due process and taking responsibility for redressing grievances and petitions.

In the mean time BOTH parties are sold out to the highest bidders who can pay for their campaigns.

As a friend put it, BOTH parties are doing nothing more than "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic"

The system is UNSUSTAINABLE and they are both pimping votes.

A. the Democrats go against prochoice and inclusion of diversity as they claim because they exclude and demonize the conservatives and anyone who supports them, and don't include those people or views.
The ACA punishes choices of health care outside the plans that they approve for exemptions,
so this is discriminatory on the basis of creed, not whether you pay for health care, but if you do it THEIR way.

B. the Republicans have spent even MORE on war contracts that went unchecked. The S&L bailouts under Reagan where taxpayers bailed out junk bonds that went bad, I can show you an example of ONE CASE where taxpayers paid over 1.6 billion estimated in losses including interest, and a pristine redwood forest ecosystem with endangered trees, rivers and wildlife was destroyed by a corporation bailed out after that hostile takeover using taxpaid junk bonds. So they yell about Solyndra as a 500 million dollar conflict of interest, but what about 580 million of tax money used to buy back land that taxpayers already paid for in this corporate deal. I think Democrats were also involved in that because it went past Reagan's administration.

If the Democrats went after the Republicans for war spending that went to questionable if not illicit contracts,
the dollar amounts would be in the BILLIONS not just millions, so THAT could pay for both Veteran health care and public health care, too.

But they DON'T.

The Democrats SAID they were against the war and all the costs, but never went after that.
They just pimp the Anti-War vote
the same way the Republicans pimp the Pro-Life vote and can never deliver.

They know they can't push those policies, but they know their voters want that so badly
they USE that to demonize the other party and get elected. Both do that.

The Democrats are worse in going against their principles because they won't or can't be corrected.
At least when I approach Republicans and Conservatives, citing the Constitution, they accept correction.
There are very few I cannot reach because they are too religious and not based on the Constitution.
LIkewise there are very few Democrats willing to correct things because they aren't based on the Constitution.

The Republicans with the pro-war spending unchecked are worse in terms of the amounts of tax dollars spent
on that. But they will claim it is justified for national security,w hereas Democrats cannot make that claim.

It was not in the name of national security and military that they compromise the Constitution.
It is for political gain and paying for their campaigns, so they are worse than Republicans in principle.

tl;dr

Just answer the question

I did. You refused to read it.
Tell me what did I not answer.

You have to read my answer first to tell me what I did not cover.

BTW if you really want to know what my point is
I would hold all parties responsible for collecting back on the abuses they claim other parties did.
And pay for the abuses that can be traced to their party leaders and dealings with corporations that profited at taxpayer expense.

Currently NO Parties are doing that.
The Greens are complaining about BOTH parties selling out taxpayers.

But I don't see ANY party going after and collecting on our behalf.

So NO parties have taken responsibility for fixing the problems they point out that the OTHERS have cost.

I suggest the members of the parties who WANT that money refunded,
or reimbursed as credits (and in my MESSAGE YOU DIDN'T READ I LISTED EXAMPLES)

Work TOGETHER and have the GREENS go after environmental violations and money owed to taxpayers, the Republicans refund illicit war contracts and reinvest funds into helping the Vets reform the VA and border situation, and the Democrats reform the criminal justice system and pay for health with money saved by converting prisons into medical and treatment facilities that work effectively to prevent crime and disease.

rightwinger until ALL parties actually go after the abuses they complain of by other parties,
and AREN'T JUST USING THAT TO GET political points or get elected,
then I would say that is taking responsibility.

So nobody is taking that level of responsiblity, to work together, to go after ALL abuses
and to reimburse the taxpayers with credits while holding the wrongdoers responsible for paying back
what they profited at public expense.

Emily

Try this

Limit yourself to three short paragraphs in every post. Ask yourself.....Is this on topic? Does it make the point I am trying to make?

More is not better

I am not trying to write more.
I am trying to express myself the way I think.

(Also I am at work, I do not have time to get help to edit.)

If you can point out which parts to focus on, one at a time,
we can break it down.

This *IS* how I talk, I work very holistically because I INCLUDE all sides to issues in solutions.

If you are part of the party of inclusion I ask you to include my way of processing and communicating.

Can you pick one point at a time, and we can go through the important ones first.

You type random thoughts that do nothing to help prove your point

Think about the point you are trying to make and then write two or three thoughts to support your point

I am done trying to figure out your posts

Where? Which post?
What is not addressing the fact that the parties are NOT taking FINANCIAL responsibility?

I guess my answers were TOO specific for you
in trying to be FAIR and go after BOTH major PARTIES equally and inclusively.

Too much for you to read? That the responsibility is SHARED?

 

[Michelle420]

It is not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of 200 years of case law

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make those decisions on what needs to be done in the interests of We the People

Taking my money to support some freeloader when it comes to social welfare isn't in my interest and I'm one of those we the people.

Then you don't have a problem with a growing military budget since "providing for the common defense" is in the Constitution. At least with those in the military we get something for our money. With social welfare leeches, we get nothing but more social welfare leeches.

You have every right to vote for those candidates who support your positions on social welfare . Others also have that right and the voice of the majority will decide

Same goes for defense. The Constitution call for providing for the common defense. It does not say that defense should be stronger than the next ten nations combined.

Nor does the Constitution authorize the President to abuse the IRS to go after political opposition as an enemy.
To exempt people from taxes who agree with the President's beliefs about health care and ACA
and to penalize those who disagree and believe in other choices.

The President and party are too busy demonizing their political opponents, calling them "terrorists"
and on the other hand consider real attacks such as the Fort Hood shooting to be "workplace violence" and not terrorism.

9/11 was a criminal act by specific individuals, and should have invoked due process and not blame Iraq indirectly
and punish all of Iraq collectively "by association."

But when it comes to health care, ALL the citizens are collectively fined unless we buy insurance to get an exemption.
We are already assumed to be GUILTY of not paying for our own health care, and thus REQUIRED to buy into this plan.

Because of SPECIFIC people who racked up unpaid charges at hospitals, then ALL the public is subject to lose our liberty or free choice.

So the main difference I see between Bush's strategy and Obama's strategy
is Bush was trying to go after foreign enemies,
and collectively damaged broader population than the actual parties guilty of conspiring behind the 9/11 attacks.

And Obama has made enemies of American citizens and created a political war at home.

If you are going to say Bush missed the target, I'd say that Obama missed the target where there wasn't one to begin with.
He either created or incited the very "enemies" to justify attacking them politically for power, and these are American citizens trying to defend our own Constitution which he has demonized.

You can say that Bush is worse for using military force and trillions more dollars.
Or you can say Obama is worse for dividing America at a time we need unity among our nation first,
and the resources wasting fighting over a "made up conflict over ACA" could have been used to help our vets and solve our economic problems. But instead, all those resources got diverted over a conflict created by Obama by pushing ACA in an unconstitutional format that violated the beliefs of Constitutionalists and keeps our nation divided against ourselves.

I think that is worse, because we have to solve this before we can address the other conflicts.
We have to be united around the Constitution principles that are common to all people and parties.

We cannot afford to demean the Constitution and demonize the supporters trying to enforce it.
That is shooting ourselves in the foot, and Obama keeps doing this, keeps dividing against half the nation.

You can't lead a nation that way by demonizing, demeaning and demoralizing half your citizens.
Especially if Obama and Democrats criticize and oppose BUSH for doing that, they have no business doing that either.

tl;dr

Dante drifter can you please help moderate between rightwinger and me?

I am at school right now, when I get home I will read through it

 

[LoneLaugher]

The2ndAmendment

Please respond to my last question. Thank you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear The2ndAmendment and rightwinger
Since this 2A's thread, can you please tell me if my answers are acceptable to your points.
rightwinger seems to object to how I answered, by trying to be fair and include all parties plusses and minusses equally.

1. In practice NONE of the parties are fully taking responsibility for their policies.
NONE have set up a system for demanding or collecting reimbursements to taxpayers for
illicit spending by their candidates, which either their party or others have charged as abusive or corrupt.

The major parties criticize each other for points, but do not follow through on correcting or collecting on behalf of taxpayers.

One party riles up voters by blaming the poor for punishing the rich for being rich;
the other riles up voters for blaming the the rich for punishing the poor for being poor.

One party is blamed for letting corporate welfare run amok while harping on welfare to the poor;
the other is blamed for playing the SAME corporate benefits game, while stringing along the poor with promises
of govt help that is not sustainable. So that is teaching people to be DEPENDENT on govt instead of working toward independence.

Leaders in BOTH parties support microlending instead of welfare: both Obama and Carson have pointed this out
as a better solution to break the cycle of poverty with education and investing instead of handouts. BUT NEITHER
PARTY has worked together toward this goal, they are too busy blaming the other. so NEITHER is taking responsibility.

2. I WILL say that the Conservatives and Republicans ARGUE for limited govt and for retaining maximum
control and resources on the side of private citizens.

But to Democrats, this means just letting Corporate interests have free reign to enjoy greater privileges than individuals,
and cause imbalance and oppression that goes unchecked WITHOUT regulations by govt.

So the party STANDS for personal responsibility.
But they don't carry it out any more than the Democrats STAND for inclusion but don't live by that either.

3. Of the Democrats, I am the ONLY party member I know who is investing personally and pushing for solutions
that include ALL PARTIES EQUALLY.

So if you consider me a Democrat, that is ONE example of ONE person taking personal responsibility.

But I will be the first to admit the rest of the party doesn't encourage that, but punishes it,
and rewards dependent behavior based on investing funds in getting candidates elected and not investing
in personal responsibility for solutions.

As you can see on these threads, I get more bashing from fellow liberals and Democrats
when I preach about personal responsibility.

When I correct Republicans and Conservatives, using the Constitution, they tend to respect that.

When I try to spell out these concepts to liberals and Democrats, I get a bunch of blank stares or replies,
claiming there is no constitutional breach going on. They don't even see where these violations are happening!

So how can there be responsibility in a party full of people who don't even know what is or what is not Constitutional?

But you are welcome to point to me and say at least there is ONE Democrat TRYING to stand up and take responsibility.
I have seen others, like John Cusack who started the freedom of the press foundation to counteract overreaching by govt he found to be unconstitutional and a threat to the free press.

The mix of people whose combined ideas went into the Campus plans I promote as a model for govt reforms
include Democrats like me, but also Green, Republican and Independents, a mix of Obama voters and people
who vote independent.

So when I take responsibility for those plans, that includes the contributions of a mix of people from different parties.

I just happen to be a Democrat, but most Democrats don't go around taking responsibility for the party, much less for govt and other parties. Most Democrats just use the party to try to get their own leaders elected and promote the platform.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Another question I need the ALO: What if my girl gets pregnant and gives birth 7-8 months after I'm in? In general, what if I accidently knocked up some random slut and she also gave to birth 7-8 months later?

Hmm...

Hmm...

Must I now take a vow of chastity?

The smart move would be to get yourself castrated then there won't be any chance of that happening.

 

[Contumacious]

Dear T

I just happen to be a Democrat, but most Democrats don't go around taking responsibility for the party, much less for govt and other parties. Most Democrats just use the party to try to get their own leaders elected and promote the platform.

Exactly.

The reason we are a bankrupt nation with a 17 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion deficit is because BOTH parties suck - no one takes responsibility - they want to spend spend spend like a drunken sailor in order to BUY their respective constituencies.


.