BOYCOTT KRMG Their Sponsors and Advertisers!!!!!

[Hoss]

Campaign season for Republicans, that's why.

Government serves a great purpose in regulating commerce, consumer projection, labor law, and putting in safeguards which protect the greater good.  They also have countless miserable examples of creating a "nanny state" that's ridiculous.

While I agree with you about the nanny state, how are some conservative ideas much different?  Legislating what goes on in the confines of my bedroom?  You'd think the Libertarians/TeaPartiers would throw a hissy fit over alot of those that fall along those lines.

[Teatownclown]

Never said I was justifying Rush. You reached the wrong conclusion. I was pointing out that libs use the argument I mentioned to justify attacking the likes of Palin & Bachman and such.

I don't know how they feel, but I know what they say. And it is pretty clear that the sources I mentioned feel exactly as I described.

Alf,

Let's face it, name calling has it limits. I don't reach past calling these women idiots.

Don't be surprised if the word also tars TNF members. 

[guido911]

  Legislating what goes on in the confines of my bedroom? 

Thanks for that mental pic.

[Hoss]

Thanks for that mental pic.

Don't worry; not much lately.  But thanks for thinking of it.

[Teatownclown]

Heck, I've got beefs with all of those you mentioned, but you know good and well I wasn't referring to legit arguments with the above women. I would hope that you would back me up when I have legitimate disagreements with President Obama and not just assume it is because of race or I think he's a muslim or whatever.

The video linked is what I am talking about. I know it's from MRC, but it was the only place I could find it. I saw it last night on MSNBC. The condescension for women that have an affinity to conservatism is astounding.

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/msnbc-political-analyst-alabama-women-voting-santorum-really-hurts-me

Teabagger ?.... BTW, OUR President is NOT A MUSLIM!

what's it all about, Alfie?

Reading through this thread I must come to the conclusion that bi-partisanship is on the ropes and "digging heals in" predominates the ability to "get things done" through compromise and hard work. It's laziness maxed out in a leaderless congress. The hooligans on crapital hill should get their acts together. Unfortunately for the middle class, obstructionists rule the roost because that's the easy way. Politicians are all lazy good-for-nothings except when it comes to raising campaign funds and running for office. John Sullivan....what has he done for us? 

Let's see, over 120 sponsors bailed...wonder if any of those local listed have the balls? I love it because I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around.

[sauerkraut]

Liberals talk of tolerance but they seem to be on a one-way street. Sarah Palin was badly attacked by the left and even her children are attacked, Joe the Plumber was even attacked for asking questions about Obama.

[Teatownclown]

Liberals talk of tolerance but they seem to be on a one-way street. Sarah Palin was badly attacked by the left and even her children are attacked, Joe the Plumber was even attacked for asking questions about Obama.

Oh please. Apples and oranges compared to Hate Radio.

Let's vilify the liberals to protect Rush.

Mitch McConnell is the laziest of them all.... an old twit.

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/mitch_mcconnell_to_constituent_marijuana_leads_to_death?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tweet&utm_content=997th&utm_campaign=digg2000

[Conan71]

While I agree with you about the nanny state, how are some conservative ideas much different?  Legislating what goes on in the confines of my bedroom?  You'd think the Libertarians/TeaPartiers would throw a hissy fit over alot of those that fall along those lines.

Libertarians do decry such legislation.  I don't know anyone who follows Libertarian ideology who thinks legislated morality is a good thing. 

I at least understand the thinking behind the pro-life philosophy which really centers somewhere between the autonomy of a mother and her body, and at what point life begins and whether or not the rest of us have the responsibility to protect those who cannot, as of yet, protect themselves from death.

Again, my stated position is I believe that is a choice between a woman and her sense of moral code.

[Teatownclown]

Try being a progressive....libertarians look back too much. 

[Conan71]

Try being a progressive....libertarians look back too much. 

I'm working on it, might take a few more Spatens.

[erfalf]

Teabagger ?.... BTW, OUR President is NOT A MUSLIM!

what's it all about, Alfie?

Reading through this thread I must come to the conclusion that bi-partisanship is on the ropes and "digging heals in" predominates the ability to "get things done" through compromise and hard work. It's laziness maxed out in a leaderless congress. The hooligans on crapital hill should get their acts together. Unfortunately for the middle class, obstructionists rule the roost because that's the easy way. Politicians are all lazy good-for-nothings except when it comes to raising campaign funds and running for office. John Sullivan....what has he done for us?  

Let's see, over 120 sponsors bailed...wonder if any of those local listed have the balls? I love it because I am a firm believer in what goes around comes around.

Way to set the discussion bar high. Trying to disqualify someone by hurling insults is what we were discussing earlier. We don't need examples.

Anyways, you're all right, I think they are all nuts. It is unfortunate that their are only two parties, so unfortunately I tend to have slightly more in common with Republicans. Does that mean I believe everything they do. Hell no. That's ludicrous. I guess you could say I am a classic liberal (although the left has hijacked the word).

I believe people, for lack of a better word, should be allowed to be as stupid as they want. Government in my opinion should only be taking care of a few things and most have to do with protecting me from you, not me from me. I believe people should be allowed to exercise free will and that includes in commerce. I should be able to buy or NOT buy anything I want. Believe it or not women have this right when it comes to contraception already (hard to believe if you watch the news). And no one is stopping them (or at least they will never succeed) and I don't want them too.

I believe the market should be free. Business should be allowed to flourish and fail freely. But I also believe it needs groups like the SEC and such to monitor them, not dictate to them.

I believe in free speech. Believe it or not people that think on the opposite end of the spectrum actually believe it most often. They are perfectly free to do so. Now, I also believe every action has a reaction and if the free market says no, then that's that.

I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. If you take away the incentive to succeed then no one succeeds.

I could go on. But we could argue all we want about how the Dems and Repubs are crazy and justifiably so. But to assume that people such as myself believe certain things just because I espouse freedoms, that's shallow. I believe a great portion of the population doesn't agree with much of Washington, but when election day comes, what choice do they have?

[carltonplace]

Oh please. Apples and oranges compared to Hate Radio.

Let's vilify the liberals to protect Rush.

Mitch McConnell is the laziest of them all.... an old twit.

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/mitch_mcconnell_to_constituent_marijuana_leads_to_death?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tweet&utm_content=997th&utm_campaign=digg2000

Personally I could do without Rush and Maher. Neither one of them is funny or thought provoking.

[Teatownclown]

I don't know how you can compare the two....one's got intelligent people and the other just ditto heads.

[nathanm]

I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. If you take away the incentive to succeed then no one succeeds.

This must be a damn shame, then:



Apparently we don't even have equal opportunity any more.

You write as if there's some serious proposal out there to seize all income and distribute it evenly amongst all residents of the US or something. Nobody's advocating that. Nobody advocates that everyone make an equal amount of money. Of course, to hear Rush tell it, that's what Democrats are saying day in and day out.

[erfalf]

This must be a damn shame, then:



Apparently we don't even have equal opportunity any more.

You write as if there's some serious proposal out there to seize all income and distribute it evenly amongst all residents of the US or something. Nobody's advocating that. Nobody advocates that everyone make an equal amount of money. Of course, to hear Rush tell it, that's what Democrats are saying day in and day out.

Does anyone read what I write. Everyone wants to put words in my mouth.

While the government does not set out to make sure everyone has equal perfectly equal outcomes, it sure does try in many areas. Do we not have a progressive income tax system? Do lower income students not get more federal grants? Do poor people not take advantage of government programs more than the wealthy? By your own admission the government is trying to give MORE opportunity to poor students. I know this sounds rash and I will be called a corporate stooge and everything, but it is what it is. I for one am not against all these programs. But there again, your argument is false. Government does try to create equal outcomes, they just call it "leveling the playing field" in order to make you think they are making the rules more fair or something.

On the Pell grant note, do state universities give "discounts" to lower income students. Now that would be the way to go in my opinion. An actual reduction in cost instead of a redistribution of the cost.