The courts dismissed a suit against Barry Goldwater running against LBJ because Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory.
Art wrote:
Since Corporations are individuals shouldn't we start calling their hand outs entitlements instead of subsidies, all things being equal?
Good question. If we looked at the loopholes, tax breaks, and subsidies corporations got, we might be b***hin' at the wrong people for getting welfare.
Floyd Brown wrote:
When will some people wake up & get the point that the basic problem we are having is that paying a fair wage that is enough for a person to be able to live a decent life on is not going to k**l this country & would go a long way in things being better for
all but a few that have more than they need.
:thumbup:
So far, every argument I have heard that wage disparity should ignored is the same regurgitated hostile name-calling when the minimum wage was $1.25.
The country is not segregated Texas in the 1950s. Those good ol' days are gone. Accept it. C*******ts and athiests and i*****l i*******ts did not elect the President. The country was changing before Obama came along. Republicans a la Tea Party either would not or could not see this. And apparently still can't. They insist that they speak for the American people and wonder why they continue to lose e******ns and why their polls are slipping below the president's. Time to get their heads out of the sand and face reality.
[quote=Constitutional libertarian]
catpaw wrote:
Interesting. I don't recall Obama or liberals quoting Carl (or Groucho) Marx.
And it's simply because tens of millions of people suddenly decided at the same time to choose poverty over jobs with an equitable wage. And when they try to advance themselves (such as striking fast food joints), they are suddenly greedy, lazy, c*******ts who don't want to work or better themselves.
How's this for
Why don't you just have the gov print more Monopoly money and subsidize mc d or bk employees.
Which of course makes it worth less so their is no net gain.
Interesting. I don't recall Obama or liberals quot... (
show quote)
Who said anything about printing more money? An equitable wage does not require printing more money.
Old_Gringo wrote:
I disagree. The "people paying for the free stuff" do NOT "prefer class warfare to equity." It is the current Administration that is propagating, agitating for, and working diligently to promote it.
The current administration did not reject a jobs bill, health care reform, immigration reform, tax reform, public works on infrastructure, allow sequester, or shut down the government.
vernon wrote:
there is nothing fair about punishing the producers ,what needs to be done is workfair and get them off their behind.you might be suprised how many will go out and get a job
So call "producers" and "job creators" don't produce products or create jobs. Consumer demand and disposable income produces products and creates jobs.
vernon wrote:
catpaw will say thats the fair way.
Well, I guess you could call it fair. I was thinking more along the lines of common sense.
Winter Solstice wrote:
40 million Americans living below the poverty level is a real shame. In today's environment, We the People are responsible for that poverty and MUST give to the poor so as to bring them up out of poverty.
According to Carl Marks, Obama, Liberals, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This is C*******m, nothing less. Of course, the poor who cannot get food and shelter deserve some of our concern. However many of the poor are there of their own choosing by settling for the low paying jobs and working them for years and years instead of trying to advance themselves. These do not deserve our concern.
Should we continue with the Marxist doctrine, we will ALL be below the poverty level. Then what?
40 million Americans living below the poverty leve... (
show quote)
Interesting. I don't recall Obama or liberals quoting Carl (or Groucho) Marx.
And it's simply because tens of millions of people suddenly decided at the same time to choose poverty over jobs with an equitable wage. And when they try to advance themselves (such as striking fast food joints), they are suddenly greedy, lazy, c*******ts who don't want to work or better themselves.
How's this for c*******t brainwashing and Marxist doctrine:
The less gap of wage disparity, the more money circulating the economy. That means a broader tax base, which means more government revenue, which means less of a deficit and more debt paid down and more investment in infrastructure, education, health care--you know, the usual socialistic, c*******t, marxist, give-away programs.
Equitable wages also means more spending, more consumer demand, and consumer demand means more production and--yeah, you guessed it--more jobs.
But since this is obviously an c*******t plot from an anti-christ who h**es America and wants to destroy all we hold holy, let's not do it.
Rush Limbaugh couldn't have said it better. Cal Thomas is right and 40 milliion Americans living at or below poverty are wrong.
What's there to worry about. What I gather from conservative extremists is that Jesus is going to float down from Heaven with an army of angels and k**l everybody who doesn't agree with them.
By the way: the Tea Party is a collection of lunatic extremists.
ldsuttonjr wrote:
Class war at its best.
The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like
the folks who are paying for the free stuff , because
the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer
afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.
And the folks who are paying for the free stuff
want the free stuff to stop.
And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more
free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!
Now... The people who are forcing the people who pay
for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING
the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the
free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and r****t.
So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been
convinced they need to h**e the people who are paying for the
free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay
for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.
We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there
are almost more people getting free stuff than paying for the
free stuff.
Now understand this.
All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere
between 200 and 250 years after being founded.
The reason?
The v**ers figured out they could v**e themselves money
from the treasury by electing people who promised to give
them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.
The United States officially became a Republic in 1776 ,
236 years ago.
The number of people now getting free stuff
almost outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff .
Failure to change that spells the end of the United States
as we know it.
E******N 2014 IS COMING
A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!
Class war at its best. br br The folks who are g... (
show quote)
Depends on one's definition of "free stuff." Considering the disparity of an eroding middle class and the top 1%, I'd say the people paying for the free stuff prefer class warfare to equity.
It may not even be Merry Christmas.
Matthew 10:34 - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
As every informed Christain knows, much of our Christmas customs have roots in pagan holidays, including the date of Dec. 25.
Please don't take my observation the wrong way. It is not my intent to offend or dinigrate. Just mentioning a point of view I'm sure most of us have heard. I prefer to regard our Christmas customs as what they have become: a celebration of love, peace, and joy; whether it's expressed with a nativity or an animated snowman.
Thank you the "card." I enjoyed it and will pass it on.
ginnyt wrote:
http://lastresistance.com/4073/army-war-college-considers-purging-history-confederate-generals/
Army War College considering confederate generals as enemies of the United States. Will history be rewritten to remove all accomplishments, generals, and gentle people of the south leaving only s***ery as a part of history?
I quite agree that Confederate figures should not be redefined simply for their loyalties. Not every Confederate general subscribed to s***ery and Jefferson Davis complained of the weaknesses of not having a strong central government.
As to legacy, of all the larger-than-life Civil War figures of both sides, Stonewall Jackson stands apart. He was in the truest definition, a military genius. Parellels of his tactics can be found in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Desert Storm. Robert E. Lee proved what inititive, imagination, and doing what was not conventional can accomplish with his string of victories over superior forces and odds.
MrEd wrote:
The reason the southern states left the union was because of state rights being trampled by the federal government. Lincoln really had no right under the constitution to do what he did, but he didn't seem to care very much. Lincoln was really a bad President, but you can't get many people to agree with you with what they are taught in school now days.
Yes, they were a different country after they left the union and no the President did not have the right to send troops to S.C. and start the invasion. He had no authority to do that under our constitution, but then the federal government was doing a lot of things back then that drove them out. After they lost the war, they had to come back into the union since they had left it and there were a lot of things done to the South for leaving and to teach them a lesson. States lost more of their rights after the war and continue to do so today. There are still hard feelings to this day because of what was done to them back then and the fact that they were forced to come back into the union. If they had a choice today, I think they would still leave the union.
I have studied that war quite a bit and I still think that Lee cost them the war at Gettysburg. If he had won that battle, the war would have been over right then and the South would be a really different place. What really cost them the war was lack of communication and the fact he would not listen to his generals advice. He was just to bull headed.
The reason the southern states left the union was ... (
show quote)
In Lincoln's view, he had an obligation to preserve the Union. His logic is best expressed in his speeches.
Historians and students invariably look for
Confederate "fault" and "mistakes" that led to the outcome of Gettysburg. When the question was posed to George Pickett after the war, he replied, "The yankees had something to do with it." Gettysburg is a study more of the fortunes of war.
To say the Civil War was strictly North vs. South can be misleading. Every Confederate state except North Carolina raised a regiment to fight for the Union. 2/3 of Virginia's military officers and a sizable number of the other southern states fought for the Union. Vickburg v**ed not to sucede. Baltimore v**ed with the Confederacy. Maryland, a s***e state, did not. New York tried to stay neutral and declare itself an open city. Lincoln's inlaws fought for the Confederacy. Lee had a nephew who fought for the Union. There were instances of both s***es and black free men who took up arms and fought for the Confederacy. Indians fought for both sides. The last Confederate general to surrender was an American Indian. The Confederate general who surrendered Vicksburg was from New York. William Sherman was from Louisiana.
Lincoln made it plain in his "malice toward none" speech that Reconstruction was also aimed at reconciliation, over the objections of those who wanted to punish the south. That got derailed with Lincoln's assassination.
Ghost wrote:
Catholic school?
Son do you realize I'm from the south? Catholics here is like an Amish hacker, you don't find too many of them around these parts.
Anyhow, no that is not the case. It's more complicated than that and if I am to avoid damaging AuntiE's delicate sensibilities I rather not go into great detial at this time.
I understand and share your distrust of institutionalized religion. Considering the murder and tragedy inflicted by edicts of religious clerics that go on in 21st century, I've just about had all the religious enlightenment I need.
All religions have a god that k**ls people if he gets pissed off. Makes me question if god created us in his image; or did we create god in ours.