Previous 11 - 20 Next
Your insight is a beacon of light in political thread otherwise shrouded by conservative projection and rationalization. Well done, teabagger. Well done.
If it's broken promises you are worried about, then I should think you'd be frothing mad at Romney for walking back all his "severely conservative" promises to you guys and sucking up to the moderates and liberals.
Your premise, which you stated in the concluding sentence of your comment, is that the race wouldn't be as tight as it is except for flaws inherent in Democrat-leaning voters (namely, their inability to interpret graphs). That would seem to be you placing blame for the tight race on the shoulders of liberals. My counter to that argument is that, before you start looking to misplace blame, you should first ask yourself why conservative voters aren't handing Romney an easy victory. I know logic is hard, but do try to keep up.
I think that, before you start placing blame on the Democrats, you should first figure out why the GOP can't get its own people to back Romney.
The uptick we are seeing is the chronically unemployed getting back in the labor market - One of the best signs of an economic recovery. Add to that the much better-than-expected jobs number, and this becomes really bad news for Romney.
Wut? How do you spell "evil"?
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

LuckyLarue Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:36 PM
Good for you. You sound like a good person. But how does that argue against welfare? Are you saying that there are enough people like you to help everyone that needs it? Or is that just an ideal world?
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

LuckyLarue Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 2:19 PM
Actually, Otho, the definition of "redistribution of wealth" is "the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity, divorce or tort law." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University). It is only ideologues like yourself that seek to redefine it to fit a political agenda. So, shopping at Wal-Mart or paying to have my grass cut is an economic transaction. Having a portion of my income taken by the government via taxation and distributed to another person (be it a soldier, fire fighter, student, or my unemployed neighbor) is redistribution of wealth.
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

LuckyLarue Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:59 PM
There are two fundamental issues at play, here. The first is your intellectual dishonesty in trying to separate redistribution of wealth into separate buckets (one that you approve of and the other that you don't). The second is that your idea of a "fair society" is one where children starve, families go homeless, and our economy collapses due to an un-educated workforce simply because you are offended by the abuse in the system.
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

LuckyLarue Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:54 PM
How about you tell me what it is, then? If you don't call it redistribution of wealth, then what do you call it when the government takes your tax dollars and gives them to someone else? True, a soldier provides a service, but that doesn't make it *not* wealth redistribution, just wealth redistribution that you (and I) find of value. Welfare for the poor (or Pell grants for a student) aren't any different: it is still redistribution. The only difference is that you don't see a value in it where I do. I don't mind having that argument with you, but it is absurd to try and re-define a process that is as old as government itself as something alien to our way of life.
In response to:

The Fallacy of Redistribution

LuckyLarue Wrote: Sep 20, 2012 1:43 PM
Well, yes, there is a difference. And if your argument is that you believe welfare for the poor isn't a good use of government taxes, then have the intellectual integrity to say so and stop pretending that wealth redistribution is an evil socialist concept instead of a method that has been employed by every government since government came into being. As for welfare for the poor, I happen to believe that the benefits far outweigh the abuses. Now, if you can figure out how we can stop the lazy good-for-nothings from abusing the system without taking away free school lunches, then I am behind you 100%, but I will fight you every step of the way if your "fair society" means deserving, needy citizens of my country must starve or go homeless.
Previous 11 - 20 Next