Previous 21 - 30 Next
Is that how you handle someone who you disagree with - Shut Up? First we are not discussing Occupy . You are making assumptions on my views about them. We are talking about the subject of this post. Examples of Tea_party racism. I gave them, you throw out Occupy to change the subject and tell me to shut up. And you think liberals are intolerant Look in the mirror.
Yes I have. Sept 12, 2010 Washington DC. I was there on vacation. I have seen Obama with a bone through his nose, in white face and a Hitler Mustache. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/obama.witchdoctor.teaparty/index.html
In response to:

Ted Cruz and Debt Ceiling Gamesmanship

stedes Wrote: Feb 17, 2014 11:20 AM
"give President Obama a blank check" - Can we stop this lie? - Please! This is not Obama's debt or his money to spend as he pleases. This is to pay bills that are coming due. To pay for the budget congress passed. Republicans just passed a budget, now they do not want to pay for it. The time and place to reduce debt is at budget negotiations. Not when a contractor with a government Purchase Order sends his bill.
In response to:

The 'Trickle-Down' Lie

stedes Wrote: Jan 07, 2014 1:13 PM
"Trickle-Down Economics" is the liberal slang for "Supply Side Economics". Somehow keeping taxes and regulations low for business will somehow stimulate the economy. Creating growth and jobs. Liberals see it as a short-term immediate benefit to business bottom line. An increase in profits without doing anything. And how long will it take before the economy recovers and jobs are created, if they are created. In 2004 when Congress eased the overseas tax rate in hope of stimulating the economy, most of it went to pay dividends and investors. Very little was re-invested. Lesson learned, then is nothing wrong with a corporate tax cut, but it cannot be a gift, it has to be earned. You get your tax cut by investing in your business and hiring people. But un-targted tax cuts are a gift to keep the rich rich.
I disagree with your definition of equality. Conservatives, not really understanding liberalism and viewing from their own lens, define liberal equality as "equal outcomes". In reality, liberals define equality a "equal opportunity". People born poor have less opportunity to succeed than someone born rich. Liberals want to fix that through government programs to help people succeed. Conservatism in general does not accept this. They accept inequality as a natural way of life in society. If you read the "Conservative Mind" by Russell Kirk he talks about a divine hierarchy. As stated in Mr Hawkins article. "If you stay poor it is your own fault".
In response to:

Inequality -- Crisis or Scam

stedes Wrote: Dec 31, 2013 1:49 PM
"Inequality ... is rooted in the biological nature of man," said James Fenimore Cooper. Some inequality is biological, but some is by design. Inequality is also intentional. When people of wealth and power influence laws and regulation to maintain their wealth and power, inequality is by design. Low taxes for the rich, anti-union, anti-minimum wage, supply-side economics immediately benefits the wealthy with no proof of trickle down economics, corporate welfare and of course laws that allow for a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the top 1%. How? its called debt. Debt is a big business. Fees and interest rates are designed to keep people in perpetual debt. College loans, medical bills, payday loans, bank fees as well as any fee they can get away with. Economists call it "Rents". They get rich by taking wealth rather than creating wealth.
"Inequality ... is rooted in the biological nature of man," said James Fenimore Cooper. Some inequality is biological, but some is by design. Inequality is also intentional. When people of wealth and power influence laws and regulation to maintain their wealth and power, inequality is by design. Low taxes for the rich, anti-union, anti-minimum wage, supply-side economics immediately benefits the wealthy with no proof of trickle down economics, corporate welfare and of course laws that allow for a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the top 1%. How? its called debt. Debt is a big business. Fees and interest rates are designed to keep people in perpetual debt. College loans, medical bills, payday loans, bank fees as well as any fee they can get away with. Economists call it "Rents". They get rich by taking wealth rather than creating wealth.
First of all Obama is not lying when he says Republicans do not have a plan. All I hear is repeal. There is no public health care proposal or bill backed by the Republican party. They have not publicly presented a solution. I have no idea what the republican plan is. They voted 40 times to repeal, not replace. Second how is ObamaCare socialized medicine? Insurance is purchased by private companies on an exchange where insurance companies compete. Medical care is given by doctors and hospitals in private practice. These socialized tactics were originally Republican ideas to counter Clinton Care in the 90's, including the mandate. These ideas were used by Gov Romney in Massachusetts. Socialized medicine is medicare. At least according to Reagan it is. Third, I am anxious to hear how far Republicans are willing to go to repeal Obamacare. Are they going to take away insurance from the 2 million that did sign up? Are they going to take away the popular elements such as no pre-existing conditions, keeping children on to age 26 and not being dropped for too many claims? Repeal is an illusion - its too late. Its just red meat for the base. The best they can do is offer their own tweaks to improve and fix it. Whatever they are. Its a mystery, no one knows.
Freedom of speech is granted by the Constitution for citizens to be protected from government prosecution. There is no protection from business or public ridicule or being fired. Phil Robertson's speech was protected, the government did not persecute him. It ends there... But when a public figure makes a public statement, the public and business can react. Free speech does not mean consequence free. Words have an impact. If Mr Robertson worked for Bobby Jindal's campaign and made those comments, would Mr. Jindal cite free speech and keep him on the campaign? Not likely, he would be gone. If an employee makes negative comments and their employer, they would be gone. A&E's decision to fire Mr. Robertson was a business decision. They do not want to be associated with that controversial view. Is that a form of free speech?
In response to:

Thank you, Hobby Lobby

stedes Wrote: Nov 30, 2013 8:37 AM
If the Supreme court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, it will open a Pandora's Box of potential anarchy. Here is how. If a company or business has the right to refuse to offer contraceptive based on religious principle, are we all now free to pick and choose any other law we do not agree with, claim religious principle and not follow it? Can I refuse to offer medical coverage that includes blood transfusions because my religion doesn't believe in blood transfusions? And why stop at Obama care, there are hundreds of laws and regulations on the books to run a company. Can I pick any law and claim religious exemption? And what about atheists. Can they refuse a law based on some principal or does it only favor religion? From NY Times editorial: "While the Supreme Court has upheld the free speech rights of corporations, it has never recognized that a secular corporation is an entity capable of engaging in religion or that the religious beliefs of owners excuse noncompliance with the law. To do so now would upset accepted principles of corporate law and set a risky precedent by elevating the religious views of company owners over the interests of society and the well-being of employees. The ruling could also invite challenges to other treatments and procedures that offend business owners’ personal beliefs".... "The Supreme Court’s challenge now is to recognize the real assault on religious freedom here — namely the assertion by private businesses and their owners of an unprecedented right to impose the owners’ religious views on workers who do not share them.
I mean promotes in-tolerance,
Previous 21 - 30 Next