kelpdiver 2 #26 May 20, 2009 seems worth noting that in the mid 19th Century, the Republican party was not based on conservatism. They were the party that ended slavery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #27 May 21, 2009 Quoteseems worth noting that in the mid 19th Century, the Republican party was not based on conservatism. They were the party that ended slavery. It seems worth noting that I refer to conservatives and progressives. I do not refer to Republicans and Democrats. If Barry Goldwater were alive today, he would be a called a RINO by the current crowd. I view that as a very clear demonstration of just how radically right the Rs have gone. The American Taliban Party is a reality. Freedom FROM religion is the flip side to freedom OF religion. The whinging righties clearly don't get how fucked up their party has become. No center at all. Strictly against freedom and individual rights. Grew the goverment more than any adminstration, ever, from 2001-2008. Violated the Constitution and the GC, and righties see nothing wrong. The party of smaller government? Yeah, right. Fiscal Responsibility? Yeah, right. Responsible government? Not even close. It is clear to me that the USA will become like the UK after WWII. The Rescumlicans have led the charge to the bottom. The UK is a former world power, left to suckle at the teat of the USA. We'll be needing to teach Chinese and the various Indian dialects in the public schools. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #28 May 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteseems worth noting that in the mid 19th Century, the Republican party was not based on conservatism. They were the party that ended slavery. It seems worth noting that I refer to conservatives and progressives. I do not refer to Republicans and Democrats. If Barry Goldwater were alive today, he would be a called a RINO by the current crowd. I view that as a very clear demonstration of just how radically right the Rs have gone. The American Taliban Party is a reality. Freedom FROM religion is the flip side to freedom OF religion. The whinging righties clearly don't get how fucked up their party has become. No center at all. Strictly against freedom and individual rights. Grew the goverment more than any adminstration, ever, from 2001-2008. Violated the Constitution and the GC, and righties see nothing wrong. The party of smaller government? Yeah, right. Fiscal Responsibility? Yeah, right. Responsible government? Not even close. It is clear to me that the USA will become like the UK after WWII. The Rescumlicans have led the charge to the bottom. The UK is a former world power, left to suckle at the teat of the USA. We'll be needing to teach Chinese and the various Indian dialects in the public schools. Yep And Kennedy would be a right wing wing nut."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 May 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteseems worth noting that in the mid 19th Century, the Republican party was not based on conservatism. They were the party that ended slavery. It seems worth noting that I refer to conservatives and progressives. I do not refer to Republicans and Democrats. not by name, but I doubt I'm the only one that saw the associations being made. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #30 May 21, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteseems worth noting that in the mid 19th Century, the Republican party was not based on conservatism. They were the party that ended slavery. It seems worth noting that I refer to conservatives and progressives. I do not refer to Republicans and Democrats. not by name, but I doubt I'm the only one that saw the associations being made. The associations may be correct in this era. Historically, not so much. Failure to understand history can lead to poor judgements now. Current righties are clear proof of this problem. You might want to brush up on your history regarding which party has had what values, over time. Dixiecrat is a search term that could get you started. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beqa 0 #31 May 21, 2009 All I am saying is that Arnold doesn't make a very good governor. He has a state with a massive population, which means a lot of tax money coming in, and he is loosing money left and right. I think if the state wants more money, that comes from all of us, that they should appoint a finacial advisor that has a history of accounting, and can do something affective about getting the state out of trouble. I really don't think they should get any more money though. Every state is hurting, and having budget cuts. We are all suffereing. I would say that probably most states have had to take some money. But, they all need to use it for a good cause. I think that Obama has a lot of his promises yet to fulfil. I didn't vote for the guy. I don't think he is handling anything overly well. He keeps giving out money. It is just gonna make us worse off in the long run. If he has his way about gun bans and whatnot as well, he will be putting more of the American economy at risk. Because it would affect factories and jobs that still excist in this country. I don't know, I am just not impressed so far, and don't know what is going to happen in the future. It isn't looking that great right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 May 21, 2009 QuoteAll I am saying is that Arnold doesn't make a very good governor. He has a state with a massive population, which means a lot of tax money coming in, and he is loosing money left and right. Do you know how the budget is created in California? No. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #33 May 21, 2009 Quote Quote All I am saying is that Arnold doesn't make a very good governor. He has a state with a massive population, which means a lot of tax money coming in, and he is loosing money left and right. Do you know how the budget is created in California? No. That is an easy question. This is how it is added up. How much money is coming in.... + how much money do we "need" (for all the lib programs) + How much tax (percentage wise) can we get without rebelion. Add 10% (or more) = budget "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beqa 0 #34 May 25, 2009 I would assume the same as most other states. Except, more people, means more taxes paid, which means more money that has been lost. It's called common sense! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #35 May 25, 2009 QuoteI would assume the same as most other states. Except, more people, means more taxes paid, which means more money that has been lost. Budgeting in California is fundamentally different from other states in several important ways. First, the voters have (by referendum) established some "off limits" parts of the budget--things the government cannot do (to raise revenues or limit spending). The most famous example of this is Proposition 13, which greatly curtailed property tax increases. Second, the state must pass it's budget by a supermajority, which means there is a huge amount of political gamesmanship involved, and it's tremendously difficult to accomplish anything that's even remotely challenging or painful.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #36 May 25, 2009 QuoteQuade's remark is clearly a PA as it has notrhing to do with the subject of the thread. In determining if something is (or is not) a personal attack, the topic of the thread has no relevance. To be a PA, something must be; (a) personal--directed at a specific person who posts on these forums; and (b) an attack--it must contain a pejorative element directed at the poster Quade's post fails in the second category. While he's clearly attacking Rush's sig line, he's not saying anything about Rush personally.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #37 May 25, 2009 QuoteExcept, more people, means more taxes paid, which means more money that has been lost. Please elaborate. How does "more taxes paid" mean "more money has been lost?"Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #38 May 26, 2009 Amazon.com has a rockin' sale going on for chicken little suits this week. Step on up and get one. They make you look really butch..... honest. No matter what you look like in your street clothes..... seriously. :-)Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #39 May 26, 2009 QuoteAmazon.com has a rockin' sale going on for chicken little suits this week. Step on up and get one. They make you look really butch..... honest. No matter what you look like in your street clothes..... seriously. :-) they have a better sale on tin foil hats!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #40 May 26, 2009 Both of you cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Broke 0 #41 May 26, 2009 I thought if Obama were allowed to continue the way he is he would be personally responsible for global warming. I was dissapointed to see that wasn't the case in the article. However it is good food for thoughtDivot your source for all things Hillbilly. Anvil Brother 84 SCR 14192 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
