I just read that 75% of R women have a favorable opinion of Rick Santorum. I'm aghast! I'm going to protest! Let's see...I can't burn my bras because they're too expensive. I know - I'll burn my RNC card!
Yes, I'm a registered R, but my party is being taken over by right-wing extremists. When a sanctimonious holier-than-thou fiscal spendthrift polls higher than an intelligent, reasonable moderate like Mitt, something is seriously wrong with the party. And I put my money "where my mouth is." I gave the RNC an earful last time they called. Funny, I haven't heard from them again. They won't get another cent from me as long as the extremists are running (ruining) the party. I will, however, continue to contribute directly to the Romney campaign.
Whew. I feel better now. Thanks. lol
Yep Burn ya Card... rather than those double 9s
There aren't many things in this world that scare me, but just like Obama did when he was running, Santorum does now. Greg
As a Massachusetts resident, I can tell you that Mitt was an action Governor. He made moves, plans and decisions. The first thing his successor did was get a publicly funded Cadillac. (At least he bought American). Mitt has both the brains and the experience to get the country back on track.
I hope this doesn't come aross as rude, but even if say Romney scrapes in to the GOP nomination spot how does it feel to know that many of your fellow party members and fellow voters on your side wanted that thing Santorum in power? Doesn't it make you ashamed to vote with them? it would me.
But Habee.....some of us WANT Poor little Ricky to win the nomination. Then our buddy Barack won't even have to break a sweat......
If nothing else...Rick has had an opportunity to wear all his sweater vests from St Leo of the Roar Elementary School. Isn't he so cute????
Let's see Republican women stupid for supporting an ultra-conservative.....reminds me of another forum. Again, it amazes me how voters, regardless of gender, can be convinced to vote against their self-interest...
And yet, you vote for taxation relentlessly.
Which means it's not theft: we voted for it!
But seriously, taxes are not by definition against our self-interest--it's what the tax money is used for that's either for or against our interests, and it's usually a mixed bag.
Government can't spend money properly. Spending other people's money automatically makes wealth disappear.
What are taxes defined as? Is not taking someone's money by force, neccessarily against one's self interest? In other words if you drive by my house and I stop you and force you to pay me and I call it a tax and my claim is that I use the money to beautify the street that you and I live on then, by your definition, it is not against your self interest.
So I can only assume that since you believe in the benefits of taxation then most likely you merely calculate 35 percent of your total income, regardless of whether or not it is dividends and capital gains and add 5 percent because the government is doing such a splendid job? Because after all taxes are NOT against your self interests.
Taxes are not a mixed bag. Taking money from people that are working is merely a different form of slavery, because everyone is still forced to work for free until May every year just to satisfy the plantation master.
No, silly. Taxation without representation is a form of slavery. That's why the founders went to war with England back in the day.
But the radical right want to edit that reason. They want to claim that "Taxation....is a form of slavery."
The battle cry of the Revolution wasn't "No taxation," full stop. It was "No taxation without representation."
Or were you absent that day?
Also, nobody (not even the people in the 35% tax bracket) pays 35% of their total income. They only pay that rate on the income they earn for doing a job for an employer, and they only pay that rate on the part of their earned income that's above the first $379K or so. So if you make $400K at your job, you only pay a 35% tax rate on a little more than $20K of your income.
"Taxes are not a mixed bag."
Yes they are. They pay for some stuff that's a good idea, like National Parks and a standing army, and they pay for some stuff that's a bad idea, like subsidies to the already-wealthy and the constant misuse of our standing army. Its up to us citizens to elect people to represent us to spend the money in ways that we think are good, and to tell them what we think.
Oh, and by the way, this?:
"In other words if you drive by my house and I stop you and force you to pay me and I call it a tax and my claim is that I use the money to beautify the street that you and I live on then, by your definition, it is not against your self interest. "
I have no idea what kind of thought process you're following to get to there from what I said, but I'd love to see it in the form of a logical proof. For entertainment value, if nothing else. Seeing that was kind of like playing in a game of Monopoly and watching as one of the other players jumps his little top hat into the Free Parking space and says "King me!"
Voting for taxes IS in the interest of the Nation and therefore is good for me also.
Prove it mathematically...show me examples of a country or nation state that is functional with higher taxes. Prove that increasing taxes is good for the Nation and therefore good for you. The only possible way in which it can be good for you is if you do not work and pay taxes.
"show me examples of a country or nation state that is functional with higher taxes."
Norway. Sweden. Finland. Canada.
Yeah, but they are all commies and their citizens live in substandard conditions with no health care or any social safety net and every one of them wants to move the good old you-ess-of AYYY!
From what a friend of mine has told me, (and he's Canadian) was that there system was killing that country. He said that were going down the same path and it does not look good.
Yes, I have many Canadian friends as well, and while Canada isn't utopia (ask about their byzantine gun laws if you have time for a real earful) their system cusioned them from the worst effects of the housing collapse. Their dollar is worth more than our because they aren't afraid to meaningfully regulate commerce.
I haven't made up my mind about the Candidates. But I do know that any Republican Candidate is better than what the Democrats are offering, especially the one that's in Office now.
As far as Santorum, I've begun taking a further look into who he is and what he's like, and am seeing good things. I hope others will too. On all the issues, social ones included. From what I've found out by googling him and his family, he has a compassionate heart backed up with lots of experience about all the issues, including those "social issues" that cannot be dismissed, because they intertwine with all the fiscal issues. He's not talkin' out of his hat, he's talking from experience and personal compassion, not just for political gain but from a compassionate heart. Something that's sadly lacking in the current Administration, even though they pretend they're compassionate.
Thank you Brenda...this isn't about which Republican is more conservative it is about defeating a Marxist socialist that is hell bent on destroying this country and I can guarantee that ANY of these Republican guys can beat Obama. Instead of picking on each other at these debates they should be focusing on the problem...Obama. It is time to take the ATM card, the keys to the corporate jet and send this guy back to where ever it is he came from.
"this isn't about which Republican is more conservative it is about defeating a Marxist socialist that is hell bent on destroying this country"
Really? Who is this mythological person of whom you speak?
Really? You Googled "Santorum"?
What did you learn about his frothiness?
I wasn't interested in whether he's frothy or not! lol.
What I found was that he has a child with an illness very similar to Down Syndrome, and how he reacted to that fact and what he learned as time went on. It figures into his views about contraception and all that I'm sure. And he passed the test with flying colors. How many of us would do so? I'm not sure. That's one of the reasons I admire him and his way of thinking.
Similar circumstances are one of the reasons I admired and admire Sarah Palin.
A man's (or woman's) personal life tells a lot about their professional life in most cases. It's sad that so many people want to dismiss Candidates who truly have life experience along with political experience.
I have a child with autism and I had a child with medical conditions that make DS look like a bee sting. Does that mean that everything I say and do is morally superior?
I'm off to put my name on the ballot.
Edit: That was a little snippier than I intended it to be. What I was trying to say is that having a disabled child/children does not in any way shape or form prove your worth as a leader or a person. Nor do any two people pull the same lesson from it. I am firmly pro-choice in part because of my situation. I would never choose to have an abortion myself, but I could not in good conscious make someone else follow the path that I did.
Melissa, I really like the honesty in your comment and edit. Greg
See Habee these are the people who will vote republican soon: Lions den, repair guy and Brenda you will be voting for the same person as them... Scary ain't it. I am truly sorry that as a thinking moderate hyou are forced to vote with these estremists, the two party system has a lot to answer for.
She isn't "forced".
This is a problem that I have with Republican moderates: they can certainly see that their party has been hijacked, but they keep on voting Republican - holding their noses while voting for the least objectionable candidate.
What they should be doing is temporarily switching to the Democratic side, pinching their noses a bit harder, and voting for the moderate Democrat.
That's the only way to restore sanity to the GOP. You need to give them a crushing defeat, with the numbers so strong that there is no question that their idiotic policies are unacceptable.
Then the party can reorganize along more rational lines and they can field sane candidates once again.
You may be right it takes some preety good organisation though. I think the main problem is the reasonable republicans are the quietest voice in the republican party, drowned out by religious nuts and tea party members I would say a more likely solution is what Habee is doing now expressing her discontent with the party as it stands, typically however the hub has been drawn out three loud right wing nuts to attempt to drown her out... On reflection you may be right
PQ, I won't have to hold my nose to vote for Mitt. I certainly don't think he's perfect, but overall, I like him. As I've said earlier, I won't vote for a candidate like Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, or Gingrich. If someone like one of these is the nominee, I'll vote Obama, unless there's a third party candidate I can support.
Let's take this from another angle: I admit that I don't understand a lot about the Dem primaries and super delegates, but I do know that my best Dem pal was really angry that Hil wasn't the nominee in 2008. She said Hil was hijacked by the super delegates, and I know that many PUMAs agreed. Should the Dems have held their noses and voted R to teach the super delegates a lesson?
And just to let you know, I have voted D on numerous occasions. In fact, I voted for Bill Clinton and even attended one of his fundraisers. I met Bill and Gore there, and my daughters, who were just kids at the time, were on national TV hugging Clinton. Boy, did I have some 'splaining to do when my out-of-state far right relatives saw that clip on the news!!
Ok fair enough you are better than what we gave you credit for you will do the right thing and vote in opposition if one of the R nuts gets in (I don't count Mitt as a nut obviously). My apologies.
No, because the Dems have not been hijacked by crazies.
The Dems could use a lesson or two, but they need to learn far less than the insane GOP and if the GOP returned to its senses, any such lesson could be quickly taught.
"No, because the Dems have not been hijacked by crazies."
No, they were hijacked by CommunoNazi-muslims who want to destroy America and dance on the ashes.
But see, PQ, everyone has his own definition of "crazy." Many right wingers think the far left is crazy with some of their ideas. I don't care for either extreme.
Maybe Howard Kucinich (sp?)?
The thing is, even he isn't calling for the nationalization of the oil companies or the confiscation of all firearms or the criminalization of homeschooling or the banishment of Jesus or any of the stuff the right likes to accuse the left of wanting to do.
(At least, I haven't heard any of that stuff from him.)
You mean Dennis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ … s_Kucinich
He's anti gun, but that's never going to happen.. Other than that, he's strong left but not crazy.
d'oh! Yes, I meant Dennis. I think my brain tried to type Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean at the same time.
Besides that he has a very attractive statuesque female companion--at least he did have--for such a little twerp! I like him okay and he seems very outspoken, something else I admire in little twerps.
I've seen lots of crazy ideas from Dems:
- outlaw guns
- animals have the same rights as humans
- throwing away live babies from botched abortions
- late term abortions
- the KKK
- placing minnows over human welfare and food production
- not referring to terrorists as terrorists
- opposing voter ID
- funding stupid government projects that we can't afford
- union card check with no secret ballot
- our deficit
- allowing illegal immigrants to attend college by paying in-state tuition when a citizen in the next state would have to pay more to attend the same college
See, I consider these crazy, but you might not. That proves my point: "crazy" is in the eye of the beholder. lol
The thing is, most of those "crazy ideas" were proposed by fringe elements in the Democratic party, not by the DNC or other mainstream elements in the party, and most of the ones that weren't (such as the deficit) are as much or more the responsibility of the Republicans.
A few others are misleadingly phrased - mainstream Democrats don't place "minnows over human welfare and food production," we recognize that the same factors that are killing the minnows, such as polluted water and loss of riparian buffer zones, will also kill humans if allowed to continue spiraling out of control. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. By the same token, if you phrased "socialism" as "public roads, public schools, and a national post office," all of which are socialist by definition, almost all Republicans would be for it.
On the other hand, far too many of the Republican party's "crazy ideas" have ceased to be fringe and become part of the GOP platform.
I was talking about the "fringe" elements. The discussion was about extremists. And yes, I could list just as many for the extreme right, which was my point, initially. A few of the things I listed, however, weren't from the fringe.
Josak, that's not necessarily true. Many on the far right swear they'll never vote for Romney because he's "too moderate." I like Mitt for some of the same reasons the far right doesn't like him.
Santorum scares the hell out of me!! He seems like one of those kids in high school that would narc on you for smoking in the bathroom. He also comes off as arrogant and cocky. I simply do not like the guy.
And many people want to pretend a candidate's real-world experiences don't have any 'real' value, especially when the candidate disagrees with their politics. No names named....
I feel better just reading what you wrote, Habee!
I know how it is to see some flamer upstart threatening my logical,qualified, candidate. I know how it feels to be the little kid screaming, "But can't you see the emperor is nekked?"
Seems like only yesterday, but it was 2008.
Wow, when I saw the topic, I figured it would have been posted by LoveMyChris or one of the other usual suspects.
When I saw that habee posted it, I was like, "Whaaaaat....?"
But everything in the OP is dead on. Hubber feenix wrote a hub about his belief that if Santorum wins the GOP nomination it'll lead to a democratic landslide (and the subsequent downfall of America). He's right about the landslide part; we disagree on the whole downfall thing.
The only GOP hopeful to say that science is a useful tool for making decisions about the world was shut down hard early in the race, in favor of a bunch of people who classify the scientific method with pagan rituals. Disappointing, but unsurprising.
The current crop of GOP candidates is like a Mount Rushmore of nutjobbery, with Santorum as nutjob in chief. I'm hoping for a Romney nomination, but only because he isn't as nutjobby as the rest of the field, and if he beats Obama (who I'm not entirely happy about either), it won't be as disastrous.
The down side to having extremists run for high office is that extremists are exactly the kind of folks that will turn out to vote come election day. Unless a whole lot of reasonable people turn out to counter the nutjob vote, we might well be watching Sam Alito swear Rick Santorum into the presidency this go-round.
The problem is, reasonable people tend to have reasonable stuff to do, and it can sometimes get in the way of being a responsible citizen. That's why most of us think 'extremist' when we think 'activist:' most reasonable people haven't got a lot of time in their lives for activism.
I didn't give you a heart attack, did I, Jeff? I'm just so frustrated with the Republican base!
No, not really. Extremists would be the paleo conservatives. These are people who started off fighting Godless Communism and Socialism. Next, they fought the Marxist take-over of the Democrat Party which happened in the 1960s.
Republicans were too patriotic. Democrats were collapsing in the 1960s and were rebuilt by the extremist Left element of the political spectrum.
Really - tell us what "extreme" positions the Democrats have in their party platform?
In fact, there is nothing that is extreme. Of course, when you are sitting with the far right, normal views look extreme to you.
Yeah, this part is so EXTREME! I didn't realize that the Democratic Party platform, the WHOLE DAMN THING, is so Crazy! Bring me Santorum and his unprotected procreating sex - that is so mainstream.
"Support Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Encouraging new industry and creating jobs means giving more support to American entrepreneurs. We will exempt all start-up companies from capital gains taxes and provide them a tax credit for health insurance. We will provide a new tax credit for small businesses that offer quality health insurance to their employees. We will help small businesses facing high energy costs. We will work to remove bureaucratic barriers for small and start-up businesses–for example, by making the patent process more efficient and reliable."
Are you serious in asking "what extreme positions" Dems have? I'm just waiting for the "feces police" to show up and inspect toilet tissue useage. Perhaps Obama can work on developing a "toilet tissue" policy that will limit global warming, because he has already provided the solution to eliminating America's reliance on foreign oil -- "proper tire pressure!" Only the smartest Democrat in the room could come up with some really brilliant solutions like that.
Wow, you should try writing conspiracy-fiction for money. It worked for Dan Brown...
What exactly is GOOD about being moderate and why is being extreme considered BAD. Santorum is no extremist as you define it: he voted for more government spending (moderate let's all get along positioin), no child left behind (pure socialist position that I would have expected from someone like Obama) and many other big government "solutions".
Quite frankly, I want an EXTREME Constitutionalist. If the federal government just sticks to the Constitution they may be able to successfully execute what they have failed misserably at -- protecting and defending the Constutition.
Rick Santorum TERRIFIES me. Did you see that he stated that he didn't believe in separation of Church & State??? He clearly wants to put his religious agenda before our constitutional rights. It's terrifying. I respect religion (I was raised Christian), but keep it out of politics.
I don't know it seems like the GOP women are more than happy to let the party get its Mitt on their private parts.
Are Republican women stupid? Not all of them, just 3 out of 4.
Actually, only 66% of R men see Santorum favorably.
My impression - and I'm going to state up front that I'm not sure if it's accurate or not - is that most women who identify as conservative tend to be pretty socially conservative, whereas men who identify as conservative can be either fiscally or socially conservative. I suspect this is because women who are fiscally but not socially conservative usually realize that social conservatism amounts to a war on women's rights, whereas men who share their beliefs have the benefit of male privilege and don't necessarily think about that, so are more willing to get lumped in with the social conservatives.
And yes I'm Republican and no I'm not stupid. And I will stay Republican until and unless the Party Platform is changed, which would be a stupid thing for them to do.
And I don't give a whit who might think or say I'm stupid. Because that would simply be stupidity plus meanness on their part to accuse such a thing.
C'mon', Brenda. Where's your sense of humor? Did you happen to notice that I, too, am a Republican woman? I've researched Santorum, and I didn't like what I found. Check out his voting record. Research his charities. Sure, he comes across as a great guy, and I thought he was, at first. This guy has no chance of beating Obama because moderates and independents will NEVER vote for him.
I think he surged with conservatives because he looks good on the surface but hasn't really been vetted yet. As more tidbits emerge, I think he'll drop in the polls. Of course, I've been wrong before. lol
Olde Frothy is quite a piece of work. He's just the fellow to appeal to the Right's lunatic fringe. I think he might even win here in Michigan next week.
Santorum comes off as a great guy?
WTF is wrong with women!? The guy is clearly a smug jerk-off.
The guy reeks of "family values" so if that's your one and only criterion for a candidate, of course they're gonna love him.
As stated eloquently above, Romney's about economic progress. He's not a social flamer. That doesn't "appeal" to this base.
Gingrich should completely turn off Republican women. I'm surprised there would be a single R women who supports that serial cad. Ladies, it's a personal morality thing. If he can do it to his wives, he WILL do it to our country!
A friend of mine has been digging into Santorum's background and says he's very dirty. That will be coming out shortly, I'm sure.
Perhaps he wears the sweater vests to hide the scars...
Nobody had any doubts as for your political orientation! It is not as if you fooled us, habee!
It's odd given his pathological obsession with abortion and related issues. Don't a certain segment of Republican women support legal abortion?
No, Republican women are not stupid. They are conservative and extemist. You are a more moderate Republican and I probably would like you. You make sense.
Thanks! Yes, I'm definitely a moderate on social issues - sometimes even liberal (I'm against the death penalty and for gay rights). I'm more of a fiscal conservative.
OK - that's three of us. Moderate to liberal socially, fiscal conservative.
Can we start our own party and provide the country with "President Habee"?
There just has to be more of us that want govt out of our pocketbook as much as possible and freedom for everyone.
Sorry, habee, but you can ask as many times as you want and the answer will still be "NO". With your attitude I'm not sure I would even want to be your VP - I did that once as a favor and the President resigned during a very difficult period.
Good government requires money.
There is plenty enough to pay for our needs. Only incredible greed and fools prevent it.
Of course there is. The problem is that no one wants to live with only their needs satisfied and not their wants.
We don't need cell phones, microwaves, cars capable of 80 MPH, large and heavy cars, satellite TV, internet connections, computers and a 1000 other things.
Some people have a pathological need for huge sums of money, believing it will make them happy (and maybe it does - I wouldn't know). Some have a need for exotic high risk sports and some think they need a 4G cellphone.
How many of our luxuries would you take away to provide these "needs" for everyone?
Well hopefully we could get people to decide as moral human beings what they are willing to go without (maybe the new iphone vs the old one or something) to see others get the bare minimum, I wish it were so easy but unfurtunately the greedy amongst us make it impossible and now we are left with a decadent culture that wastes and indulges constantly balanced by a huge subset who are allmost starving.
I think at the end of the day what divides left vs right fiscally is are you willing to fight for Bill Gates to ahve 150 palacial homes and 7 luxury yachts or do you think more of it should be taken away to help those who are struggling to feed themselves.
You're not getting the point. To give up the new iphone while keeping the old one (with it's attendant fees) means you are spending money for a pure luxury that could feed someone.
Who will decide what should be given up? Personally, I would take away all cell phones and give the money to the poor, but I very much doubt the general populace would go along with that.
I would outlaw all cars bigger than necessary to hold your family. No SUV's, no minivans for a family of 4. Few pickup trucks, and fewer yet full sized ones. Just think of the money wasted by people owning and driving these monstrosities! The next time you take a drive, count the number of these wasteful luxuries on the road, yet people drive them instead of feeding the poor.
Luxuries? Some of these 1%'ers that the Republicans want to cut taxes for have more money than some small countries!
THEY can give up some "luxuries"!! Leave everybody else alone. They need to stop acting like we are all spoiled malcontents.
But LMC, we are spoiled malcontents. As a group we want far more than we actually need and as we cannot earn them ourselves we then demand that someone else spend their income to buy us our toys.
@ Wilderness. How can you sit here and preach "sharing" when you have all of this and you yourself is not willing to give any of this up.
If there are more than 10 (American) hubbers out of the 200,000 on Hp that don't own a cellphone I will eat my hat. If I didn't have to have one for my job mine would be gone in a heartbeat, saving me that $10 per month. Of course, if I gave that money to Uncle Sam to give out as welfare, they would just buy more cellphones for poor people with it.
None of us want to give up those things that we cherish - that's my point. For someone else to then declare that this thing or that thing is a luxury (while ignoring those that they own) and should give it up for charity is just wrong.
Then why are you preaching that everyone should give things up. I have a cell phone but I use it for calling and texting and only because my girlfriend is in Calif. and I am in Colo. Don't preach what everyone else should do unless you are willing to do it too. Greg
I think I have not made myself clear - I am very, very tired of giving things like this up so that someone refusing to work can have them.
I do not advocate giving up the luxuries that we have earned with the sweat of our brow so that Uncle Sam can give away the money we would have spent.
Somewhere along this thread I have given the wrong impression; if you are understanding that I advocate giving up your hard earned monies to buy luxuries for someone else, I apologize. That was never my intent.
"If I didn't have to have one for my job mine would be gone in a heartbeat, saving me that $10 per month. Of course, if I gave that money to Uncle Sam to give out as welfare, they would just buy more cellphones for poor people with it."
Probably this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
It's typical short-sightedness.
Yep, but try and explain this to conservatives who wish to blame Obama for everything. What else is new?
Oh! Heh, I was in another discussion and someone told me "I bet you support free cell phones for people on welfare, too!" I had no idea what the heck she was talking about (it had nothing to do with the topic at hand), so I blew it off and forgot about it until just now. Hilarious.
I was getting two or three emails a day from my low IQ neighbors griping about that.. every time, I responded with a link to Snopes and of course not one of them ever read it.. I can't remember a single thing these fools ever sent me that wasn't either completely incorrect or a short sighted view of something that is actually good for all of us.
But they keep sending it because they like getting outraged, I guess.
I will agree that our generation was very materialistic and could be, and was.
But as of 2003 or so....a whole lot of people were left out of that party...in fact, to be truthful, a whole lot of people have always been left out...it just became an extremely large amount during "the lost decade".
Our generation(s) is/are still materialistic. Take a look around at how many two earner families there are - that second income seldom goes to provide food, housing (of a necessary size and neighborhood) or clothing. Instead it buys toys and "nice" things - those materialistic things that we all want.
I grew up without a TV or a second car in a family of 5 - it hasn't hurt me (and probably helped physically). My two sisters shared a bedroom for many, many years without damage. I paid my own way through college without loans or outright grants and it probably helped through later life. My first "home" was furnished with a bed, broken down couch and a huge wire reel for a dining table - two teens "converted" a coal storage room into their home. Again, no ill effects.
Anyone suggesting such "sacrifices" nowdays would be shouted down immediately. They are all "necessities" now - very materialistic necessities, too. The recession has indeed hurt many, including me. When I needed a new work truck it wasn't new - it was 15 years old with 150,000 miles on it. Gets me to work, though - while a truck was a necessity a new one certainly wasn't. They days of the gravy train are over, and over for the forseeable future - best we learn to live with it instead of demanding that someone else pay for the things we desire but don't need.
But you see---we have the same problem, but point the finger at different people!
I'm sick of seeing money taken from middle incomes and going to rich ones...so THEY can have more luxuries they don't need!
Meanwhile, necessities are a struggle for a massive amount of the population.
We have been playing reverse robin hood....in my opinion.
I don't know of any charity payments to the ultra wealthy. Tax reductions, yes - that is a result of both greed and a need for congress to buy votes to retain their job and power.
But a struggle to purchase necessities? For a massive amount of the population? Not unless you mean they have to work to feed themselves. Yes there are those that really do struggle to provide food, shelter and clothing, but it is not a "massive" percentage of the population.
@ Wilderness, out of curiosity, how many of these things do you have?
lol, I was wondering the same thing.
Can you even buy a car that isn't capable of 80 mph?
All but the large and heavy car - I drive a Prius.
But I don't want to give them up, either. They are certainly not necessities (although internet access could be considered so as I earn more from HP than it costs), but I want them.
That's the point. We all have a life full of luxuries that we don't need. We could all give some of them up and provide more luxuries for those that can't earn their own, but no one wants to. And as soon as PC or LMC or anyone else begins deciding for the general population what classifies as a luxury they don't need and shouldn't have in order to provide lesser cost luxuries for the general masses there is a problem.
Few people, particularly 2 earner income families, work solely for the necessities of life - they work for the little and large luxuries we want. To then take them away to give them to the poor is wrong.
Do you then equate having enough to eat to having a cellphone? Or two cars or satellite TV or internet access?
You and I are very often on different sides of this fence, but it looks to me that the biggest reason is that you wish to support "the poor" in the entirety, including all the things that we like and want but are, after all, only luxuries.
Very few people, including me, would hesitate to feed a hungry child. I do hesitate and dislike buying luxuries for people that won't work for them themselves.
Our current recession was primarily caused by those in our congress deciding that all Americans should own a home, whether they could buy one or not. Although that bubble has collapsed it seems to many haven't learned from it. They still demand that we support the poor to the same standard of living and luxury that we all want.
You know, I put off for many years the purchase of a cell phone because I couldn't afford one (and now don't use the one I have ). During the period I also paid taxes that allowed those same "poor" people to be given a better phone than the one I couldn't afford. There is something wrong with that concept and it seems to grow every year.
Where are the starving children? Where are all of these people dying in the streets because Donald Trump or some other Billionaire earned a lot of money? Why must liberals resort to hysterics and create fiction to try and sway people?
How can any logical thinking human being claim to be moderate or liberal on social issues and point out that you are against the death penalty, but you are for killing unborn children or permitting indemnifying doctors for infanticide (killing the baby after it is born).
Then you moderates (which are people that have no convictions) make some claim of superiority by claiming that you support "gay rights". So you are claiming that gays, who are making a life style choice, have special rights because of the superior righteousness of their choice over those of who choose not to be gay.
By claiming special rights you are demanding government become involved in social issues. This is why ignorance prancing about disguised as intelligence is dangerous. The Declaration of Independence says that "ALL men" are created equal. Why do you people insist on dilluting equality??
Did I say I was for abortion?? I hate abortion, but I don't think it should be illegal in the first trimester. I think it should be safe and legal. Get a clue - women have been having abortions for hundreds of years, and making them illegal won't stop women from having them. I do think that late term abortions should be illegal, unless the mother's life is at stake. When the unborn baby can feel pain, it's too late for an abortion. Re: infanticide - I believe that killing an aborted baby who survived the abortion is murder. As for gay rights, why should I care what people do in their bedrooms? Gays and straights should have the same rights.
Now, wanna talk about the 2nd Amendment? I don't trust people who agree with every talking point on the left OR on the right. People should learn to think for themselves, without FOX, Rush, Beck, Hannity, MSNBC, Olbermann, NBC, or the Huff Post.
I agree completely with everything you said.
See, I think I have more in common with you, Habee, than with many people on the left.
Abortion should be legal and safe, but contraception should be available (and understood!) so we can avoid situations where a woman will have to decide between an abortion or having a child for which she is not ready.
Gay marriage? Rock on. Same rights for all informed competent consenting adults.
Guns? I think it's generally not a great idea to carry them, so I don't. And honestly, I think most people probably shouldn't carry either. But I don't have the right to make that call for anybody but me. It's already illegal to shoot someone, so we're good there.
Also, I love me some shootin'. I do black powder, though.
I don't get it. I think a lot of it has to do with Romney's religion and Gingrich's failed marriages. So they're going for the most conservative, right wing religious candidate. It's extreme.. and alarming. But if Santorum gets the nomination, no way will he make it to the Oval office. I don't think he'll get the GOP nomination.
A couple weeks ago there was an excellent editorial in the NYT about the current Republican dilemma. They have become the radical party. I"ll see if I can find it.
I think it's highly hypocritical that the R's want less government, but they're all for government telling us how we should conduct our lives.
a couple links worth reading
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ … story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opini … .html?_r=1
The term "extremist" is thrown around too loosely. I normally don't weigh in on political topics. But adding to this, though I'm more likely to vote for Mitt Romney I think it's important Santorum has brought up issues related to strengthening the families and, as he said, the pillars of civic society. Those pillars allow issues to be discussed and solved at the local level and can bring people of different faiths together and political stripes as I've seen in Pasadena.
Also, a close, close relative of mine has had a child whom I'm raising and she's also freely had 3 abortions paid for by taxpayers. She and the absentee dude have been able to benefit from the little one by taking the child on their taxes although my spouse and I have paid nearly all the expenses since birth.
To me, that seems a bit more "extreme."
Yep, Don, that's pretty extreme. Abortion should NOT be a form of birth control. I've taught seniors in high school who had already had 2 or even 3 abortions by their senior year. WHY?? Protection is easily accessible and cheap!
"Abortion should NOT be a form of birth control."
I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.
"Protection is easily accessible and cheap!"
But many conservatives are working to change that, and if they can't, they're doing their very best to make sure nobody finds out
a) that contraceptives exist,
b) how they work,
c) where to get them, and
d) that they're cheap.
The country's in trouble, they say, and their solutions to our problems are that we should ban gay marriage, stop abortions, and try to keep kids from learning about biology.
This is another place where I part ways with the socially conservative far right. I think condoms should be placed in high school lockers. I'm not kidding. When they run out, they should be re-filled. Believe me, as a retired high school teacher, I KNOW TEENAGERS. They're going to have sex. Abstinence is fine, but it's not realistic. If teens had easy access to free protection, the abortion rate would drop, as would STDs.
Not in their lockers... that's the last place they would look. I think that a case of them should be given away with each cell phone or laptop purchase.
That doesn't make any kind of sense. They should be included in every six-pack of cheap beer or bottle of Jaegermeister, Boones Farm, or Peachtree Schnapps (or whatever the cool kids are drinking these days).
Oh, and they should also definitely be included with every prom dress and tuxedo rental. Just stick them in the clutch or the inside pocket of the jacket.
I have no idea what the cool kids are drinking these days, but you just described a typical Saturday night for me when I was a teenager. You're in your late thirties/early forties right?
No, they have to go to their lockers. Where do you think they keep their doobies? lol
I like strong families, too, and I think Mitt is a good family man. BUT...the issues most voters are worried about, according to polls, are jobs, the economy, and the deficit. Mitt is focusing on these issues instead of preaching to us.
I'm a Democrat, but we have two awesome Republican Senators from Maine: Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Although I don't always agree with them, I think they are good, honest politicians who represent our State well. I vote for them every time!
And in the last presidential election, once Clinton was out, I was thinking strongly about McCain - until he brought in Palin.
So to me, Republican women are a mixed lot. But I don't find so much difference with the present GOP presidential hopefuls. I guess Mitt is the best of the lot, but I won't be able to vote for him.
I wish Snowe, Collins, or Clinton would run!!
I don't know a lot about your senators, but I like Hil!
MB, I'm so glad you can see across party lines. I'm the same way. I've voted D numerous times, and there are several Ds I like and admire.
There are lots of hubbers who are R and are smart with the "pop" in username - breakfastpop and couturepopcafe. These R women who like Santorum, maybe they just want to join their husband who I presumed are also Republicans. Or perhaps, others are being submissive - is it correlated with high IQ, I don't know. Being submissive does not mean they have low IQs, on the other side they must be wise as they can manipulate their conservative hubbies that way . I've got crazy ideas anyway.
In terms of politics, do couples have same preferences? There is block voting in R families?
Santorum scares me, same with Newt!
Maita, I know several couples who differ politically. My hubby is much more conservative than I am, for example. I also know some D-R couples.
Reminds me of this;
http://www.perpetualkid.com/welcome-to- … ormat.aspx
Haha, I need one of those! My husband and I agree on most political issues, but when we disagree, we REALLY disagree, and the resulting debate can last for hours.
The only reason I still have a wife is that she doesn't care about politics.
However, when she does talk politically she seems to be libertarian. LUCKY!!
That is good!
This one is related to your post -- Rick Santorum - Gifts From God http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaPKt3c8S-w
I'm an Independent and been voting Democrat since Clinton and the black guy will be getting my vote again in 2012. I listened to the Republican candidates and not one of them had anything to say. I'm convinced that those guys are nuts and so out of touch, it's laughable.
"ROMNEY THIS AM: Top 1% will pay the same under my plan ROMNEY TONITE: Top 1% gets a 20% tax cut under my plan"
which is it? don't bother--we really already know.
Either way, under Romney's plan(s), the common denonator is that the 99% will get screwed by paying the 1%'s taxes and then some. Is that how it goes?
Are people brain damaged in some fashion? 50% of all American workers do NOT pay income taxes. The top 1% pay 38 percent of all income taxes and the top 10 percent income earners pay 70 percent of all income taxes.
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook … me-earners
So stop the undocumented erroneous rhetoric regarding the 99%, because you either need a remedial math class or you're simply an anti-capitalist, which makes you anti-American, because America was built on capitalism and rugged individualism....not taxes and class warfare!
Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
Those 50% that don't pay earned income taxes? They still pay federal taxes. Soc Sec? they pay, and in fact, we only pay SocSec on the first $100k or so of earned income. If you make 300k, you don't pay SocSec on $200K of income. You don't pay any SocSec or medicare on capital gains. The gas tax gets paid by everyone, but low income folks pay a greater percentage of their incomes in gas (and other excise) taxes than the wealthy.
And if the top 1% pay 38% of all income taxes, that's because they get more than 38% of all the income. Much of which, by the way, is capital gains, which means it's taxed at a much lower rate than most income that you or I earn from doing actual work.
And then there's the effect of corporate taxes: you tax a corporation, and the tax trickles down* to the people who buy the products, and these increases hit low-income folks harder than high income folks.
I wrote a hub about this, where you can go to see the math and data behind these assertions. I won't link to it, 'cos that's not allowed.
So stop the incomplete quoting of figures designed to obfuscate the realities of how our tax structure works, because you either need a remedial economics class or you're a closet reverse-socialist (take from the poor to subsidize the already wealthy).
Oh, and by the way? America was mainly built on taking property away from people who were different from us and claiming it for people who are like us.** Ask the Cherokee, for example. Or Mexico. Lots of us (especially the Right) say the right to property is sacred, but we don't respect the property rights of anyone who has property that we want for ourselves unless they're part of the club.
*And this is the only thing about money that actually does trickle down.
**(Or turning people who were different from us intoproperty....)
Um.....I hear you habee, this is indeed The Twilight Zone. I hear the theme song being played as I am typing this post. Are these 75% Republican women- mad? Oh the humanity of it all!
Was Obama extremist when he was a candidate and said that he believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman? Or did he just say that to get elected?
Santorum is extremist and god help us all if we have to pick between Obama and Santorum.
No--he was following his religious beliefs.
Santorum, on the other hand, compares gay people to bestiality.
One's an extremist, and it's not Obama.
Even Alan Simpson says so. Called Santorum rigid and homophobic.
As an atheist, personal beliefs clouded by dogma has no business in politics especially when it comes to individuals rights. Why should marriage be between a man and a woman? Is there a straight answer to this? Throwing out conveniently chosen an anti-homosexual Biblical scripture isn't going to go anywhere. The Bible also says that if you see your neighbor mowing his lawn on Sunday, he's to be killed and a rapist can be forgiven by paying off the rape victim’s father and marrying her (if she's not married or engaged).
Marriage is a Universal Right. Period.
I would like to say that, indeed, Marriage is a universal right but not marriage specifically.
The right to property entails owning your body. Because you own your body, you can choose who you wish to associate with and HOW you wish to associate with.
The inalienable right is "Property", the extension of the right is "association" and the branch of that extension is "marriage".
It's DISGUSTING that our government thinks it can tell us who we can marry and who we can not marry. I'm shocked that more people haven't realized that "get government out completely" is a MUCH better solution than "have government decide absolutely".
It's funny that there's another forum talking about how all republicans are stupid.
So, yes! In the eyes of many hubbers here, Republican women are dumb because they are Republican.
I however disagree. I merely wait for the day when they notice that there is no difference between that (R) and that (D).
There is a tremendous difference.
There's little difference between moderates of either party. The left hand wing nuts don't matter because there are so very few. The right wing crazies do matter because there are too many of them.
Now this one I can agree with. I can get along with moderates on either side; it is the crazies that cause me to go crazy myself.
Pelosi, Reid and Obama and all the Obama czars are all left wing nut cases that are leaders of the progressive party. How can you claim these people to be moderates? Delusion?
And is Ron Paul a right wing extremist? Which means that left and right wing moderates find eliminating the federal reserve, which was not instituted until Woodrow Wilson in 1913, "extreme". Furthermore, it would be "extreme" to demand that the federal government follow the law set forth in the Constitution. Wow, brilliant. You're right...you are crazy.
As I said, those on the far right are not able to comprehend what "moderate" means. Poisoned by Fox, the big fat drug abuser and the rest of the crazed far right pundits, you think their insanity is what most Americans think.
I understand very well what a moderate is, I also know I do not want a moderate as leader of my country. I do not want a socialist,communist or the modern day equivalent AKA democrat as leader of my country. You can scream and wail and gnash your teeth all you want, Obama will not be a two term president. By the way, who is responsible for the rising gas prices? I thought all we had to do was have the right air pressure in our tires and the gas would magically be cheaper. Guess Obama miscalculated on that too.
Obama will be POTUS unless your dishonest Tea Party Congress Critters do something to deliberately damage the economy and don't get found out.
Yeah, I'm sure that when he is beaten that will be your excuse. Good thing you got it out there now.
When are people gonna wake up and realize that they are both one in the same? Obama is nothing more than a cloned Bush! What happened to the transparency that Obama promised? This is one of the most secretive administrations that has ever been in the WH!
Obama isn't that stupid. He never said proper air pressure would solve our gas problem. He said it would help you get better mileage, and it's true: it will.
If Romney gets the GOP nod, he could beat Obama, because he could woo the disenchanted moderates. Ron Paul has an even better chance, but he won't get the nod, because wants to cut aid to Israel and defense spending along with everything else, and the rest of the GOP won't have that. Romney being a Mormon won't hurt in the general election, but it might prevent him from getting the GOP nomination.
If Olde Frothy gets nominated, it'll be a Democratic landslide.
Newt will lose, but not as badly as Olde Frothy.
I agree that they are stupid. But it's their racism and greed that bothers me more.
What kind of question is that
It is like saying is Habee stupid for asking that question or maybe just rude.
by Holle Abee 6 years ago
What a shocker. Now there's a combo that would certainly appeal to moderates and Indies! (BIG NOT!!!!)
by Tony Lawrence 6 years ago
Ignorance - The best way to ensure that people vote GOP!http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/25/s … tion-plot/I especially love:"As you know, 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it. "Duh!
by T_Augustus 7 years ago
If Barack Obama was the Republican candidate, would you have voted for him?Very curious what an HONEST answer would be from both Republicans and Democrats alike...the operative word is "honest".
by mio cid 6 years ago
Is Ron Paul giving birth to a movement that can develop into a full fledged political party?Maybe attracting real independents not the pseudo independents that are really just to the left of the democratic party or to the right of the republican party?
by Joel 6 years ago
Is it good for the Republican Party that Santorum has backed out of the presidential race?Now that Santorum is out of the race, will this help the Republican party stop beating one another up and allow the focus to be on beating Obama? Will this help to increase their chances of beating Obama...
by IDONO 5 years ago
Do Republicans think that men's loyalty to their gender is same as to their political party?Boy, are they wrong if they do! Seems like daily, they are showing less respect for women's issues, choices and rights. If I invite one of these guys to my party, but tell them to leave their wife home...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|