AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

So there IS a limt to what you would pay!!

But I thought that the more we pay the better off everyone will be.
Just think of all that money going to the govt and the "good" they could do with it.

All the children would have all of the free healthcare they needed, there would be nobody going hungry or homeless because the govt could provide everything for everyone.
There would be no poor or rich, because everyone would be 100% financially equal.
The countries infrastructure would all be 100% paid for and there would be no problems.

Just think of all the money the govt could invest in alternative energy.

And you would oppose that by not paying 100% of your income and assets to the govt?

man, i don't know where you got that. it sure as hell wasn't from me.

and other than giving people who can't afford the big insurance companies a way to raise healthy children and find a way to deny the islamists funds via our oil dependence, i haven't heard obama say that **** either.

are you seriously that down on it that you have a problem with helping kids and screwing the m.e.s out of money?

i don't. and i don't even have any kids. lighten up man.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

wrong, as usual bozo.

http://osmoothie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/500px-gadsden_flag.gif

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

No, I got the new PrezBO logo right.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Americaneocon/27238788_400x400.jpg

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

And you totally missed thepoint.
Yes, it was an appeal to an extreme, I freely admit that.

However, many on the left on here seem to support raising taxes to pay for those things I listed, so the more taxes we pay the more the govt and Obama can accomplish everything they want.

So, I simply took it out to its logical (and admittedly extreme) conclusion.
If everyone pays 100%, the govt can do everything it wants to do.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

You liberals are just upset that a new outlet supports a point of view that you disagree with. Excessive taxation is an issue that all working citizens should be concerned about.

I am sure you liberals were just happy little campers when Fox and CNN promote abortion rallies, immigration rallies etc...

So just shut the **** up and try to be tolerant of an opposing point of view.

Or maybe you can get a real job and start paying taxes.

3 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

I am sure you liberals were just happy little campers when Fox and CNN promote abortion rallies, immigration rallies etc...

So just shut the **** up and try to be tolerant of an opposing point of view.

Excellent reply!

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

You liberals are just upset that a new outlet supports a point of view that you disagree with. Excessive taxation is an issue that all working citizens should be concerned about.

I am sure you liberals were just happy little campers when Fox and CNN promote abortion rallies, immigration rallies etc...

So just shut the **** up and try to be tolerant of an opposing point of view.

Or maybe you can get a real job and start paying taxes.

What a twit you are.

Can you find any evidence of CNN or other stations promote immigration, abortion or anti-war rallies in the same fashion that FOX promoted these anti-tax rallies? I wager you cannot present said evidence, for it does not exist.

They might cover the rallies, but they don't have news hosts advocating you go to them; commercials for them running constantly.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclotroll, what a twit you are.

0 Replies

Rent-a-Mobs were great, but now, somehow concerned taxpayers, including many business owners, holding a rally is just terrible, they are to be demonized.

2 Replies

@okie,

Homeland Security may as we speak being gathering names of any and all people that helped organize these rallies. Next step, probably audit every last one of them. After all, these people are dangerous. I heard a guy the other day call a talk show, he was 80 something, a WW II vet, and had never attended a rally ever before in his life, now he is probably a gun totin danger to society, get Homeland Security onto his case.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Homeland Security may as we speak being gathering names of any and all people that helped organize these rallies. Next step, probably audit every last one of them. After all, these people are dangerous. I heard a guy the other day call a talk show, he was 80 something, a WW II vet, and had never attended a rally ever before in his life, now he is probably a gun totin danger to society, get Homeland Security onto his case.

Hey, if you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about, right? You've said those exact words before, Okie. Still feel that way?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Rent-a-Mobs were great, but now, somehow concerned taxpayers, including many business owners, holding a rally is just terrible, they are to be demonized.

Check out this CNN reporter at a Chicago Tea Party - such professionalism - objectivity - impartiality - no apparent agenda obvious - NOT!

http://www.videosurf.com/video/cnn-reporter-slams-fox-at-chicago-tea-party-64599808

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

okie wrote:

Rent-a-Mobs were great, but now, somehow concerned taxpayers, including many business owners, holding a rally is just terrible, they are to be demonized.

Check out this CNN reporter at a Chicago Tea Party - such professionalism - objectivity - impartiality - no apparent agenda obvious - NOT!

http://www.videosurf.com/video/cnn-reporter-slams-fox-at-chicago-tea-party-64599808

While I am on the other side of you politically, I agree that this was unprofessional behavior on the part of the reporter and she should not have engaged in it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Homeland Security may as we speak being gathering names of any and all people that helped organize these rallies. Next step, probably audit every last one of them. After all, these people are dangerous. I heard a guy the other day call a talk show, he was 80 something, a WW II vet, and had never attended a rally ever before in his life, now he is probably a gun totin danger to society, get Homeland Security onto his case.

Hey, if you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about, right? You've said those exact words before, Okie. Still feel that way?

Cycloptichorn

So you compare tapping phone conversations with terrorist cells to peaceful citizens waving lower tax signs on a street corner? Wake up, cyclops, that is downright pathetic, and you know it.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Homeland Security may as we speak being gathering names of any and all people that helped organize these rallies. Next step, probably audit every last one of them. After all, these people are dangerous. I heard a guy the other day call a talk show, he was 80 something, a WW II vet, and had never attended a rally ever before in his life, now he is probably a gun totin danger to society, get Homeland Security onto his case.

Hey, if you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about, right? You've said those exact words before, Okie. Still feel that way?

Cycloptichorn

So you compare tapping phone conversations with terrorist cells to peaceful citizens waving lower tax signs on a street corner? Wake up, cyclops, that is downright pathetic, and you know it.

The NSA has been wiretapping regular Americans consistently, heck they just revealed the other day that they were spying on a Senator. And you were the one alleging that Obama's DHS was compiling lists to harass people with, weren't you?

I'm not going to stop ridiculing your ridiculousness, Okie. I mean, c'mon. Get over the fact that the Dems are running the show now, it isn't going to change, and it isn't the end of the world.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

tapping phone conversations with terrorist cells

How do you know which telephone conversations are being monitored? What makes you so sure that only conversations with "terrorist cells" are being monitored?

And, likewise, why do you think that people who are extremely opposed to the current government dont't fall into the category of "terrorist cells"? Wasn't McVeigh a Gulf War veteran and who became more and more opposed to the government, too?

Why do you oppose one effort and favour the other? What's your reasoning, okie?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclotroll, you are experiencing buyers remorse and you need to get over the fact that you fell for PrezBO's slick sales pitch.

The promised changes are not coming.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
tapping phone conversations with terrorist cells

How do you know which telephone conversations are being monitored? What makes you so sure that only conversations with "terrorist cells" are being monitored?

I am not, but at least the purpose is worthwhile. I imagine a few conversations were tapped inadvertantly, along with the most suspect, but the point is, don't dig on the beach to find a manure pile, you go to the barnyard. These rallies are not the place to spend our tax dollars looking for dangerous people, oe.

Quote:

And, likewise, why do you think that people who are extremely opposed to the current government dont't fall into the category of "terrorist cells"? Wasn't McVeigh a Gulf War veteran and who became more and more opposed to the government, too?

How do you know the current government is not more dangerous than the citizens on the corner? Who are more concerned about constitutional principles. How come Homeland Security is not investigating Obama's friends, Wright and Ayers, actually you have one bomb thrower there for sure, and another guy that rails against Jews, rich people, and America. I think that would be a more fruitful investigation.

Quote:

Why do you oppose one effort and favour the other? What's your reasoning, okie?

Common sense, hows that, because you go where the principle dangers are. And be on the watch for it, don't be surprised if they trump up or find one lonely guy that had a bomb or something, that attended one of the rallies somewhere. I would not trust Obama very far, and I don't think a trumped up thing would be beyond his capability.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Homeland Security should look into Ayers and Wright, that would be my suggestion.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Common sense, hows that, because you go where the principle dangers are.

Sure. What part of common sense tells you that it would be more fruitful for the FBI to investigate a priest and a guy they've already investigated the **** out of, than people who are yelling about tyranny, secessionism, and talking about hanging politicians?

You are allowing your personal, idiotic political views to overcome what little 'common sense' you have. You don't truly in your heart think that Rev. Wright is a danger to anyone in America; you just don't like him.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know