-
Pervis Muldoon ●
- 5 stars Rating: 91
7351 votes total - (6827)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
fallenangle
- 4 stars Rating: 67
3286 votes total - (6251)
- 17 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
Pervis Muldoon ●
- 5 stars Rating: 91
7351 votes total - (6827)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
Pervis Muldoon said...
We're still waiting for the same to happen to some Wells Hall righties.
Says the guy who thinks Republicans are conservatives.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. - Frank Leahy.-- If you're going to be stupid, be smart about it. - Mike Milbury
Bullwrinkle ●
- 4 stars Rating: 68
6681 votes total - Hightower Blows
- (9285)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
fallenangle
- 4 stars Rating: 67
3286 votes total - (6251)
- 17 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
Pervis Muldoon ●
- 5 stars Rating: 91
7351 votes total - (6827)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
Pervis Muldoon ●
- 5 stars Rating: 91
7351 votes total - (6827)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
Pervis Muldoon said...
Only if you'll promise to let us know when your balls drop.
It wasn't funny the first time you posted it, what makes you think it would be the 2nd time around?
But hey, it's all good...this board owes you a huge debt of gratitude for putting in the arduous work of being able to locate a video about a college-aged kid who has left-wing beliefs
fallenangle
- 4 stars Rating: 67
3286 votes total - (6251)
- 17 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
Pervis Muldoon said...
If the difference between the two isn't apparent, blame the people who claim to be "conservatives" but still support and defend Republicans. Like you, for instance. Please tell me again how great George W. Bush's economic record was (but make sure to leave out the bad shit) - that's always entertaining.
No if the difference isn't apparent, it's because you're either lazy or stupid. In your case you don't need to pick one. And please, when it comes to cheerleading, no one tops you who claimed that Obama raising UE from 7.2% to 8.2% was actually a reduction.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. - Frank Leahy.-- If you're going to be stupid, be smart about it. - Mike Milbury
Bullwrinkle ●
- 4 stars Rating: 68
6681 votes total - Hightower Blows
- (9285)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
GRR Spartan
- 4 stars Rating: 72
13880 votes total - (21616)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
GreenMeany said...
People who insist on this distinction are people who vote straight-ticket GOP, but don't want to have to take responsibility for the outcome.
I'm pretty sure Prevert doesn't vote straight ticket GOP.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. - Frank Leahy.-- If you're going to be stupid, be smart about it. - Mike Milbury
Bullwrinkle ●
- 4 stars Rating: 68
6681 votes total - Hightower Blows
- (9285)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Pervis Muldoon said...
If the difference between the two isn't apparent, blame the people who claim to be "conservatives" but still support and defend Republicans. Like you, for instance. Please tell me again how great George W. Bush's economic record was (but make sure to leave out the bad shit) - that's always entertaining.
Συν ται η επι ται! Syn tai e epi tai! Ή ταν ή επί τας! E tan i epi tas!
-
RP McMurphy
- 5 stars Rating: 82
9419 votes total - (15896)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
CVSpartan said...
Painting with a broad brush.
Why should conservatives vote for Democrats that are totally dominated by their left wing? How would that be true to conservative principles?
The handfull of conservative Dem Reps are still going to support the uber-liberal Pelosi for their leader. Any conservative Dems are still going to vote for the liberal policy if their votes are needed to pass it. Their only other choice would be to change parties.
The tea party worked to defeat a number of incumbent Republicans and succeeded in several cases in the primaries. Replaced with a more reliable conservative. Some won the general election. Yet a number of posters here complained about this. How terrible that these moderate Republican incumbents were defeated!
Explain how Bush's failings excuse Obama's.
How are the defenders of Obama any different than the Bush defenders you condemn?
Pervis Muldoon ●
- 5 stars Rating: 91
7351 votes total - (6827)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
Bullwrinkle ●
- 4 stars Rating: 68
6681 votes total - Hightower Blows
- (9285)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
Pervis Muldoon ●
- 5 stars Rating: 91
7351 votes total - (6827)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
Pervis Muldoon said...
If "conservative" Democrats would've voted for liberal policies, the health care law would've had a public option. The Tea Party is nothing but another group of Republicans - and when it comes to backing the policies of their campaign funders and party leaders, all Republicans are reliable.
I didn't point to Bush's failings to excuse Obama's; I pointed to the fact that a certain "conservative" on this board is still enough of a party shill to defend Bush's economic record.
If you consistently vote for Republicans, you're a Republican.
Συν ται η επι ται! Syn tai e epi tai! Ή ταν ή επί τας! E tan i epi tas!
-
CVSpartan said...
Public Option - The Dems didn't pass this because they weren't liberal enough? Or at least courageous enough?
Here are the problems with the public option.
1. All of this cost would be added to the Federal budget thereby increasing the federal budget deficit even more. By requiring private insurance this keeps it "off budget." Thereby, hiding a large portion of the cost.
2. This would have been a huge disruptive change. Politically risky. Therefore, the Dems adopted an incremental approach. Several said this was the first step towards the public option.
3. The goal was to slowly but surely push people into the government plan. This is why the penalties for employers for not providing insurance for their employees are relatively low. Less than buying the insurance. Employers will drop the coverage, pay the fine, and the employees will move to the government plan.
It would have been more honest to have proposed expanding Medicare to cover the uninsured for example and raising taxes to cover this cost. However, the Dems saw it as a clever way to reach the same goal over time.
Lurking on tRCMB since 1996
TrapperGus
- 4 stars Rating: 72
2468 votes total - Son of Gus the Trapper
- (9967)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 4 stars
-
Pervis Muldoon said...
You can call me a Democrat if you want. And I'll call you a Republican, even if it makes you cry.
There are far better and more accurate labels for you than Democrat. Liar and dodger immediately come to mind. But please continue to insist conservatives are Republicans, because it makes you seem like a really smart little feller.
This post was edited by Bullwrinkle on 7/5/2012 at 6:01 PM
Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. - Frank Leahy.-- If you're going to be stupid, be smart about it. - Mike Milbury
Bullwrinkle ●
- 4 stars Rating: 68
6681 votes total - Hightower Blows
- (9285)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
-
CVSpartan said...
Public Option - The Dems didn't pass this because they weren't liberal enough? Or at least courageous enough?
Here are the problems with the public option.
1. All of this cost would be added to the Federal budget thereby increasing the federal budget deficit even more. By requiring private insurance this keeps it "off budget." Thereby, hiding a large portion of the cost.
2. This would have been a huge disruptive change. Politically risky. Therefore, the Dems adopted an incremental approach. Several said this was the first step towards the public option.
3. The goal was to slowly but surely push people into the government plan. This is why the penalties for employers for not providing insurance for their employees are relatively low. Less than buying the insurance. Employers will drop the coverage, pay the fine, and the employees will move to the government plan.
It would have been more honest to have proposed expanding Medicare to cover the uninsured for example and raising taxes to cover this cost. However, the Dems saw it as a clever way to reach the same goal over time.
Pervis Muldoon ●
- 5 stars Rating: 91
7351 votes total - (6827)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- 5 stars
-
Pervis Muldoon said...
The only reason the public option was "politically risky" is because the insurance industry was against it, and a lot of politicians (including some Democrats, like Senator Ben Nelson) are beholden to the insurance industry. The Democrats who wanted it didn't have enough votes.
You may say that the goal was to push people into a government plan, but people wouldn't have bought into a public option if it wasn't a better consumer value than private insurance. The fact is that the government can provide better coverage at a lower cost - which is why the insurance industry fought so hard to stop the public option from becoming law.
If you want to talk about honesty (which is sort of silly when discussing politicians), you'd have to mention the bullshit from the Republican politicians and the Republican media - not just the death panel lies, but the fact that they called even the insurance industry giveaway we ended up with a "government takeover" and "socialism".
Your comment that about Democrats who are "totally dominated by their left wing" remains ludicrous. Most Democratic politicians remain well to the right of most Democratic voters - mostly because there isn't enough money in voting for liberal policies.
Συν ται η επι ται! Syn tai e epi tai! Ή ταν ή επί τας! E tan i epi tas!
-
Pervis Muldoon said...
If you want to talk about honesty (which is sort of silly when discussing politicians), you'd have to mention the bullshit from the Republican politicians and the Republican media - not just the death panel lies, but the fact that they called even the insurance industry giveaway we ended up with a "government takeover" and "socialism".
Your comment that about Democrats who are "totally dominated by their left wing" remains ludicrous. Most Democratic politicians remain well to the right of most Democratic voters - mostly because there isn't enough money in voting for liberal policies.
Συν ται η επι ται! Syn tai e epi tai! Ή ταν ή επί τας! E tan i epi tas!
-
CVSpartan said...
"Death panels" refers to denying care to older people and/or very sick people because the cost of the care is too high vs. the increase in life expectancy or chance of being cured. This is EXACTLY what is done in the U.K. For example they won't pay for kidney dialysis for senior citizens. Why is that far fetched? One of Obama's health gurus publicly said he admires the British health system. Now the insurance companies do the same thing in the case of experimental treatments. However, if the gov't takes over this process, then the gov't will own it.
There "isn't enough money in voting for liberal policies" - Like the gov't give aways to failed green energy companies run by Obama's cronies? How about electing liberal governors and mayors that give generous fringe benefits to the members of government employee unions that gave those politicians campaign donations? There is plenty of campaign donation money in voting for liberal policies if you are a liberal politician. There would be less if the conservative policy of reducing the size and scope of the federal government was enacted. Less taxpayer money to give away to your supporters.
CV - Apparently the millions and millions of Americans who receive food stamps, welfare, and all sorts of other taxpayer funded social programs don't vote heavily Democratic, because there's no money in it for them. Welcome to the logic and brilliance of Prevert.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. - Frank Leahy.-- If you're going to be stupid, be smart about it. - Mike Milbury
Bullwrinkle ●
- 4 stars Rating: 68
6681 votes total - Hightower Blows
- (9285)
- 29 months
- Send Message
- Follow User
- Ignore User
- Post a New Topic
- Back to Topics
- « Previous Topic
- Next Topic »
- Boards ▾
- Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
CPAC star hits puberty, realizes conservatism is a joke