Shared publicly  - 
127
33
Aindriú Mausten's profile photoRandi Hanson's profile photoJohn George's profile photoMark Tolman's profile photo
122 comments
 
This is part of the reason I bought a Jeep Wrangler. If these assholes do manage to steal power through election fraud and misinformation, at least I can still maneuver through the urban wasteland that is bound to follow.
 
Paul Ryan needs to slash congressional salaries and benefit packages before he slashes anything else.
 
But how will his family's business survive? Oh, I forgot, they moved from infrastructure projects to defense (where he wants to increase the budget by $203 billion.
 
The face of Neo Nazi Corporate fascism rears its ugly Reaganite Republican head again. Kill the beast. Cut off the head and roast it slow so we can all enjoy feast!.
 
You are retarded. Where do expect to get the money to fix these roads? At least Ryan has a plan instead of racking up more debt. We are going broke. Deal with it. They can fix roads once they are done fixing the array of entitlement programs that people like you have enabled on credit for far too long. Truth is hard sometimes.
 
Pot holes in cities is ur local gov'mnt. When it comes to local gov'mnt it shouldn't matter if ur a D or an R. They should both strive to make the city a better place. Los Angeles probably has giant pot holes because they paid to have Michael Jackson's funeral.
 
William, it spelled Damn with an n. But why do you have to trash Effren for making a valid point about civic government? Your comment about beat it was pretty hilarious though I must admit!
Its too easy to just call Romney and Ryan neocons people, and I realize they will never have the celebrity of Barry Hussein, but at least they have a working document and plan with the Ryan budget. Obama won't even hold press conferences, let alone a discussion about our sad state of economic affairs. Jeremiah Wright should be screaming about how Barack is damning our country fiscally, but he gets a pass being a celebrity POTS and all I am sure!
 
At a time when our National Debt has skyrocketed out of control and threatens to cause a National bankruptcy where NOTHING gets funded and our foreign debtors take further control of our economy I am thankful that a voice of reason has been raised. So, in spite of the hysterical Chicken littles like Bernie Sanders there is hope for future generations to enjoy freedom and prosperity once again.
 
Just don't believe the lies! GET OUT AND VOTE!!! Make voters numbers so large that they cannot defy our voice. Trent Mason may your words come back to haunt you, for your arrogance has blinded you and others like you. The Republican party is not the GOP that I recognize from my youth.It is a sad elite driven shadow of its former self that refuses to address social and economic problems that it has created!!!:-(
 
We need Barry O. to "community organize" and get these roads fixed I say! That should be right in his wheelhouse. Sorry, I mean Barack O. I forgot he rebranded his first name to facilitate his unique celebrity appeal. Or was it to highlight his afro-roots?
Barry was the Progressive lapping up the anti-american sewage that Dr. Bell spewed out to ivy league students ... glad I got that straight. And good thing the guy rebranded!
 
+Trent Mason  Oh, you mean entitlements like the 71 billion lost per year from religious tax exemptions or maybe tax loopholes that let corporations like GE pay zero in taxes and get billions back every year? Or maybe entitlements that allow a congressman serve one term and get 100% across the board benefits and pay for life or maybe subsidizing corporations billions while they're consistently making record breaking profits. Maybe even entitlements that allow corporate execs recklessly run their businesses into the ground only to be bailed out by the gov? Social Security makes a surplus... so ditching it like many repubs want to do means less money for the gov. Hey, maybe we can stop with the war efforts and save trillions that way. Maybe reforming welfare to deal with those abusing it rather than just hacking it away might be a better plan. How about an Aussie style unemployment that's actually worthwhile rather than just handing out dollars? Seriously... Ryan is preaching a supercharged version of Reaganomics which has been an abysmal failure from day one. It's a plan, sure... but it sure as hell isn't even close to a good one.  (Disclaimer: No, I won't stick up for Dems either... they pushed through NAFTA which has been probably the most economically destructive thing passed in recent memory, though that also started with Reagan if memory serves, but Clinton ended up pushing it through). Enough stupid partisan ideology already. Both sides are wrong.
 
William, you are clever so I respect your comments back. Amy, I know its the lesser of two evils to go GOP this round. But I am holding out hope that new blood can do better than this current administration.
 
If the money is not available then don't spend it. You have to cut it from somewhere. Had you rather them cut it from schools? Cut health car from the illegal aliens? Of course not you want to keep spending money thats not there. How about you try that with your personal check book and let us know how that goes for ya genius!!!!
 
I love how the closed minded elitists choose to ignore a voice of reason by branding it Republican, Tea Party or conservative. This desire to remain blind and ignorant is something highly prized by the sheeple of this world.
 
Most of Wisconsin seems to be under construction for the past few years (where Ryan is from)... I can go a few years without a huge infrastructure budget after all these updates... 
 
Thanks for sharing +Bernie Sanders, you are absolutely right about the crumbling status; stabilizing, maintaining and retrofitting the U.S. infrastructure & transportation systems are vitally necessary.  These spending cuts would devastate the economy even moreso; this money is well spent and equates to jobs, safety, security, and business production.  These funds are a crucial requirement to everyone across the 50 states - some locations more than others, but needed nonetheless - this is another reason why the Ryan budget is ridiculous, dangerous, and wrong!
 
Victor cypert so what if Trent mason is (R) atleast he is being "civil" and discussing instead of calling people dipshits. Wasn't the (D) that called for civility.
 
I'm under the impression that the money is there but all politicians just spend it so they can ask for more. It's the way the system is, if a branch of the government don't spend money they have their funding cut. So what do they do? Spend all their money and ask for more. There is also fraud that needs to be wedded out by the contractors the government hires. The people that build freeways spike jobs so that they can keep contract. By spike they work to a certain point then run it with a skeleton screw and then demand more money to finish project.
 
+Al Scott im not worried about illegal aliens. I see them pay for their groceries with food stamps every time i go shopping so i know their being taken care of. Mittens gave them jobs cutting his lawn because to many Americans will not work at cutting lawns they feel they are better than that. They want to make $25.00 an hour to do nothing. I have driven in 42 of the 48 states and never saw a bridge crumble. Don't know where you drive but you should be careful if tour roads are that bad. Im sure my 3 kids would miss me and my 2 grand kids would to. I also feel that our troops should be home we don't need to police the Wrold. We could cut defence by at least 65% . Im not a right wing fool i have a collage degree and i don't recite talking points. Oh and pot will never be legal. So twist you up another one and chill.
 
Wow.. not saying I endorse these 'facts', but just the fact that someone can actually analyze proposed legislation before its forced through or end-arounded congress must be a new concept for liberals....
 
Looks like a bunch of spoiled teenagers here.  They've wasted all their allowance and proved they are not financially responsible.  Now Mom and Dad want to reduce their allowance and they're screaming "Don't stop the money!".   It would be funny if these libs weren't for real.
 
For the record, I am a registered independent. My family voted for Obama 4 years ago and I went to DC to celebrate his inauguration. We wont make that mistake twice.
Romney is one of those guys who seems to have a knack for fixing problems, so he gets my nod is all this time around.
My profile pic is from Halloween a couple years ago, so sorry if I am not an actual Redneck like some of you want me to be. As for calling me out on lacking education, I have a bachelors and master's-level coursework from a state university. What I lack in not being an Ivy League boy like Mitt and Barack, I try and make up fort by reading books and political articles on both sides of issues. I am not trying to boast, I just want some of you to remember to not judge so quickly.
I also have numerous friends who are African American who feel like I do about our president, so please don't bother thinking racial overtones or undertones influence my disdain for this administration. Maybe one day we will get a good civil Libertarian candidate and I wont have to spend so much time in chatrooms railing against vote mongering whores like sellout Bernie Sanders.
All the best to you all though! Good to see spirited debate on Google Plus!
 
Because a socialist such as Mr. Sanders is an expert on economics. /sarcasm
 
Why can't the government live on the same % of GDP it did during Bush? Federal spending is out of control and will destroy this nation, yet the Democrats refuse to fix it.
 
HUH! OH NOOOO! BUDGET PLANS ARE MINE! I secretly have an apple.
 
You guys love the smell of your own bullshit. Do your own research before buying into this phuktard's BS... Remember - he's part of the 1%, but somehow he's talked you knuckleheads into carrying his message.
 
+Trent Mason 2016 lol, I wish there was some one to argue with u at ur lvl it would make a great read.
 
+Jim Long THAT IS VERY INAPPROPRIATE!! YOUR MOM WILL NOT BE PROUD OF YOU!!!
 
:-) my bad, I just reread my words and they sound horrible. I get a little fired up sometimes. I would encourage all to do your own research, and not believe phuktards, oops, I mean folks who try and use scare tactics to whip people up into a frenzy...and do your own research. http://qvga.factcheck.org/ not an ad for this website, just an effort to see the real deal. :-)
 
+Jim Long THANK YOU FOR APOLOGIZING . YOU ARE VERY POLITE. IT IS OK.
 
I have many complaints about Obama turning out to be a corporatist sellout ...after supporting him in 2008...BUT I call bullshit on anyone who claims to have supported Obama in 2008...ostensibly in opposition or reaction to eight years of Bush... who now somehow believes Romney would be Mr. Fixit instead.

Compounding that lack of credibility, is when the same troll alleges that Mr. Sanders is a supposed sellout O.o... absent even a scintilla of cause to lay such claim. This, while the troll is...well...trolling the Senator's forum and spouting other neo-con revisions of history, inclusive of ignoring entirely what is the most blatant pandering and selling out of policy positions in recent politics, as witnessed instead from Mr. Fixit and dating back to his tenure as Governor of Ma.

As observed in another thread yesterday...this is the recent tactic of propaganda employed on social media: seek to first pre-qualify a troll's opinion as being purportedly fair-minded arriving from an alleged place of partial or former approval...only then to try and seize upon frustrations and warranted disappointments as may independently exist, in an attempt to subvert or entice disillusioned voters into a reactionary flail toward what is instead an entirely antithetical option.

A case can be made for choosing to vote independent out of frustration with the Democratic party being in collusion with republican corporatist corruption...but you do not choose to then support the devil because you think your prayers are being ignored and/or intercepted by his minions. That was a metaphor btw...I am not religious at all...not making a theological statement... before any kooky fuckers try to make a strawman digression from the comparison.
 
I just picked up a kid freaking out on mushrooms....he used a lot of the same words you just used. All the words sounded intelligent, but the sentences made no sense. :-)
 
yea true that Jim. Ii'm glad I'm friends with you.
I'm glad i was saved by you. +Jim Long 
 
Glad to help BoB... Take it easy. :-)
 
+Anthony DeTommasi I don't think most ppl think he is mister fix it. I believe most ppl think he is the lesser of two evils. Regardless of who was in office I think they where doomed if they won the 2008 election. The reason I'm so disenchanted with (R) party is that I think they threw the race in 2008. I was hoping the TeaParty would have been its own party. It was drawing in (D) and (L) but it was sucked into the (R) party. People focus too much on things that won't change and ruin the msg. The money isn't in the cure its in the medicine.
 
YES YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
WHAT?!?!?!??! WHY ARE YOU SAD?!??!?!?? I WILL GIVE YOU SOME JELLYBEANS...
 
+Siri Rosenthal thumbs up, and thank you...you said what I was thinking, but much more gently.
 
HI JIM!!! I MISS YOU ALREADY!!!
 
+Al Scott do some research. The I 35 bridge collapse was due to a design flaw not because of lack of maintenance. So where is your evidence? Oh and the new bridge Was built in record time. You should really get the truth before you comment.
 
+Jim Long IS MY FRIEND AND I LIKE YOU FOR LIKING JIM LONG
 
I'd rather see your suggestions than just complaints about what "they" are proposing…

Are the potholes in LA due to federal funding issues or local budget issues?

Everyone "hating" another party's ideas needs to watch The Fog of War and learn the lessons presented therein…

With all the vitriol on the comment thread, it is no wonder "our" Congress isn't willing to discuss and reach a consensus…

I think we can all do better…
 
A lot of trolls in these comments.  Anyway,  anybody who says that the biggest economy on the planet, America, is broke is a clueless fool.  Or a troll.  
The problem is that we aren't getting our fair share of the pie.  American productivity grew a lot over the past few decades.  Did our wages and benefits increase?  No, but CEO pay sure did.  
The so called "Job Creators" are thieves. 
 
+Chris Jeter are you calling me a troll??? because i think trolling is fun. and if you like jim long you are cool
 
If our nation's infrastructure is crumbling, isn't that Obama's fault?
 
IT IS EVERYONE'S FAULT!!!
 
+Bob Blob  I was not referring to you.  Though you are acting like a noisy little puppy that needs to be put out in the yard.  Try actually adding to the conversation instead of just making a lot of noise. 
 
Ok. It's OK. I am nice and have good etiquette and I don't really care about this post but I like puppies... and I guess I like roads, bridges, rail lines, transit systems, and airports!!! and it's ok Chris Jeter I forgive you for being a bad boy. 
 
Cutting funding for a year  would shore up funding. But then you have to deal with the consequences another year. Who knows if that delay would end up costing us more. Something to be considered carefully. Wisconsin tried something like this. It didn't go over so well.
 
To place all of the economic downturn solely on CEO pay is nothing more than a smoke and mirror talking point. I hard this whole discussion with somebody on Thursday and find it too exhausting to hash out again.
 
Slash away! It's the price we pay for years of fiscal mismanagement, and right now we are just delaying the inevitable
 
How else can he afford the tax cut for the billionares without getting rid of those usless roads and bridges.....
 
The private sector can provide all of those things.
 
Yes but what is the incentive for the private sector to provide these things for the public good when there would be no return on the investments unless we privatize all aspects of public transportation?
 
True Alex, however, to date, no private sector corporation has volunteered to fix our roads, rail lines, airports & transit system. All prvivate industry does is complain about our crumbling infrastructure.
 
LOL I see G+ rang the batshit bell again.
 
Funny no one seems to talk about the beginning of the down turn. Remember the fictional weapons of mass destruction? Hmm. If we had the 1.3 trillion and counting dollars back in our pockets for the war that should have never been fought how bad would the economy be now? W04=WMD...Think about it.
 
But will Romney bomb Iran? Vote for whoever you think will start the next war.
 
+Al Scott "one good … a total loss." Is this how you expect the other side to react? The problems with infrastructure can't be blamed on a single party. If budgets were better, we wouldn't have so much to worry about.

Either way, comments like the one you made are not helpful to solving any of them…

Logic. If there is no reasoned discussion, we can agree to disagree. Anger, foul language, and happiness over any death won't solve a problem or make one look logical or reasonable.

We can all do better…
 
Sometimes we just need to back out… Have a nice day, I'm muting the post.
 
+Al Scott just FYI +Counsel Dew is a libertarian ideologue who wanders over here every time a +Bernie Sanders post makes "What's Hot" in G+. His usual pattern is hop into the thread picking out instances of unilateralism and incivility from those on the left, completely ignoring all the hate rhetoric, outright lies and pointless trolling from the right, attempt to gently and politely nudge the discussion toward libertarian lunacy whether warranted by the thread topic or not... then use the inevitably hostile response to his tactics as "proof" the only way anyone could disagree with him is they aren't listening or open-minded. Never mind that he has never once debated anything point-for-point, and is just as one-sided and prejudiced in his viewpoints as the most voluminous of ideologues on either side.

Just another narcissist trying to pass off crazy extremism as mainstream common sense. Not worth the time to argue with.
 
+Al Scott Freedom of speech does not apply here. Get yourself under control. I have read your comments and those left by Counsel Dew, he was not attacking you, Yet you obviously took it that way, and you are clearly attacking him. He was however challenging you. To bad you both can't see you are the one same side. "Cant we all get along?" just doesn't seem to apply here...

Indeed we have road problems and the example of the Bridge is a good one. Since then we have identified many more. In Wisconsin alone we found many that were being ignored. MN had I think at least three others that's would have come down sooner than later.

+Ben Earl Keep in mind as another hot head pointed out many road crews are not Owned by the municipality or the state. The crews are very often subcontractors who won a bid to do the job. If you want to see better You can demand better from their company, or see if its possible for your elected officials to put some pressure on the company to do better. However keep in mind if am being paid minimum wage to stand around in 120F heat fixing a road, while jerks fly by at 70+ screaming at me, throwing stuff at me, I'm probably going to take a few extra breaks too. Otherwise I just might be inclined to ask the DOT to detour traffic. If you ever work a day time road crew in the heat, you will understand why they don't move at lighting speed. Anyway, a job well done takes time. Otherwise they have to come back and do it again in another couple years.

+Phil Grainger You made an excellent comment. This is one topic the Romney campaign has been very careful to not talk about. But we do have to wonder. Further if we do, we can kiss any plans to get out of debt good by. Starting another war, is probably exactly what we need to bury the country once and for all. Every one bow to your new Chinese masters!
 
Self-appointed forum moderators are just as annoying as trolls, if not moreso.
 
Self-appointed forum moderators (SAFM) are not only more annoying than (regular) trolls...they ARE trolls in actuality and fact...they troll the poster over form and care far less for substance.

IMO, the average SAFM is the lowest order of troll at that, since they have no genuine issue, belief or conviction underlying their "cause" in harassing posters. At least a hostile libertarian actually believes in his infantile impracticable views, and comes by being a troll by default and necessarily, lacking a rational ideology with which to make a cogent argument...he must work with what he has, so rants angry inanities about force, consent and personal violation.

By contrast, the SAFM primarily looks for low-hanging opportunities to act self-righteous ...often and ultimately going to enormous lengths of hypocrisy and tu quoque, perpetrated in furtherance of their pontification ...which almost invariably emerges once challenged.

Even greater a sin, the massive intellectual dishonesty they foist in strained justification for their sanctimonious patting of their own backs...once you focus attention on their own behavior and left-handed slights of others they manage to wedge in between points of self-aggrandization. The only thing they actually do have strong convictions about, concerns their own supposed moral superiority.

Send them packing at your earliest opportunity...off to police the streets full of libertarians and secessionists that ought be shipped out together to a newly formed Independent Territory of Texas. 
 
+Ben Earl here in Tucson a casino wanted a road to be two lanes so people would come. They paid to have that road rebuilt done in like 2 to 3 months gov'mnt builds a stretch of road that is smaller 6 months.
 
So ....you want to call someone stupid and tell them to "grow the fuck up"...yet seek to invoke a prophylactic restraint of them from replying in kind? Only you can call names and make stupid quips...getting in the last word?

Sweet! Being a total asswipe must truly entail a rewarding inner life! 
 
Wow... That escalated quickly from both "enlightened and tolerant" sides. Waiting for the whole thing to get back to the schoolyard "my side is bad but your side is worse" arguments. T-minus 3, 2, 1....
 
+Al Scott  hey man, no need to call people names. It's hard to take a person seriously when they're calling somone a "cumdrop." 
 
+Robert Soyars Here's a fact. Romney pays Capital Gains tax on nearly all of his income. Capital Gains is first taxed at the corporate level, then on the investor level. With this being the case and since a shareholder is an "owner" of the company, this is double taxation at roughly (in Romney's case) 44% compounded interest. There's a fact you left out.
 
+Al Scott i did some research and you are wrong sorry. It was found after the collapse that it was a design flaw. So let the adults talk and go play somewhere else.
 
After all this.....who has a solution? We have bridges to nowhere in Alaska, in Arizona there is a highway that ends in the desert, all over the country millions of dollars are wasted on so called road projects. So.....why not cut some of the fat starting here?
 
+Gavin Hemmerlein Capital gains tax is assessed on the difference between the value of your holdings at time of sale and what you bought them for, independent of any profits or losses the corporation may take in between.

If Romney's company posted a $1b loss in a year, it would pay negative taxes, but that has little or nothing to do with the value of his shares when (if) he cashes them out. It also doesn't affect his personal income or tax rate... the corporate accounting is on an entirely different ledger, as is the whole point of a corporation. Bain's profits are not Romney's personal income, nor are its taxes paid out of Romney's pocket. It's an edge case that's irrelevant to 99.9% of the population that doesn't have private corporate shares and income from dividends/options from the same corporation anyway.

Capital gains paid on public shares also has nothing to do with taxes paid by the corporation on profit. If I buy Google stock at 300 and sell for 400, I pay capital gains tax on $100 a share. If I buy at 400 and sell for 300 I take a $100 loss deduction per share. In either case this has nothing to do with Google's profits and how much tax it pays on the corporate side after write offs.
 
That was just a mythic defense to his low tax rate that Romney offered back in January...shown to be intellectually dishonest then. I am a shareholder of several corps...I want tax credit for the taxes they pay too! 
 
Screw credit, I want to not even have withholdings. Everyone but the 1% gets to pay in more than they owe and ask nicely for a refund while the ultra wealthy pay themselves whatever they want in schedule K and end of year options/dividends, while only paying themselves a "salary" of a few thousand dollars to avoid withholdings and estimated tax payments. So reduce their effective tax rate even further by the interest earned holding onto their money until the last second while the rest of us lose that interest opportunity to withholding.
 
war is good for the economy. no shortage of unemployed military aged men in america
 
@Anthony DeTommasi:  I am restraining to not respond in full to your earlier post because I am on a quick break from work and I don't think I will have time to hit all of the more salient points in your eloquent and thought out critique.  
What I do want to say is that I am not a "troll" of the sort that your vitriol seems directed against.  That being said, maybe I am a troll and I just don't know it ... I guess it depends on your definition.  I am willing to concede that. 
While you may have witnessed a sort of "wolf in sheep's clothing" posting in other chatrooms, I am not one of those.  That is unfortunate if you have witnessed that. 
What is most important for me is to let people know that I really did support our current administration in full and now after some really challenging economic times, I have decided that Romney deserves a shot to turn things around.   I respect your viewpoint and I am sure time will tell which duo the American people think can lead us out of this economic quagmire we find ourselves entangled in.  I personally think we have given up a lot of our liberty over the last few decades and I pray that Romney and Ryan if they win will take up the cause of freedom more.  Some of their rhetoric seems to be more of the Bush-era diatribe.  Again, time will tell.  I don't think I could stand four more years of a celebrity president who must firmly believe that he needs to fundamentally transform America while creating even more dependency on welfare and social programs.  That course only seems to serve one purpose: that of guarding power.  
 
"A bridge collapses and it's the Republicans fault? Oh but it's alright because a gop member also died in the collapse so that makes it better." How on earth could anyone be so hateful toward a group of people. And also, states that have crumbling infrastructure (california) should take a look at their own state budgets. After all, a great majority of infrastructure is state funded. Here in South Dakota, and neighboring north Dakota with the oil boom, the only crumbling roads are due to the traffic around the oil fields. Roads and bridges as a whole are in very good shape.
 
I agree, how on earth could anyone be so hateful to a group of people... as the GOP is to 99% of the U.S. population every time they write policy or vote?

Personal anecdotes don't model societies. CA's budget issues are a lot more complex than "they need to do it more like we do here in South Dakota"... or did you not know apples and oranges are different kinds of fruit?
 
@Trent-- I am fairly disgusted with Obama myself...after really having hope for him in 2008...so, who knows -- maybe your turning to the dark side is indeed a counter-reaction to huge disappointment. OTOH, perhaps you have changed or just discovered some things about yourself that have you thinking differently about certain core values which truly do separate those who support the current GOP, from modern day progressives -- most of whom supported Obama in 2008.
 
I did not anywhere say that they need to do it like here in South Dakota. It was an example of a state that doesn't have budget issues. There are many of those examples across the country. Obviously your opinions of politics are extremely skewed to say 99 percent of gop policies are hateful.... That is hilarious.
 
No I'm saying GOP policies are skewed to benefit only 1% of the population at the direct expense of the other 99%. That's not hate... it's fact.

You did in fact compare the Dakotas which have, combined, less than half the public roads of CA, suggesting the difference to be state budgeting. CA and other largely urban states have a lot more to juggle and spend much more per capita on transit. Don't make a false comparison and imply a correlation between fiscal responsibility and infrastructure condition without being prepared to defend it.
 
Point being, states with a balanced budget have good infrastructure. After all the infrastructure is largely state funded and for Mr. Sanders to say that a national budget will have great impacts on that is just a crock.

And somehing based upon feeling isn't fact. Because you feel that the gop isn't fair because they don't favor big government and enormous entitlement programs is your opinion, not fact. And these policies have worked very well. But I suppose the policies that put this nation trillions in debt are all bushes fault. These policies affect 100% of the population. How's that for fair.
 
Here's some facts for you, chief.

The GOP does favor big government and enormous (corporate) entitlement programs. Pay attention to their actions over the last three decades, not the rhetoric of those exact same people who have quadrupled the national debt, given out tax money like candy to defense contractors and oil companies, created new unfunded entitlement programs like Medicare Part D letting the pharmacy industry set prices and banning competition or negotiation, increased national security footprint fivefold since 9/11 including complete redundancy between agencies, created domestic warrantless spying programs and individual privacy travesties like the Patriot Act which border on fascism, spent millions litigating social wedge issues like gay marriage and abortion (how does that create jobs again?), funneled tax money to churches and other "faith-based initiatives", given special regulatory and tax policy kickbacks to campaign donors... the list goes on for miles.

These are not the actions of a small government party.

"These policies have worked very well"? Really? Which ones? Name one successful GOP policy since Reagan that has simultaneously improved quality of life while reducing debt, deficit spending, or the overall size and scope of government. Just one. I'll wait...

And states like South Dakota who have infinitely smaller expenses find it easier to balance budgets. States that have to educate tens of millions of metro area and inner city urban populations, provide indigent care and aid for a much greater number of those who can't afford it, and see huge swings in revenues during downturns because of their larger economies don't have it nearly as easy. Balancing budgets on principle means people die, suffer or go without basic necessity (education and jobs being among those). South Dakota whores itself to the oil industry and has revenues to offset any sort of actual austerity or sacrifice that you would preach to others... that's the reason big oil states can "balance"... on the backs of the rest of the country paying $4 a gallon for gas... not because of more responsible or shrewder fiscal policy.

Apples to oranges. Or more aptly, a guy standing ankle deep in a wading pool telling the guy in a tsunami all he needs to do is swim harder.
 
Ok my point is being totally misread. It's safe to say that I'm glad I live in south Dakota, not California. The state runs efficiently and as a largely Republican state, we don't have to listen to all the lunatic ranting from the left. Have a good day sir.
 
Lunatic ranting like people denying objective reality to insist republicans are all about smaller government and fiscal sanity? Every single fact above is historically accurate and independently verifiable. But by all means don't let anyone pop that little self-assured bubble you've worked so hard on. Put your head back in the sand and bask in your delusions. Make-believe is so much more comfortable than reality.
 
Should I keep waiting for you to point out a single GOP policy that has reduced debt, deficit, or size of government without disproportionately screwing over the middle class in the process? No?
 
Any policy that had been proposed that would do so is shot down in the Senate. And the budget Obama produced failed to get a single vote. So the problem doesn't lie in the policies but in the partisanship that separated the house and Senate. But once again the nations debt is the direct effect of bush, and Obama has absolutely nothing to do with it.
 
Besides that, gun control, MANDATED health care. Those are examples of big government. Are those objectives of Republicans. And also, just because Republicans are for tax cuts to the wealthy in no way means they are going to raise tax cuts to the middle class. They want to extend the same tax cuts for all. But Mr. O want s you to believe differently. His ads are quite misleading.
 
*raise taxes
Not raise tax cuts...
 
Keep working your...bubble....

Raw lies, projection and revisionism....mmmmmhmmmm!
 
Abortion bans = big government

Medicare part D = big government

Patriot Act = big government

Dept of Homeland Security = big government

Legally defining and litigating the meaning of marriage to keep boys from kissing = big government

Using private defense contractors and paying them 5x the rate of soldiers to do the same job = big government

Buying the Pentagon equipment it doesn't even want = big government

Preemptive war = big government

All brought to you courtesy of the GOP.

Try again.
 
You elude the point. Any attempt at a budget is struck down. And Obamas budget gets zero votes. So where is his budget for this country. At least the Ryan budget got votes.
 
The word is evade, not elude, and if anyone is evading it's you. Your point is eluding me, because it's nonsensical and denies reality.

You insist the GOP is for small government, but you selectively ignore concrete examples provided where the GOP has expanded government and government spending, more so than any dreaded "entitlement" program... most of which are funded by separate dedicated revenue streams and not slush fund general ledger that the GOP always runs deficits against when they set budgets. They didn't even put the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on the books so they could keep pretending they aren't bug spenders.

The Ryan budget got votes so GOP congressmen could fend off tea party primary challenges. It was a sham from the beginning with no hope of passing the Senate or surviving a veto, and they knew it, yet they voted on it as a petulant political gesture. What good did it do? Zero.

That's separation of powers in action... you can't just write down every ludicrous thing you want in, as Newt called it, a perfect "right wing social engineering" scenario, then bitch at the majority party for stopping it. The House under Dem majority also sent dozens of budget bills to the Senate that never saw votes from unprecedented use of filibusters as standard practice for every single bill. Welcome to the real world of politics. Compromise is required.
 
Keith you seem to have all the answers. If you run for president, I'll vote for you.
 
Oh noes...the really real world is no fun...opportunities for self-righteous blather tend to evaporate in the the light of day!
 
There's a difference between having all the answers and actually acknowledging reality when it becomes inconvenient for one's preconceptions and emotional needs to believe something that isn't true.

I have confronted your rhetoric with factual retorts... you have done the usual conservative thing and piled on more rhetoric, and now you're looking for martyrdom.

Try thinking for yourself once in a while. It's fun.
 
Lol, I point out to you the obvious but you completely argue against it. If the GOP I'd big government, then I don't know what the Democrat party is. And of course, everything is bush's fault. Obama had done wonders for this country right? I am simply wasting my breath putting in my two sense. And one more thing, if abortion ban is big government, then all ethical law must be big government. But that's right, I'm just a crazy Christian, my beliefs are invalid in a liberal society.
 
When did I say everything was Bush's fault? Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not an Obama supporter either, and I get in the face of those who defend him without regard for facts or truth just as vehemently as I argue with reality deniers on the right like yourself.

You were the one who made the initial proposition that gun control laws are big government. For many, that's a moral issue as well, but you dismissed it as government doing things it's not supposed to do. Abortion is exactly the same... politicians trying to trample constitutional rights to enforce their own personal moral beliefs on everyone else, and doing so out of a desire to preserve life.

You can't have it both ways. You can't logically defend your notion that the GOP is all about small government when you selectively dismiss anything they do to expand government because you personally support the policy. That makes you an ideologue, and renders anything you have to say invalid because you have demonstrated you don't care about the truth; you only care about upholding your political narrative no matter what. You're either for more spending, more expansion of government authority and more degradation of individual liberty or you aren't.

The GOP most certainly is, that is provable fact, and no amount of sophistry or selective denial you can conjure will change history.

And your religion means less than nothing politically in a secular society where the Constitution specifically prohibits religion from being enacted in legislation. You're crazy because you have a dissociative disorder that lets you ignore reality and believe untenable things, not because you're Christian.

Remember what I said about martyrdom? Yeah, keep going... maybe there's a lion around here somewhere. Poor little oppressed WASP.
 
While I agree with you that gun control and abortion laws are on the same level where as they control a moral issue, controlling something that was written into the constitution is just another way to limit ones power. However, making abortion illegal is stopping murders from happening. Homicide is immoral, but not everyone has the same set of morals. So should homicide be allowed in specific cases. Banning abortion is a horrible example of big government. It is laying down a line by which we live in a civilized manner. Abolition of slavery was no doubt looked upon as a bad thing in many people's eyes back then, but we look at it today and agree that it was a step toward a more civilized America. I believe that people down the road will look at abortion in this same manner. We need to learn to respect all forms of life. Murder is illegal, assisted suicide is as well. So why should an unborn child be any different.
 
Equal protection under law and right to privacy are also written into the Constitution, and that's exactly the grounds upon which Roe v. Wade was upheld. Neither you nor I are the authorities on what is Constitutional and what isn't... the Supreme Court is. You're attempting to differentiate the two on the basis of only one being a case of government attempting to contravene the Constitution without properly amending it... in fact they are both cases where legislators are attempting to overturn the Constitution to enact their own morality into law. This is precisely why we have a Constitution in the first place... moral views of the majority are not enough to trump basic guaranteed freedoms and protections. There's a process that must be observed to roll back those rights, and if it isn't followed, then the act of legislating against them is itself illegal.

Murder and assisted suicide are illegal in states because the state legislatures make them illegal. Abortion cannot be declared illegal by the states because doing so violates the Constitution. Work to amend the Constitution if you want that changed, because right now at this moment in history, it is explicitly illegal for a state or the federal government to get into legislating religious morality, and the Constitution itself says nothing of murder. Preventing murder does not require stipulating to a murderer what potentially medically necessary operations he may acquire at his own expense... if it did, then states banning murder would also be unconstitutional. Abortion=murder is a well-proven false equivalent and anyone who runs around spouting it has no regard for logic or law, but just wants to have his own moral code imposed on everyone else. That's the exact kind of thinking that allows government to usurp freedom by duping ideologues like yourself into voting against your own interests over some moral social wedge issue. And that goes for the left as well.

Yet another example of boiling away all the "small government" facade to reveal the true nature of most GOP voters: fundamentalist Christian right ideals trying to gain traction by pretending to be common sense, fiscally responsible platitudes. In reality, conservatives will support any degree of government overreach (as demonstrated by the Patriot Act) so long as it advances their social and moral goals.
 
And since you brought up respecting all forms of life, I'd be remiss to not point out that conservatives and the GOP only seem to care about the welfare of children until they are born... after that all bets are off and they'd happily have them starving in the streets while they cut social programs and give more tax breaks to billionairs to make themselves feel better.
 
Yes Republicans, they starve children and hate the middle class! Sounds like a good slogan huh. You honestly believe those things?
 
Those are truthful statements, as far as being clear foreseeable consequences of GOP policy positions...facts avoided and decried via incredible feats of denial, projection and regurgitation of party propaganda by ill-informed parrots...like you.

They would never work to generate support from people who are in actuality voting against their own economic best interests...like you do.

That is why the actual slogans and sound-bites are all lies spread about by hapless dupes...like you.
 
I wish they weren't true statements, but how am I (as a rational person, which you clearly know nothing about) supposed to reconcile the small government & protect the innocent rhetoric with legislative behavior that encourages the precise opposite? I guess I could just pretend like you do?

Or they could try proving me wrong. It wasn't even a century ago Republicans proudly called themselves "progressives" and went up against railroad, steel and coal tycoons over middle class workers' rights (and won). Oh how times have changed.
 
And no, I don't think that Republicans "starve children" intentionally, but murder by neglect is still murder. If you see a baby in a dumpster and keep walking, is that moral? That's exactly what conservative social welfare policy looks like.
Add a comment...