Lord Romney?

[Darth Executor]

Right, it is such a boon to Wall Street that they are fighting tooth and nail, or should I say paying of congressmen to curtail its implementation.

You'll have to be more specific. Who is paying who? List names of banks, recipients of donations and sources for your claims.

[OtherCheek]

Republicans are against all of these things, so please don't tell me there is no difference between the two political party's.

Both parties are marching toward Socialism, and eventual Communism. But the Liberal Democrats are just taking us there at a faster rate. So, YES, there IS a difference, albeit not much of one.

[Cow Poke]

The liberal democrats passed the Dodd/Frank legislation in order to curb Wall Street abuses. The Liberal democrats created the consumer protection agency in order to protect consumers. The liberal democrats passed the lilly ledbetter act protecting women from wage discrimination. The liberal democrats support the minimum wage act. The Liberal democrats support unions and workers abilities to collectivly bargain, which btw gave you a 5 day, 40 hr. work week, vacation pay, workmens comp. ins. and fair wages. The Liberal democrats support the unemployemet ins. The liberal democrats support a progressive tax which is in the interests of the majority of Americans. The liberal democrats created and support social security which gave rise to the middle class in this country. The liberal democrats support a single payor health care system which would cut out the middle man and put the majority of the revenue that people pay into the health system back into their actual health care rather than into the pockets of wealthy CEO's. Republicans are against all of these things, so please don't tell me there is no difference between the two political party's.

well, lets see how well the liberal democrats run a big state like... oh... how bout California. They put lots of "protections" and liberal social experiments in there. How's that working out. And don't you DARE give me, "well, they had Arnie as a Republican CONSERVATIVE Gubbinator".

[JimL]

Both parties are marching toward Socialism, and eventual Communism. But the Liberal Democrats are just taking us there at a faster rate. So, YES, there IS a difference, albeit not much of one.

Respond to the actual post OC instead of blurting out conservative talking points. Are Republicans for or against those things I mentioned? There is a big difference whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Cognitive dissonance is what got us in this mess in the first place, its what the propagandists are counting on from you.

[robrecht]

excuse me it isn't the "fundamentalist Republicans bringing it up at all it is you liberals. Gee I wonder why?

No need to wonder why, neither sarcastically nor sincerely. I've already said why. In fact you even quoted me as saying why. So let's talk about something more interesting.

Do you believe that the fundamentalist Republican base is entirely comfortable with Mitt being a Mormon? I've certainly gotten a different impression, but am interested in your opinion. I don't think this will be decisive in the end as I think they certainly dislike Obama more than Mormonism. Do you recall those who denied or questioned whether or not Obama was a Christian? Some admitted that he was a liberal Christian, but so liberal as to not be truly Christian, according to some, anyway. Are there not some of the same people objecting to Romney being a Mormon and not a true Christian?

[Cow Poke]

Respond to the actual post OC instead of blurting out conservative talking points.

Every time you blubber about "talking points", it makes you look goofy. That's all you got, Jim! Liberal pinko commie talking points! And if you're pressed for anything beyond the talking points you're reading from, you run away.


(being facetious about the pinko commie part --- kinda )

[seanD]

No need to wonder why, neither sarcastically nor sincerely. I've already said why. In fact you even quoted me as saying why. So let's talk about something more interesting.

Do you believe that the fundamentalist Republican base is entirely comfortable with Mitt being a Mormon? I've certainly gotten a different impression, but am interested in your opinion. I don't think this will be decisive in the end as I think they certainly dislike Obama more than Mormonism. Do you recall those who denied or questioned whether or not Obama was a Christian? Some admitted that he was a liberal Christian, but so liberal as to not be truly Christian, according to some, anyway. Are there not some of the same people objecting to Romney being a Mormon and not a true Christian?

I think republicans just like establishment types (i.e. mainline republicans). It's certainly a plus for them if the candidate can wear the religious facade they like, but they don't really care what specific religious beliefs they have, just so long as they’re gungho about defense spending and aren't a democrat by title.

[OtherCheek]

The liberal democrats passed the Dodd/Frank legislation in order to curb Wall Street abuses.

Just another case of Liberalism trying to legislate morality and "guarantee" outcomes. Has it worked? Are Wall Street abuses curbed? The Dodd-Frank law has 849 pages and outgrowing laws and legislation is just as complex and is likely to sink some banks with excessive red-tape compliance requirements. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/..._disaster.html

The Liberal democrats created the consumer protection agency in order to protect consumers.

Has it worked? Are consumers now protected? Or is there just as much risk as before, but with a whole lot more complexity, red tape, and government interference?

The liberal democrats passed the lilly ledbetter act protecting women from wage discrimination.

Has it worked? Are women now protected from wage discrimination? Even in the Obama administration, women are paid less than men for comparable work. http://freebeacon.com/hostile-workplace/

The liberal democrats support the minimum wage act.

To the destruction of jobs and hiring.

The Liberal democrats support unions and workers abilities to collectivly bargain, which btw gave you a 5 day, 40 hr. work week, vacation pay, workmens comp. ins. and fair wages.

There was a time when unions were necessary. Unions are not needed today. Unions destroy incentives to hire, they exact dues, and bully members into voting a certain way.

The Liberal democrats support the unemployemet ins.

Creating a whole new set of opportunities for abuses. And this destroys the incentive to look for another job. I can't tell you how many cases I've seen where a person refuses to take a new job, because their unemployment pays them more than the new job would. If the economy needs a correction, unemployment abuses prevent it from happening, with disastrous results.

The liberal democrats support a progressive tax which is in the interests of the majority of Americans.

A progressive tax happens to be a platform of the Communist Manifesto. Flat tax would be better, and was not advocated by Karl Marx and Joseph Engels in the Communist Manifesto.

The liberal democrats created and support social security which gave rise to the middle class in this country.

Totally False. Free Enterprise gave rise to the middle class. The freedom to work and start a business without the government jumping down your throat. The Wright Brothers would have never gotten off the ground under the kind of government we have in place today. And Thomas Edison would have never been permitted to develop the light bulb without jumping thorough ridiculous govt. hoops first. Lemonade stands can't even open in California thanks to the liberal regulatory mentality squashing them.

The liberal democrats support a single payor health care system which would cut out the middle man and put the majority of the revenue that people pay into the health system back into their actual health care rather than into the pockets of wealthy CEO's.

Death Panels come to mind. Forcing people to buy what they may not want to buy comes to mind. Bureaucratic fat cats deciding what is best for me instead of me and my doctor comes to mind.

Republicans are against all of these things, so please don't tell me there is no difference between the two political party's.

Yes. I am against big government trying to act like my super nanny.

[Jaecp]

Death Panels come to mind. Forcing people to buy what they may not want to buy comes to mind. Bureaucratic fat cats deciding what is best for me instead of me and my doctor comes to mind.

You and your insurance company, don't you mean. We already have death panels, OC, and they are operated by the insurance agencies.

[JimL]

Just another case of Liberalism trying to legislate morality and "guarantee" outcomes. Has it worked? Are Wall Street abuses curbed? The Dodd-Frank law has 849 pages and outgrowing laws and legislation is just as complex and is likely to sink some banks with excessive red-tape compliance requirements. http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/..._disaster.html

No, its elected representatives regulating an industry that has the capacity to crash the entire economy, as it has already done. Would you like them to do it again? It hasn't worked yet as J. P. Morgan Chase has just proven, but that is because Republicans are doing everything they can to block its implimentation.

Has it worked? Are consumers now protected? Or is there just as much risk as before, but with a whole lot more complexity, red tape, and government interference?

Yes, it works.

Has it worked? Are women now protected from wage discrimination? Even in the Obama administration, women are paid less than men for comparable work.

Yes, it works, women can now sue their employer for wage discrimination.

To the destruction of jobs and hiring.

Any proof of that? Point is democrats are on the workers side here, not republicans.

There was a time when unions were necessary. Unions are not needed today. Unions destroy incentives to hire, they exact dues, and bully members into voting a certain way.

Oh thats rich. Unions were once necessary, but businesses have reformed and promise not to return to their old abusive ways, so unions aren't necessary anymore. Of course unions exact dues, how do you expect them to operate otherwise, unions exacted dues back when you thought unions were necessary also. And lastly, unions don't and cannot bully anyone into voting for anyone. How do you suppose they would do that? Follow them into the voting booth perhaps?

Creating a whole new set of opportunities for abuses. And this destroys the incentive to look for another job. I can't tell you how many cases I've seen where a person refuses to take a new job, because their unemployment pays them more than the new job would. If the economy needs a correction, unemployment abuses prevent it from happening, with disastrous results.

There is always going to be some abuse OC, but that is no excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Unemployment insurance is not only a help to the individual that falls upon bad times, but it helps the economy as a whole. But again, the democrats are on the workers side here, not the republicans.

A progressive tax happens to be a platform of the Communist Manifesto. Flat tax would be better, and was not advocated by Karl Marx and Joseph Engels in the Communist Manifesto.

If a progressive tax is in the best interests of the majority of Americans, if it is in the best interests of the country as a whole, rather than the interests of just the wealthy, what do you care if it happened to be in the communist manifesto?

Totally False. Free Enterprise gave rise to the middle class. The freedom to work and start a business without the government jumping down your throat. The Wright Brothers would have never gotten off the ground under the kind of government we have in place today. And Thomas Edison would have never been permitted to develop the light bulb without jumping thorough ridiculous govt. hoops first. Lemonade stands can't even open in California thanks to the liberal regulatory mentality squashing them.

Nonsense, read your history. And please explain how social security would have thwarted the Wright Bros. and Thomas Edison?

Death Panels come to mind. Forcing people to buy what they may not want to buy comes to mind. Bureaucratic fat cats deciding what is best for me instead of me and my doctor comes to mind.

Jaecp has already answered this one for you. Death Panels, if you want to give it a name, is private health insurance policy.

Yes. I am against big government trying to act like my super nanny.

I know, you're for Republicans, because you want a Daddy state.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Just another case of Liberalism trying to legislate morality and "guarantee" outcomes.

Um . . . in the other thread you were advocating continuing the prohibition of same-sex marriage so that homosexual partners couldn't "proselytize the next generation."

You and your pesky liberalism, OtherCheek!

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

You and your insurance company, don't you mean. We already have death panels, OC, and they are operated by the insurance agencies.

Not death panels! "End-of-life rational care" OR "Shhhh! We put hemlock in all the IVs on the geriatric ward!"

[Cow Poke]

No, its elected representatives regulating an industry that has the capacity to crash the entire economy, as it has already done. Would you like them to do it again? It hasn't worked yet as J. P. Morgan Chase has just proven, but that is because Republicans are doing everything they can to block its implimentation.

Implementation! What, exactly, is it that Chase "has just proven"? Did they prove that they risked money, and it was a HUGE amount of money, yet they are still in operation and MAKING more money than they lost? As opposed to Obama flushing huge sums of money down the "Green Toilets"?

[OtherCheek]

Um . . . in the other thread you were advocating continuing the prohibition of same-sex marriage so that homosexual partners couldn't "proselytize the next generation."

You and your pesky liberalism, OtherCheek!

—Sam

There is a huge difference between assigning the role of government to promote and teach an immoral lifestyle to the next generation, vs telling the government to "back off" from interfering in a free market economy.

[OtherCheek]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Littlejoe

C'mon OC, you know argument by weblink is not allowed...

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.