Conservative Mind Set & Conspiracy Theories

Quote from piezoe:

...I don't watch MSNBC. I often watch the News Hour on PBS, I listen to Public Radio News nearly every morning....

There's a difference? Who knew? :)
 
Quote from kid.fx.cross:

...

You want government to be as big or bigger than business

I want government to protect individual rights and protect "free enterprise" and "capitalism" from the capitalists. Whatever size of government it takes to do that is the size I want.
 
Quote from piezoe:

I want government to protect individual rights and protect "free enterprise" and "capitalism" from the capitalists. Whatever size of government it takes to do that is the size I want.
So IOW you want much the same as the Tea Party. LUNATIC!
 
Quote from Lucrum:

There's a difference? Who knew? :)

Almost all of television, PBS would be an exception, is there to make money, and most of the programming is intended as entertainment with the intention of attracting a large viewing audience in order to sell advertising. I'm guessing that would be true of MSNBC. PBS however is paid for by contributions from foundations, wealthy individuals, and as they say, "viewers like you." I would think that's a major difference, and should greatly affect the kind of programming you are likely to see on PBS versus MSNBC.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

NANNY STATE ALERT! The attorneys general in seven states are suing the EPA, trying to force the Federal government to begin regulating residential wood burning. And if they’re successful, the regulations won’t just apply in those seven states, they’ll apply everywhere.

from CNS:

A lawsuit filed against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by seven states is seeking to force the federal agency to impose stringent new regulations on residential wood-burning heaters, which they claim “can increase particle pollution to levels that cause significant health concerns.”

The lawsuit, filed last month in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the attorneys general of Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, is directed against currently unregulated “indoor and outdoor wood boilers,” which have become an increasingly popular way to heat homes, particularly in rural areas.

A related suit was filed by the environmental group Earthjustice.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS) reported that 2.4 million housing units – or 12 percent of all American homes - now burn wood as their main heating fuel, compared to 7 percent heated with fuel oil.

Although wood is a renewable resource, “EPA estimates that outdoor wood boilers will produce more than 20 percent of wood burning emissions by 2017,” the lawsuit claims.

If the lawsuit is successful in forcing EPA to impose new regulations on wood-burning heating units, many low- and middle-class families living primarily in rural areas may be forced to spend thousands of dollars to switch to newer units or use more expensive forms of energy in order to stay warm....

So we have a "lawsuit" filed by extreme liberal democrats against the most radically extreme EPA in history to "force" them to regulate wood burning. If this doesn't set off your BS alarm, nothing will.

Her is what is really happening. EPA and the radical zealots who run it would love to ban all forms of wood burning. They would ban all forms of carbon emissions if they could get away with it. After all, they are convinced we are killing the planet and even if our efforts will have no effect on the climate, it is important that we set a good example and punish ourselves.

Since they know that banning wood fires would set off a messy publi coutcry, they do the next best thing. Find some leftwing federal judge who wil order it. EPA will mkae at most a nominal oppositiomn in court. Then they will either forgo an appeal, like California has done repeatedly on issues from gay marriage to immirant benefits, or they will "negotiate" a "settlement" with the states. It is all a facade, it makes a mockery of our system of government, but then what is new about that with this administration?
 
Quote from Lucrum:

So IOW you want much the same as the Tea Party. LUNATIC!

Yes, of course we want some of same things. That goes without saying. But there is just as many, if not more, things that the Tea Party wants that I don't want! And of course, their obstruction tactics are one of the things I find reprehensible, because these tactics waste money and cause the government to be less efficient. They have caused billions of dollars of tax money to be wasted while claiming to be concerned about deficit spending! I don't recall ever having heard a single constructive proposal from them.
 
112.jpg
 
Quote from jem:

Piezoe... In my opinion you just tossed up a ridiculous straw man.
Of course we all desire more efficient govt.

The sequester came about because a leftist suggested it.
It was done because our politicians don't have the balls to close the budget deficit properly.

The sequester showed you could indiscriminately cut the budget and virtually nothing bad would happen. That is a govt that is too big and should be cut.

But when it comes to liberties we also demand less govt.
I do not care if govt can efficiently store our private info.
I do not care if the govt could efficiently keep track of guns.
I do not care if the govt could efficiently provide us a miltia
or... provide health care
or provide for central planning
or half the things govt currently does.

Our founders like Jefferson believed in small govt because big govt can and will destroy liberty.

Forcing us to buy insurance from third parties is a serious step toward crony facism. Something anyone with a brain should want to avoid. Smaller govt is safer govt.

Jem, just let me say that even if I agreed with you, and I do to some extent, the kind of government that would be your personal ideal is not going to happen, and even if it did, you would not like the unintended consequences.

Your best bet is to work constructively for reform within the system. The alternatives are endless obstruction or violent conflict. Choose the least onerous of the choices, I say.
 
Quote from piezoe:

Yes, of course we want some of same things. That goes without saying. But there is just as many, if not more, things that the Tea Party wants that I don't want! And of course, their obstruction tactics are one of the things I find reprehensible, because these tactics waste money and cause the government to be less efficient. They have caused billions of dollars of tax money to be wasted while claiming to be concerned about deficit spending! I don't recall ever having heard a single constructive proposal from them.

So you want us and everyone else to just step aside and let Obongo Reid and co
do whatever the fuck they want, because you happen to agree with much of it?

One minute you appear lucid and even open minded. The next you come across as another Ed Schlitz or Chris Tingles.
 
The TEA Party stands for Taxed Enough Already. We don't need to do one constructive thing. All we need to do is put our foot down whenever there is a new problem and the solution somehow always involves taxing us more.

We could cut this government down from now till the cows come home and we'd never even get close to the illness. For crying out loud, when the government shut down I had to turn on tv to find out if it was affecting me.

The illness resides in that corporate tax code. Make the people pay for the government they want and they will become involved and concerned.

Health Care Crisis? Medicare from Cradle to Grave. Problem solved. No need for a rollout. It already has existed for years. But make the people pay for it in medicare taxes. When they now see over 50% of their paycheck gone, they will get involved.

Social Security? Just raise the damn tax already. People like it, people want it. They will pay for what they want. Even the Tea Party. Problem solved. Beats the heck out of decades of debate about what to do, and trying to say it in a way that will still get you elected.

You can always tell who is liberal and fixated on the role of government. They always want the government to "do something."

I'm conservative, and it would be just fine with me if we left government to woman, mothers and democrats, Just don't send me a new tax every time you come up with a new idea.

Taxing and spending are one in the same. The only difference is, the tax shows up every April 15.

America is exceptional. How is that? Even to this day India has more natural resources than we do. We started out bitching about taxes, not what the King of England could do for us. No matter how busy you are trying to make money, it is your Patriotic Duty to pay as few taxes as possible.

And that is what the democrats don't understand about the Tea Party.

Now, as far as creating a good government, we created Exxon, IBM and Goldman Sachs, so there is no reason we can't also create a good government.
 
Back
Top