Now if you could manage to actually read what you googled you would understand why I asked you to define it since:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Obama warns of extremist and radical GOP which even Reagan would not survive
- Thread starter Grandluxe
- Start date
Now if you could manage to actually read what you googled you would understand why I asked you to define it since:
Quote from Brass:
Only a moral bankrupt would ask such a question. Social Darwinism would reduce society to the rule of the jungle. If that's what you want, then go live in a jungle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
It's not a matter of any type of social darwnism, it's about normal everyday dollars and cents and the government operating within it's budget (which they have failed to pass one in 3 years) just like you and me....... If you or I operated our business like our insolvent present government we would be in jail, bankrupt and auctioned off to pay our debt.
There is no more money, we are broke. Printing and printing and printing more money only delays the inevitable and compounds exponentially the agony of that day.
Until the President forces Congress to pass a budget and he signs it and adheres to it, well......... I see his lips moving but all I hear is "yada yada yada"
Keep on amusing the people are fools, it's going to be a repeat of 2010.
You asked for a rational argument against social Darwinism, and now you're doubling down?Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
Now if you could manage to actually read what you googled you would understand why I asked you to define it since:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
>>The president depicted the election as a choice between a Democratic candidate who wants to use government to help people succeed and Republicans who would abandon a basic compact with society and let most people struggle at the expense of the rich.<<
Taking obama at his word, the problem is his strategy to "use government to help people succeed" has failed miserably, except for some union bosses and political insiders. Obama has never held a real job, and neither have most of his advisors most likely, so they may actually believe that government is the source of prosperity. Most Americans know different.
We spend hundreds of billions to help struggling people. It is highly disingenuous for him to suggest republicans will let people starve.
As for reagan, he always regretted going along with democrats to raise taxes, as did Bush 41. Both got scammed by democrat promises to cut spending, which of course never happened. If Reagan were running today, I have little doubt he would also be against raising taxes. He would look back and see anytime the government gets more money, they spend some multiple of it. We will never get a handle on the debt without drastic spending cuts, which luckily are readily available and which would benefit our economy.
Taking obama at his word, the problem is his strategy to "use government to help people succeed" has failed miserably, except for some union bosses and political insiders. Obama has never held a real job, and neither have most of his advisors most likely, so they may actually believe that government is the source of prosperity. Most Americans know different.
We spend hundreds of billions to help struggling people. It is highly disingenuous for him to suggest republicans will let people starve.
As for reagan, he always regretted going along with democrats to raise taxes, as did Bush 41. Both got scammed by democrat promises to cut spending, which of course never happened. If Reagan were running today, I have little doubt he would also be against raising taxes. He would look back and see anytime the government gets more money, they spend some multiple of it. We will never get a handle on the debt without drastic spending cuts, which luckily are readily available and which would benefit our economy.
Are you a moron, or do you just play one on the Internet?Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
At least you admit you are running away from the debate before it even started.
Quote from Brass:
Only a moral bankrupt would ask such a question. Social Darwinism would reduce society to the rule of the jungle. If that's what you want, then go live in a jungle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
>>The president depicted the election as a choice between a Democratic candidate who wants to use government to help people succeed and Republicans who would abandon a basic compact with society and let most people struggle at the expense of the rich.<<
Taking obama at his word, the problem is his strategy to "use government to help people succeed" has failed miserably, except for some union bosses and political insiders. Obama has never held a real job, and neither have most of his advisors most likely, so they may actually believe that government is the source of prosperity. Most Americans know different.
We spend hundreds of billions to help struggling people. It is highly disingenuous for him to suggest republicans will let people starve.
As for reagan, he always regretted going along with democrats to raise taxes, as did Bush 41. Both got scammed by democrat promises to cut spending, which of course never happened. If Reagan were running today, I have little doubt he would also be against raising taxes. He would look back and see anytime the government gets more money, they spend some multiple of it. We will never get a handle on the debt without drastic spending cuts, which luckily are readily available and which would benefit our economy.
AAA, I am going to address this to you, because you have the acumen to most likely get this.
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION TAUGHT ALL FUTURE GOVERNMENTS WHAT NOT TO DO.
Let them eat cake, GOP, is NOT the answer.