Couple of reasons why I ain't a rabid right winger

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1-Why is it that they seem to think lowering taxes for the super-rich is more important than cutting down on poverty?

2-I'm told that somehow I'm threatened by gay marriage, but so far I've yet to see anyway in which I'm negatively affected by two people of the same gender marrying.

3-Why is it always anti-American to criticize Bush? No one claimed it was to criticize Clinton while he was in office.

4-How does banning lapdances or passing stupid regulations on strip clubs benefit me?

5-And why does protesting a war always supposedly mean that you hate the troops? Claimed about John Kerry then, and claimed about the anti-war movement now.

6-Why the hell should I support people like Robertson and Falwell?

[Alcon]

1-Why is it that they seem to think lowering taxes for the super-rich is more important than cutting down on poverty?

Because they believe in trickle-down economics.

2-I'm told that somehow I'm threatened by gay marriage, but so far I've yet to see anyway in which I'm negatively affected by two people of the same gender marrying.

I've never quite understood this, but they apparently feel that marriage is an extremely important institution and that expanding it beyond heterosexual marriage is a threat to that institution.

3-Why is it always anti-American to criticize Bush? No one claimed it was to criticize Clinton while he was in office.

Well, I'll give you that - that's total crap.

4-How does banning lapdances or passing stupid regulations on strip clubs benefit me?

Whatever.

5-And why does protesting a war always supposedly mean that you hate the troops? Claimed about John Kerry then, and claimed about the anti-war movement now.

This is another fairly rare view among right-wingers.

6-Why the hell should I support people like Robertson and Falwell?

You shouldn't, which is exactly why there aren't many rabid right-wingers here.

[A18]

Name me one Republican who has ever indicated his support for 'trickle-down' economics.

1-Why is it that they seem to think lowering taxes for the super-rich is more important than cutting down on poverty?

Because we're classical liberals who believe in the doctrine of negative rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you support incestuous marriage? Polygamy? Do you support legalization of hard drugs?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is based on a false premise.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ronald Reagan

[A18]

Quote? No conservative economist has ever advocated such a theory.

[Virginian87]

6-Why the hell should I support people like Robertson and Falwell?

Most Republicans don't even support these guys.  When you talk about 9/11 as God's retaliation for gays and pro-choice people and you denounce children's TV show characters as having gay leanings, you have some serious issues. 

[DanielX]

1-Why is it that they seem to think lowering taxes for the super-rich is more important than cutting down on poverty?

I don't think government should be in the business of doing much about either. Lowering taxes benefits the rich more because the rich pay more taxes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't ask me... I'm not a Religious...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not so much that criticizing Bush is anti-American, but that many of those who do criticize Bush are anti-American, or seem that way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It benefits property values - ergo, homeowners benefit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You shouldn't. Heck, I wouldn't, unless the opponent were damned bad (I would vote Falwell over opebo, but I would vote Richardson over Falwell). [/quote]

[A18]

Still waiting on that trickle-down quote

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

Just search for Reagan in the first article and trickle down in the second

[AuH2O]

It's always humorous when people with no understanding of economics criticizes economic policy. Of course, it's even funnier when people that DO understand economics (i.e. Krugman) is a radical leftist (although there is an explanation-- he wants more people to be poor).

The first point on the matter is simply logical, which is that tax cuts by definition cannot be "wrong," as they merely are modifying a preexisting government imposition on the taxpayer. In theory a cut can be bad policy, but there is no moral component except very tangentially.

Secondly, there is no other kind of economic growth except that which originates at the top. Now, people without money can be loaned it by banks-- who are themselves businesses with a bottom line-- but even in that case it is ultimately the money deposited by "the rich" that supports those loans.

Socialists like to mask this, or least did when there were any real Socialists in power, by taking over private business themselves. This has two wonderful results, the first being the number of rich people is either held or reduced, and secondly that profits fly out the window due to government inefficiency.

But even in the mentally retarded (i.e. left-wing) economic worldview, where government intentionally damages the economy to make the poor look better by comparison, *growth* still requires private initiative.

note: National socialism actually did work in Germany, but the period of time in which it operated was brief, and it still respected incentive structures critical to economic development (unlike the various leftist ailments).


Most of BRTD's points are his usual silliness anyway, as many Republicans aren't religious, nor believe it is anti-American to criticize Bush, and so on. Mr. Straw Man is busy indeed.

[Emsworth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
...

Just search for Reagan in the first article and trickle down in the second

See the very first sentence of the article, which states that according to some, "no conservative economist has ever advocated such a theory."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So what exactly were Reagan's tax cuts all about? Those are what popularized the term.

[danwxman]

Why is Alcon always defending Republicans?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Why is Alcon always defending Republicans?

First. when self-proclaimed Democrats make wild, obnoxious and stupid posts, responsible Democrats will refute them so that others will know not all Democrats are nuts.

Second, "always"?  Alcon has generally been a pretty fair poster (you really should avoid superlatives).

[danwxman]

Why is Alcon always defending Republicans?

First. when self-proclaimed Democrats make wild, obnoxious and stupid posts, responsible Democrats will refute them so that others will know not all Democrats are nuts.

Second, "always"?  Alcon has generally been a pretty fair poster (you really should avoid superlatives).

First, barring the absurd strip-club comment, I'd say his post was fairly accurate at describing rabid right-wingers.

Second, it seems that almost every time I come across a post by Alcon (is that better?) it is either defending Republicans or putting down the board's Democrats. Who put him in charge of deciding what is right and wrong for a Democrat to say or believe?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Why is Alcon always defending Republicans?

First. when self-proclaimed Democrats make wild, obnoxious and stupid posts, responsible Democrats will refute them so that others will know not all Democrats are nuts.

Second, "always"?  Alcon has generally been a pretty fair poster (you really should avoid superlatives).

First, barring the absurd strip-club comment, I'd say his post was fairly accurate at describing rabid right-wingers.

Second, it seems that almost every time I come across a post by Alcon (is that better?) it is either defending Republicans or putting down the board's Democrats. Who put him in charge of deciding what is right and wrong for a Democrat to say or believe?

First, if the post by Better Red than Dead is "fairly accurate." then I have never met "rabid right-wingers." 

Second, one of the nice things both about this country and this forum is freedom of expression.  We can disagree without requiring authorization from others.

[dazzleman]

Why is Alcon always defending Republicans?

First. when self-proclaimed Democrats make wild, obnoxious and stupid posts, responsible Democrats will refute them so that others will know not all Democrats are nuts.

Second, "always"?  Alcon has generally been a pretty fair poster (you really should avoid superlatives).

First, barring the absurd strip-club comment, I'd say his post was fairly accurate at describing rabid right-wingers.

Second, it seems that almost every time I come across a post by Alcon (is that better?) it is either defending Republicans or putting down the board's Democrats. Who put him in charge of deciding what is right and wrong for a Democrat to say or believe?

First, if the post by Better Red than Dead is "fairly accurate." then I have never met "rabid right-wingers." 

Second, one of the nice things both about this country and this forum is freedom of expression.  We can disagree without requiring authorization from others.

Like most of BRTD's posts, the one about right-wingers is not very accurate.  He's another aggressively ignorant liberal who knows a lot of things that aren't true.

[MissCatholic]

Why is Alcon always defending Republicans?

Because most of them can't do it themselves. they just name call and smear you.

[KEmperor]

Why is Alcon always defending Republicans?

Who put him in charge of deciding what is right and wrong for a Democrat to say or believe?

Physician, heal thyself.

[angus]

1-Why is it that they seem to think lowering taxes for the super-rich is more important than cutting down on poverty?

2-I'm told that somehow I'm threatened by gay marriage, but so far I've yet to see anyway in which I'm negatively affected by two people of the same gender marrying.

3-Why is it always anti-American to criticize Bush? No one claimed it was to criticize Clinton while he was in office.

4-How does banning lapdances or passing stupid regulations on strip clubs benefit me?

5-And why does protesting a war always supposedly mean that you hate the troops? Claimed about John Kerry then, and claimed about the anti-war movement now.

6-Why the hell should I support people like Robertson and Falwell?

You and Miss Catholic certainly do a great service by making complete threads to let us know why you are not Bushies.  It wouldn't have been at all clear that you're not Bushies from your other seven thousand posts.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

1-Why is it that they seem to think lowering taxes for the super-rich is more important than cutting down on poverty?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

2-I'm told that somehow I'm threatened by gay marriage, but so far I've yet to see anyway in which I'm negatively affected by two people of the same gender marrying.

I don't feel at all threatened by gay marriage, but out of obedience to what I believe God has to say on the matter, I cannot support it.  When it comes to the clear written word of God, I have no choice but to obey.

3-Why is it always anti-American to criticize Bush? No one claimed it was to criticize Clinton while he was in office.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

4-How does banning lapdances or passing stupid regulations on strip clubs benefit me?

Is this really a "rabid right wing" thing?  There's a balance that must be struck between personal freedom and the enticement and corruption of youth.  Also, between personal freedom to pay women to writhe nude in front of you and community freedom not to have that kind of thing going on in town.  In other words, have your fun, but keep it away from schools and residential neighborhoods, and local municipalities should be able to choose not to have strip clubs in their backyard.

If enough municipalities forbid strip clubs, it will become rare enough that some enterprising municipalities will decide that the potential revenues outweigh the moral ickiness.  Simple market forces.  That is why the Wisconsin countryside is dotted with Paradise Lounges and Centerfold Clubs.  They're out of the city where they don't really bother anyone.

5-And why does protesting a war always supposedly mean that you hate the troops? Claimed about John Kerry then, and claimed about the anti-war movement now.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

6-Why the hell should I support people like Robertson and Falwell?

Both are an embarassment to all people of faith everywhere.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

First, if the post by Better Red than Dead is "fairly accurate." then I have never met "rabid right-wingers." 

You obviously don't listen to talk radio .

I go to an evangelical church.  I know plenty of people who believe in lowering taxes on the wealthy, are against gay marriage, think it's unpatriotic and un-Christian (!!!) to criticize Bush, are against strip clubs, and think that if you are against the war you hate the troops, are unpatriotic and un-Christian.  They don't really listen to Robertson and Falwell, but they do obey the every command of James Dobson, the Family Research Council, and the American Family Association.  BRTD's post is not that far off.

I understand firsthand how Christianity in this country is being poisoned by marrying it to the Republican agenda.  In many churches (not mine, fortunately) you can't question Republicanism.  It's sickening. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't feel at all threatened by gay marriage, but out of obedience to what I believe God has to say on the matter, I cannot support it.  When it comes to the clear written word of God, I have no choice but to obey.

that's why there's a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage.

Is this really a "rabid right wing" thing?  There's a balance that must be struck between personal freedom and the enticement and corruption of youth.  Also, between personal freedom to pay women to writhe nude in front of you and community freedom not to have that kind of thing going on in town.  In other words, have your fun, but keep it away from schools and residential neighborhoods, and local municipalities should be able to choose not to have strip clubs in their backyard.

If enough municipalities forbid strip clubs, it will become rare enough that some enterprising municipalities will decide that the potential revenues outweigh the moral ickiness.  Simple market forces.  That is why the Wisconsin countryside is dotted with Paradise Lounges and Centerfold Clubs.  They're out of the city where they don't really bother anyone.

I don't care about that. Minneapolis put them all in the red light district. It works. What I don't like are stupid laws such as that strippers can't get naked if the place serves alcohol or the even more repressive and tyrannical laws that some places have passed such as "distance rules" basically banning lapdances or banning the strippers from touching the customers. What's the point of that?

[Gustaf]

It's always humorous when people with no understanding of economics criticizes economic policy. Of course, it's even funnier when people that DO understand economics (i.e. Krugman) is a radical leftist (although there is an explanation-- he wants more people to be poor).

The first point on the matter is simply logical, which is that tax cuts by definition cannot be "wrong," as they merely are modifying a preexisting government imposition on the taxpayer. In theory a cut can be bad policy, but there is no moral component except very tangentially.

Secondly, there is no other kind of economic growth except that which originates at the top. Now, people without money can be loaned it by banks-- who are themselves businesses with a bottom line-- but even in that case it is ultimately the money deposited by "the rich" that supports those loans.

Socialists like to mask this, or least did when there were any real Socialists in power, by taking over private business themselves. This has two wonderful results, the first being the number of rich people is either held or reduced, and secondly that profits fly out the window due to government inefficiency.

But even in the mentally retarded (i.e. left-wing) economic worldview, where government intentionally damages the economy to make the poor look better by comparison, *growth* still requires private initiative.

note: National socialism actually did work in Germany, but the period of time in which it operated was brief, and it still respected incentive structures critical to economic development (unlike the various leftist ailments).


Most of BRTD's points are his usual silliness anyway, as many Republicans aren't religious, nor believe it is anti-American to criticize Bush, and so on. Mr. Straw Man is busy indeed.

It isn't "loaned" it's "lent". Read that again, "lent".

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

that's why there's a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage.

If marriage were simply a contract between two people, I would agree with you.  But even civil marriage doesn't just involve two people.  It is a social contract between those two people and society.  I am part of society.  I don't care what two people do privately, but I do care when I am asked to assent to their behavior and uphold their union.

If the people decide to make same sex marriage legal, so be it.  But if the decision comes down to me, and I'm asked to take an action for or against, I am going to vote for keeping marriage as it is today.  It goes against my beliefs to do otherwise.