islander wrote: 

Thanks for that.  Not a rambling or unreasonable response to my question, IMO. 

We are somewhat close in the fiscal conservative / socially liberal department.  I am really fiscally conservative, probably to an extreme in many people's opinion.  I'm extremely socially liberal to the point that as long as any behaviour does not require a government subsidy to facilitate and does not undermine the social standing of the traditional heterosexually based family structure, then I'm all good. 

My reference point you call the victim is purely coming from the point of view that the MSM attacks Republicans and defends Democrats.  Right or wrong is not the issue to me, it just is what it seems to be to me in the broadbrush sense.  In reality, both sides are compliscent and that is not lost on me when actually arguing the reality of a specific subject.

My problem with the Democrats is pretty simple.  I disgree with nearly every energy policy they profess.  I disgree with their world view and national defense posture.  I disagree with their view on State's rights.  I disagree with their domestic economic policies.  I disgree with their position that unions for government workers are necessary even when Civil Service Commision rules already cover the matters of employment.  The unions are redundent and in the public sector only benefit Democrat Party positions and candidates.  The taxpayers are paying for this redundant and unnecessary expense for public sector unions.  This is a scam whose time is up and no longer acceptable to me and many others.  Private sector unions are a completely seperate issue and should continue unaffected by linkage and misinformation in the public sector discussion.

The socalled union busting going on in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio, where parallel and older Civil Service strutures are already in place is a straw argument.  We either have a Civil Service Structure or a Union Structure for government employment, not both, especially when the Civil Service trumps the union.  The position of the Democrat party is that we must have both.  Bull puckey. 

 peter_james_bond wrote: 
Zackly. Maybe Kurtster should get all the facts before he starts accusing.

 kurtster wrote: 
Walker's Has Created The Problem!

There is a kernel of truth in Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's claim of a "budget shortfall" of $137 million. But Walker, a Republican, failed to tell the state that less than two weeks into his term as governor, he, with his swollen Republican majorities in the Wisconsin legislature, pushed through $117 million in tax breaks for business allies of the GOP. There is your crisis.

The state Legislature's Legislative Fiscal Bureau — Wisconsin's equivalent of the Congressional Budget Office and a refuge for professional expertise and nonpartisanship — warned Walker and the legislature that the measure would create a budget gap. There is your shortfall — and not one resulting from established public employee benefits. Before the tax giveaways, the fiscal agency predicted a surplus for the state. Read More Here

It's the dawn of a dark new scary present. Time to take a nap.

 Umberdog wrote: 
Oh yes, the "good old days".  The reason we are having this conversation, though, is because man kept breeding and living longer and longer.  Population density increased to the point that one day while my family was bringing our cattle over some low mountain pass, we came across your family's gorgeous valley.  We had never seen such lush crops before and you couldn't understand why we had more than one cow.  Nature took over and our cows started enjoying your garden with its strange irrigation.  You were frustrated, wanted to protect the results of your hard work, and confronted me!  This made me frustrated as I didn't see a need for confrontation because you had so much food concentrated in one space and my cattle needed to eat!  This scenario and others like it repeated over and over throughout the land.  Soon we had ads for lawyers on the back of telephone books.

Sorry.  At this point, barring a seriously swift decrease in population and resources due to disease, wars, or drastic climate change, we aren't going back to the "good old days".  Now we need to relearn how to respect one another, our environment, and collectively work towards making society better for all.  At present, our silly two-party system complete with blinders, scapegoats, large amounts of money, and controlled by children seems unable to learn this.

 islander wrote: 
I can't wait to see what your courts look like. Just kidding.

There's lots of reasons people won't work. It's not always laziness. Nature had a perfect filtering mechanism installed, but people have subverted it. It was called the "natural process," or "survival of the fittest" for you lay folks. See, if people would have just let Nature do her business you wouldn't be having this conversation.

It's a really confusing mess of a world. I don't know what to do. Maybe we should just turn it all over to a shaman somewhere. Not JadeWahoo... it would cost us a fortune!

 Umberdog wrote: 
Read carefully. I didn't say anything of the sort. I said that under my plan there would be provisions for people in those situations. If you're down and out, we will have a program to help. If you're crazy, we'll have an institution. If you're simply to lazy to participate in our society, then I would make it so that you could not access any of the benefits of our society and make it difficult for you to stay here. It makes me sad that we have let things go so far that people are living under bridges. I'll help the down on their luck and the downtrodden, I won't help those who won't help themselves, and I will resent their presence in our great societal experiment.

If you think it's easy to live under a bridge then you've never done it. Some people simply aren't wired for this world they're in.

 kurtster wrote: 
This could get really long.

First let me say that I do generally consider myself to be fairly conservative fiscally, so I have no representation in the .gov on that front.  Socially I'm really liberal, so I think the dems have a few decent ideas, but no stomach for what really should be said and no sense at all when it comes to paying for social programs (I support quite a few of those, from public education to public health care). Frankly I think the dems main failing is a failure to really embrace the progressive side of their party.  No we can't have welfare for all and unlimited arts and social programs. But we can have single payer health care, we can have gay marriage, we can have a solid public commons that supports and grows the underprivileged in our society, and keeps all but the absolute laziest from living under the bridges (and my conservative side could fix that problem too).

The dems haven't done enough on entitlement programs. They haven't done enough on taxation. They haven't made their case that they have a good set of ideas, and been willing to stand behind them even if it means not being re-elected.  This is good for me, because I doubt I would like a lot of the social stuff they would put forward. 

So to that point - the fact that re-election numbers are so high is our fault. We keep electing these bozos and then complaining about them for then next cycle. But then we re-elect them. What a bunch of dolts we are. Sure, money, gerrymandering, misleading ads.... whatever, we punch the ballot, it's our fault. As an electorate we are failing. We can't even mobilize half of us to show up. Bad on us.

I'm all out of order here, but I'm not going to fix it.  Vicitmhood. Yes, that's you. Go back and look at your previous post. It's all wah, wah, wah, Democrats, wah, wah, wah, won't let us play, wah, wah, wah, not our fault...... Sheesh. Put your fucking pants on, wipe off the tears, take credit and blame where appropriate, and get back in there with me and let's try to get 79% of the people to vote so we can toss out some of these idiots.  Sorry if that was a bit harsh, but that post was a whiny, bitchy tirade.

Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio need to all get their shit together. The right needs to stop being so vindictive and the left needs to stop being so entitled. They need to sit down and work out a compromise. This means that neither side gets what they want, but they figure out a way to make it work. The electorate of all three deserve what they get if the officials can't get their crap together soon. Lather, rinse, repeat for the entire nation if we have a .gov shutdown in March.   

That's enough for now. I'm happy that you are active and in the debate. I'm glad you support the tea party. I want your participation even where we don't agree. I think there is enough good that we can compromise and be stronger/better together than we would be apart. If not we'll have to divide up the kids and the furniture and sell the house. And no one wins in that situation. Just don't tell me it's all my fault, and that you had nothing to do with it. This breakdown has been a long time coming. All sides are culpable and responsible and need to take part in the fix. 

 islander wrote: 

They do not get sent home.  85% of the incumbants won reelection to Congress in 2010. 

Victim, huh ?  Don't think so.  Only complaints I've heard from the non conservative side is that they didn't do enough.

As one of the few open supporters of the Tea Party here, I've picked on the Repubs almost as much as the Dems over the years.

In your non conservative viewpoint, just what specifically did the Dems do wrong in the past 2 years ?  I've said plenty, haven't heard much from you on the actual question.

And more to my opening points this evening, the Wisconsin Legislature has or is passing a law where if a member misses two scheduled days in a pay period, direct deposit of pay is stopped and members must show up on the floor to pick up their paychecks.  That'll get em back home !

I'll hang up and take the answers off the air.



In the morning ... 

 kurtster wrote: 


Are you serious? Stop claiming victim status, and work toward solutions. I won't even bother with the rest of the hyperbole.

Have high expectations for all officials regardless of party. Send them all home when they fail.

 romeotuma wrote: 

 islander wrote: 
I hear you, but and I have to say but on at least this much, The Repubs were allowed absolutely no input on any legislation that passed through Congress since Obama's election until the lame duck session after the vote in November.  No admendments to bills, no meetings with the White House, except for the one famous meeting where Obama actually told the repubs, I won, what you have to say will not be considered.

All the Repubs had was the fillibuster in the Senate and if it weren't for that they would have been totally irrelevant.  They were not allowed to do anything in the House whatsoever.

Had the Repubs been allowed some input on legislation, they would have been held just as responsible and we would not have had the House turnover in 2010. 

Right now, the bigger issue is in the States, Wisconsin, Indiana and soon Ohio, with Democrats fleeing their duties and responsibilities in order to delay the inevitable, going on record and voting on matters put before them.  Doing what they were duly elected and paid to do.  Show up and vote.

Attention will turn again to the House in Spring when the Repubs present their version of a Budget for Fiscal year 2012.  They will do (or better do) what Obama has promised but been afraid to do, tackle the big issues.  Obama is making them propose the cuts in entitlements and will make them out to be the heavy by saying they are gonna make Grandma eat cat food and go to the Veternarian for their medicine.  The Republicans are still screwed.  The public will blame the Repubs and vote Dem in 2012.  All the Repubs are gonna have is these two years.

And when the economy finally goes tits up because of the turmoil in the Middle East and energy prices rising to the point where our economy finally collapses, history will declare that the collapse was entirely the fault of the Repubs, just as history is blaming this greatest economic mess since the Great Depression on the Reublicans and especially Bush. 

Anyone talking about Dodd and Frank and Obama and their legislation and coercion regarding Fannie and Freddie ?  No.  Its all about Bush and going back to Graham and his undoing of Glass Stiegel even though a Democrat, Clinton had to sign the Bill.  No credible sources blame the Democrats for anything.

I must say that I started out this current run talking about the issues at the state level and this quickly got turned around to how the Republicans were to blame for everything.  That alone speaks for itself, eh ?

 hippiechick wrote: 
Good!  They can speed up the process by resigning ASAP!  Since the Dems are already quitting, that would be a clean sweep of all the idiots!  Finally, the common citizen of the US triumphs over special interests! 

Free at last!  Thank the FSM we're free at last!

 kurtster wrote: 
They may be saying that, but it is no more true than your claim of the republicans lack of responsibility for matters of late.  How about we all as a populace demand better from our elected leaders?  Let's stop with the blame them not us mentality and hold ALL of their feet to the fire and force them to work out a real compromise that will address the problems at hand.

 hippiechick wrote: 
You asked, I answered. 

 kurtster wrote: 
That's because Bush deserves the blame! He put us into a war with lies, and this is now a fact, Jack, like it or not. How many billions and lives went to fighting the war in Iraq?

 islander wrote: 
Don't turn this around on me, it's not about me. I get tired of the double standard around here.

 islander wrote:  
The Democrats have absolved themselves of everything that happened buring Bush's 8 years.  Bush has been blamed for everything.  That is fact.  Just ask Pelosi, Reid and Obama.  That's all I have heard for the past two years, Blame Bush, and nothing but.

The Democrats have accepted no responsibility for anything for the past 10 years.  Heck, the Dems were even instructed to avoid mentioning the Healthcare Bill during the 2010 election by the D leadership.

 hippiechick wrote: 
He may have been a bit blunt with you, but I think it was short of insulting. I'd bet it's a matter of style. If you prefer the reaction I get maybe you should try what I do: take a deep breath before responding and re-read before submitting.