The Social Conservatives Safe House (4)

[EdwinWillers]

That's the classic liberal dilemma: they want charity so long as it doesn't come out of their pockets.

Precisely - and if you don't want to shell out, they label you "uncaring," "heartless," and all other manner of puerile nonsense.

Truth is, they need the poor to be poor, to remain poor and dependent on their "care." Heaven help them whence the poor come to their senses and figure the scam out.

 

[Homesteader]

My favorite is when I hear that "the town doesn't have to pay for it, the state will", or "the state is receiving federal funds to pay for" such and such.

When will folks learn that you're ultimately still paying, it's just coming out of different pockets!

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

So, it's always coming out of our pockets.

 

[Avid]

... When will folks learn that you're ultimately still paying, it's just coming out of different pockets!

The problem is WORSE because of these. The farther from the local level that any government agency does anything, the MORE is wasted - the more of those "pockets" need to be padded! The farther from home, the less that ever returns!
.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

But then the Very Caring and the Very Sensitive don't get to feel Very Caring and Very Sensitive.

 

[Thunder Peel]

But then the Very Caring and the Very Sensitive don't get to feel Very Caring and Very Sensitive.

Too bad the real world doesn't work on intentions. That's really all some people have.

"It didn't work but we meant well. We're good people!"

 

[MachZer0]

The problem is that the very same people who claim they mean well want to actually harm and have harmed people who disagree with them and they claim those they've harmed deserved it

 

[Homesteader]

The problem is that the very same people who claim they mean well want to actually harm and have harmed people who disagree with them and they claim those they've harmed deserved it

doesn't sound like they are really all that tolerant. or is it selective tolerance?

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]While I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog. During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grew up. She said she wanted to be President some day.

Both of her parents, Democratic Party members were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

She replied... "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."

Her parents beamed with pride! "Wow... what a worthy goal!" I said. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that!" I told her.

"What do you mean?" she replied.

So I told her, "You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Her parents aren't speaking to me anymore.

Did you know there's an irrational liberal response to this story? It's titled Privileged GOP Moral Fantasies: "The $50 Lesson" vs. "Reality". At least they were smart enough to put "reality" in quotations, too.

The responder says it's a "fantasy" because "What rich Republican guy would actually hire a homeless person to do yardwork?" and goes on to say the Republican would "assume" the homeless guy was shiftless, lazy, and unwilling to work. Nor would we "make it easier" for a homeless guy to find "honest work." Then he goes on to say "that $50 would feed the guy for, what? Maybe five days? He'd never be able to put any of that money away for a house!"

The insanity of the liberal fully exposed. Assumptions about our compassion and the utter failure to understand that, if there's one $50 job, there are hundreds, and pretty soon the "homeless guy" has a lawn care business, is an entrepreneur, paying taxes, hiring other workers -- except for the liberal.

He's asking the "poor downtrodden homeless guy" why he's doing all that when, after all, the government will just give him the $50. And probably a voter registration card with the "Democrat" square already checked. [/FONT]

 

[MachZer0]

Did you know there's an irrational liberal response to this story? It's titled Privileged GOP Moral Fantasies: "The $50 Lesson" vs. "Reality". At least they were smart enough to put "reality" in quotations, too.

The responder says it's a "fantasy" because "What rich Republican guy would actually hire a homeless person to do yardwork?" and goes on to say the Republican would "assume" the homeless guy was shiftless, lazy, and unwilling to work. Nor would we "make it easier" for a homeless guy to find "honest work." Then he goes on to say "that $50 would feed the guy for, what? Maybe five days? He'd never be able to put any of that money away for a house!"

The insanity of the liberal fully exposed. Assumptions about our compassion and the utter failure to understand that, if there's one $50 job, there are hundreds, and pretty soon the "homeless guy" has a lawn care business, is an entrepreneur, paying taxes, hiring other workers -- except for the liberal.

He's asking the "poor downtrodden homeless guy" why he's doing all that when, after all, the government will just give him the $50. And probably a voter registration card with the "Democrat" square already checked.

I don't think I've ever seen so many excuses for allowing someone to get paid for not working

 

[Thunder Peel]

Pretty incredible night. It's not often in U.S. history that you get to watch the president circumvent the Constitution and unlawfully extend his hand on national television.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Pretty incredible night. It's not often in U.S. history that you get to watch the president circumvent the Constitution and unlawfully extend his hand on national television.

One more night in 6 ugly years of such nights.

Joe Biden is a sad and pathetically weak excuse for anyone to use for not impeaching Barack Obama and removing him from office immediately.

Better a gaffe machine and incompetent oaf in the presidency than someone who is willfully and publicly violating his oath of office, laying wreck to the rule of law, and doing everything in his power to destroy the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Remember...

 

[MachZer0]

One more night in 6 ugly years of such nights.

Joe Biden is a sad and pathetically weak excuse for anyone to use for not impeaching Barack Obama and removing him from office immediately.

Better a gaffe machine and incompetent oaf in the presidency than someone who is willfully and publicly violating his oath of office, laying wreck to the rule of law, and doing everything in his power to destroy the Constitution of the United States.

The law demands impeachment, but politics prevents it. How sad is that?

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Joe Biden is a sad and pathetically weak excuse for anyone to use for not impeaching Barack Obama and removing him from office immediately.

At this point, Joe Biden is looking like a mighty attractive alternative to this arrogant king-wannabe.

The law demands impeachment, but politics prevents it. How sad is that?

Impeachment of a president has never succeeded and has always distracted and divided the country to the point of crippling it from the end of the impeachment trial all the way to the next election. The American people are not as stupid as Jon Gruber and the rest of the liberal elite think they are. This will come back to haunt them at the ballot box in two years. Until then, we let Congress try to remain above it all -- I'm hoping that's what they do, anyway -- and let the private citizenry deal with the unconstitutional actions of the president through the courts and through opinion polls.

 

[Homesteader]

I can't wait for the next Republican president to take advantage of the precedents Obama has put in place. Imagine the possibilities!

 

[Metal Minister]

I can't wait for the next Republican president to take advantage of the precedents Obama has put in place. Imagine the possibilities!

Unintended consequences can be brutal.

 

[Avid]

Unintended consequences can be brutal.

We just got a new toy called a "Republican Senate! (Backbone Not Included)" My thoughts are in line with those posted here, but just think of how much gumption it would require, and how unlikely even the newcomers would be to exercise it! Look at how Ted Cruz is talked about. Not just the liberal media, but the Establishment Repub's treat him like the scourge of the Senate... The bane of their existence.

It would be good to see the next "Pres." walk all this back, but Barry Goldwater has been gone a long time!

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Barry Goldwater, Republican Nominee for US President in 1964.​

Is there a Barry Goldwater out there? I was a child when he was running. My parents wanted him in there, but the liberal voices out shouted him, and scared the people that he might actually do what he was elected to do (would have been a clear mandate for him!)

We can pray for the LORD to have mercy, and actually allow us to have someone like this. Then we would need to really pray for his safety, as the irate liberals would be out to get him! I thought Herman Cain might have been the fellow, but they went after him with a vengeance. That should have told the Repub. Party who the LIB's were really afraid of!!!
.

 

[Thunder Peel]

The American people are not as stupid as Jon Gruber and the rest of the liberal elite think they are. This will come back to haunt them at the ballot box in two years. Until then, we let Congress try to remain above it all -- I'm hoping that's what they do, anyway -- and let the private citizenry deal with the unconstitutional actions of the president through the courts and through opinion polls.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

I wouldn't be so sure. They voted for Obama twice and have been largely apathetic about his destruction of the country. I have no reason to believe they have learned anything and in the end they won't turn their backs on Santa Claus, which is essentially what our government has become.

 

[Avid]

I wouldn't be so sure. They voted for Obama twice and have been largely apathetic about his destruction of the country. I have no reason to believe they have learned anything and in the end they won't turn their backs on Santa Claus, which is essentially what our government has become.

. .
.