Tuesday, December 9, 2008

"Moderate" voters - Mushie wimps - Take a stand already!!!

To my Conservative Friends:

In selecting his cabinet and staff, I have constantly hear the pundits say "President-elect Obama is going to the middle and will govern as a centrist or a moderate"... Yuck!!! I'd rather he be a unabashed liberal... This moderate stuff really ticks me off....

What is a "moderate" or an "independent"???? It sounds good right?? You can tell people that you are "open to all sides of the argument" and you "aren't tied to any ideology or person". You "look at the issue or candidate and decide on a case by case basis of what or whom to support".

As the SNL Church Lady used to say - "Isn't that Special". You are so bright and intelligent, aren't you... Independents and moderates are always courted vigorously during a campaign and they love the attention they get from all the media...

They wire these high-brows up during the debates and they "instantly" tell us what they liked and didn't about what the candidates said.... "Oh, we have to do well with independents, they tell you"...

This all begs the question of "Who the hell is an moderate anyway?" and "Are they really moderate or are they just hiding their true colors to be looked at by society as an "intelligent" and "open minded"..

Ask a "moderate" a few simple questions and you can quickly find out who they truly are:

1. Are you against Re-distributing wealth from the upper class to the lower class?

If the person quickly exclaimed, "Isn't is a good thing if we can all share in the success of each other's gifts - Wouldn't that be "fair" (a lib fave word) to help the less-fortunate" - They just might be a lefty!!

2. Are you for a strong Military?

If the guy went into a monologue that "Don't we already have too much fighting in this topsy-turvy world today (like we conservatives like war)? And aren't we all brothers and sisters on this big, great blue marble that we need to protect and nourish each other and the environment we all share" - He might be a lefty!!


3. Are you pro-life?

If the person went on a diatribe about its a constitutional right for a woman to "choose" (by the way - that is so false) and they go on to give you the "hanger in the back alley argument" - That person is most likely a lefty....


4. Are you for limited government spending just for defense, infrastructure and funds to operate the basic 3 branches of government? (btw - a lib would not know the 3 branches - side bet????)

If the individual goes into a soliloquy about the government needs to do more to provide health care as a birthright (missed that one in the Constitution too) and we need to spend more to protect endangered spotted-wild flamingo's.... They most likely are lefties...

So I believe that there are very few if any, moderates... You either believe one way of governing or another. If you don't know how you feel about these issues or are all over the map in answering, then your not a liberal or a conservative.

You are simply an uneducated, mis-informed voter and immediately get your MSNBC pin and Keith Overbite fan club card and get driven to the polls in a DNC van and told which lever to press.... And guess who that might be for????

Just my thoughts....

GOP Mike

12 comments:

  1. Oh, I am not a moderate. I am a liberal.

    1 - Against redistribution. Because I said liberal, not communist. Being a stupid conservative believing his own talkpoints you probably don't know the difference.

    2 - Military = A government branch, of people making an existance leeching tax payer money. I am "for" "a" military, but it would have half the budget the least while still being perfectly capable of defending the US. Lots of Nukes are included, HS departments are not.

    3 - Nope. Because I am "pro-Intelligent & Thinking human Life" instead of bunch of tissues arounds with human DNA. The fetus must get an active brain first, then it gets to be considered a human (24 weeks).

    4 - Baby, I'd limit your government so much, you would need a searchlight to find it.

    The problem is that conservatives actually have no idea what government limitation actually implies, usually defined by them as "we pretend to limit it, but in reality we just want to tax people to make wars and stroke our members, while we also increase in a gazillion other areas".

    To limit government, is to also get rid of
    Homeland Security, domestic snooping, patriot acts.

    To limit government, is to not, in fact act like a collectivist voting to annul other people's Contracts. (see prop 8). Contrary to conservative belief, Individual rights DO override the mob.

    And to limit government, is to also, open the borders, which are of cource a Government obstacle to the Free Market, and the right of the sovereign Individual to sell his ability to the highest bidder.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bravo.

    It takes a very special mind to come up with a
    brain map the way you did.

    You are my HERO!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. You mean copy paste it?

    More of a troll map, of those who hate liberalism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous Liberal:

    We don't hate liberalism, we just don't understand a party that supports barbaric abortion, hates the troops and creates class envy to trap its followers in a cycle of dependency...

    Remember the liberal creed:

    "Keep 'em poor, keep 'em needy, get their votes - Start all over again"

    Libs are always waiting for government to "give" them stuff or "fix" their problems... Why not encourage your co-horts to get off their duffs and go "get" what they want out of life instead of standing their with cup in hand waiting for the next elected liberal official who promises the most free crap to give it to them....

    What's the definition of a smart liberal who finally woke up and smelled the coffee??? A Conservative!!!

    You will see the light one day and you will feel "liberated" - How ironic will that be???

    GOP Mike

    ReplyDelete
  5. You don't understand "barbaric" abortion, because you don't understand the, very western, very logical, reason behind why that position is that.

    As a special, extra special bonus, I am going to run the basic for you, one and only. (am I a writeful commenter or what?)

    - Western Science, for some time now, knows that the brain is the seat of consciousness. A billion cell (specific cell: neurons, in specific structures) structure, without which thought & personhood does not exist, least we could all just have a "concepted cell" up there.

    - Said west, for some time now, also has the ability to know when said brain, and specifically the parts responcible for thought:
    a) exist (which of cource doesn't in single cell organisms)
    b are active. (EEG + MEG + PET techniques, wikigoogle them)
    And that is: after the 24 weeks.

    Until then, then, the fetus is nothing more, than the equivalent of a car in an assembly line before an actual driver receives it. Fist the body, then the mind you could say, the second being, suprise, suprise, Complex and needing time to develop.

    Not only this makes abortion, nothing more serious than a factory owner hitting the stop button to said assembly line then. It in fact makes Directly AMORAL *not* to hit stop, when you see that a car/body is defective and still give it to a driver.

    Which is your position btw.

    An irresponsible, ready to toss away our current technological ability and knowledge, superstitious, collectivist wishing to control the bodies (see factories in the analogy) of other, due to some kind of incomplete tissue worshiping fetish of his.

    Wither said assembly line would in the end result in a human, is irrelevant because that's a future event, and it is the present that controls the future, not the future the present.

    And that is all.
    ______________________________

    Needless to say, There Is No "liberal creed" of "keep them poor, keep em need", like that, as you might discover by simply asking liberals. (oh, how amazing).
    If you have some kind of fetish again of making up "what the ideologies of others are supposed to be", that's your problem, but We are of cource going to be the side that will be grounding that back to the objective universe, like it or not.

    Furthermore, this lib, doesn't depend on government, which is again a conservative fantasy made to make themselves feel as having an ideology. I only see one side having passed in sequence the biggest budgets in existance. One side constantly supporting the SOCIALIST government body called "the military" (even if it is by far adequate to do the original purpose: defense). I only see one side supporting extreme government intervention in people's lives per the rules of the collective, as proven from prop-8 (technically, someone with the same concept can simply "vote" himself some slaves). Further erosion of civil liberties at all levels, and creation of a gazillion, taxpayer paid bureaus, and a general all around deceptive "spend & indebt" policy not even worth mentioning.

    Wake up "conservative"
    Among libs like you are seen as

    Neither pro-west
    Neither pro-liberty
    NEITHER pro-small government, shocking to your collectivist ass as it might be.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1. If you are against redistribution of wealth, are you also in favor of a flat rate income tax applicable to all, or maybe even a national sales tax instead of an income tax? Because, like it or not, you're still for redistribution if you feel our progressive tax system - which punishes the successful and the jobmakers of our economy - is a fair system. It may go under a different name, but it is still redistribution. The same applies for welfare as it exists today.

    2. Wow, based on your definition of the military I figured you were talking about one of FDR's useless make-work programs during the 1930's or some of the stuff that the President-Elect wishes to enact once in office. Or most welfare recipients. It's nice to see the average liberal's respect for the military hasn't moved an inch since Vietnam. Some things never change.

    You propose to take our military back to the Clinton years, then, where those in uniform were forced to use food stamps to support their families due to the pay cuts taken, where housing conditions were so bad in a lot of areas that those in the projects fared better, and where mechanics in the Army and Air Force had to cannibalize vehicles for working parts just to keep a few ready for action. And you expect this force to be able to defend the entire United States? Especially with the open borders you seem to want? That's amazing. I'm sure the men and women in uniform would really appreciate not only your opinion of them but your recommendations about how best to treat them fiscally.

    You do realize we only spend about 4% of GDP on the military, right? I'm not sure how leaner you want us to be.

    3. 24 weeks? Really? Then how is it there have been cases of babies born at 23 and in one case 22 weeks that lived to tell of it? Were their brains not active at the time? Zombie babies! Or maybe they were exceptions to this iron-clad rule of yours. If that is the case, how many more children have been killed at 22 or 23 weeks that would have survived if they had been born at that time? How many of those that fit your definition of human were given their first and only salt bath against their will?

    Were you for Bush's ban on partial birth abortion, by the way? You know, the procedure where infants in the third trimester get their active brains sucked out through a straw? If you're not against that, then you violate even your own definition of when human life begins and condone murder.

    That “meat chassis waiting for a driver” example is priceless. Did you or whoever you got that from see that crappy flashback Moonlighting episode where it’s from the perspective of Bruce Willis and Cybil Shepherd’s unborn baby learning about his parents? She miscarries, and rather than the baby dying he simply gets moved on to another set of parents (The “Other Side of the Street” song-and-dance number was really priceless). I guess that’s where your example came from: when the car is faulty, the driver just moves on to another and no one gets hurt. Beautiful.

    I doubt you’ll read it, but this paper addresses that particular example and other proposed points of when life begins: http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=351:white-paper&catid=64:white-papers&Itemid=113

    4. Conservatives tax people more? Since when? It's not the conservatives talking about increasing taxes for people making more than $250,000. Oh, wait. $200,000. Or was it $150,000? No, it was $125,000 at last count! Conservatives aren't the ones trying to eliminate the Bush tax cuts. They're also not the ones in places like Alabama that attempt to push through income and property tax increases "for education" only to turn around and use it for other pork projects.

    It seems to me the only areas you want to limit government fiscally is military and defense spending. I suppose you could count law enforcement in there as well, since with the open borders you propose we'll no longer need border agents! More government leeches off the payroll. Excellent. Judging by this you definitely meet the definition of a liberal, and no mistake!

    Contrary to popular belief, conservatives have no problem with legal immigration. But, the key word is "legal". A lot of my friends are foreigners who have come over here to learn and then decided to stay because they preferred it here to their socialist/communist country of origin. How are they getting in here? Legally! They're going through the process of getting their green cards and eventually citizenship. They're not sneaking across the border and immediately signing up for social services or avoiding paying their share of taxes. That's the way it should be done.

    Here we go on Proposition 8. Why is it when liberals win through a vote (Such as this Presidential Election), conservatives are expected to sit down, shut up, and not challenge it (Which we do, for the most part), but when liberals lose through a vote there are mass protests, church invasions, riots, and a determination to legislate through the courts? Proposition 8 was the next in a long line of such bans throughout this country, all of which were voted for by a majority of its respective state. I see nothing wrong with this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I could not have said it better myself, Benjamin..

    I am sure Mr. Anonymous liberal won't be able to repond to your factual and reasoned-based points which blew his paper-thin, faulty liberal talking points out to pasture..

    Once he starts equating babies to chevy's on the assembly line, he loses all credibility... This guy either has no kids and hasn't gone through the development of the baby in the Mother's womb (which is a miracle all in itself), or he is so committed to the left's obsession with this legalized murder that he has lost all capacity to think like a human and not a quack, mad scientist...

    And when you call the Millitary that defends your liberal hide a socialist section of the government he gets a lot of support among the armed forces...

    The left will never understand the Millitary and the sacrrifice they give to keep Mr. Anonymous liberal free to be able to debate his lonney-left views and DNC talking points....

    We will see if the country agrees with Mr. Anonymous liberal in the years to come.... I am betting not...

    GOP Mike

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1. As a rule of thumb, I am for the lowest real tax possible. Real tax, being the amount of value detracted from someone's life, as opposed to the mere amount of dollars.

    This means for example, that it is better to live in a no-debt society, with a slightly higher tax, than having a government with a huge debt, and slighty less tax.

    Furthermore, this means that someone making, 10 dollars, is going to feel it a lot more if you take away from him 1. (10%) Than someone making 100000 taking away from him 20000 (20%). Amazing a concept as it might be, although the value of luxuries can be infinite, the value of necessities being, in the end, physical, (eg bread) cannot fall below a certain point, and anyone who doesn't meet it, is screwed.

    Of cource thats easy to say, but being also a realist, since people don't lie down and die, it also means that when someone approaches the "screwed" there is a biggest chance to turn criminal.

    Crime then, detracts even more value from society (by killing others who are productive, and by the resources needed to fight it. Meaning that EVEN if kept under control, money is still being lost by the act of keeping it under control).

    One way to prevent that then, is to reduce the amount of those approaching the "screwed" level then, defined as those who, after tax, cannot pay for said minium physical necessities. One way to do that, is to make sure that the "after tax" is as big an amount to them. (aka a smaller tax for low incomes).

    I'd say that redistribution, is giving someone who is not making money at all, to buy bread.

    Reducing or eliminating the tax for those making "just enough" money to buy bread, is just intelligent organisation for a civilization. Progressive tax makes perfect sense.
    _____________________________________

    Now as far as my deepest thoughts go. What I actually do support is 0 tax. That's right. 0, null, nadda.

    This can/will be achieved in the long run with a technocracy/automated economy but since thats too futuristic a scenario in the short run, could be achieved by grounding tax to a moral background.

    For example. Pollution.

    Someone, obviously has the right to pollute within his property, as much as he likes. The main characteristic of pollution however, is that it is *not* contained in someone's property. Aka, it is the equivalent of someone's throwing his garbage to someone else's garden.

    That, much as it might blow your conservative mind, is actually an anti-capitalist act, and to allow pollution, is to essentially proclaim that someone does have the right to attack someone else's property and/or life. (mere soot on someone's walls, from someone else's factory is an act of vandalism. Mere heavy metals in someone's water supply an act of non-willing, not in consent, body harm)

    As a result, as with every crime commited against the property of others (be it their land and or bodies) someone can set a FINE.

    You could say then, that what I do support in said "zero tax society" is not "pollution taxes" but "pollution fines", which provide the proper, and very capitalistic, moral justification.

    I assume that the big polluters are product factories. (isn't every factory so?). Since those costs would be passed to the consumer, as a result, everyone who would accept that act of vandalism to someone else's property would pay as well, in direct proportion to how much he plays a part to it (consumes said products).

    That would create the following system:

    a) Since obviously, a company that does keep its pollution, inside its property, would pay 0 tax, it creates an incentive to be, environmentally responsible.

    b) Although, of those that do pollute, the costs would pass to the consumer, there is also the matter of competition and keeping low prices. It would be up for business to choose wither to tax their profits, in return for selling more competitive products or not. Capitalism would do the rest.

    c) The whole thing is based, and morally grounded on that there is something slightly wrong in throwing your garbage, in someone else's garden. There is no capitalistic defense to that, and if anything is based in the absolute recognition of property rights.

    The second source of income for a zero tax society, would be none other than land.

    You see, in capitalism you own, what you have created.

    But nobody created land. |(with the exception of the palm islands in Dubai maybe)

    Someone can own the value of the improvements to a piece of land. Someone can own the effort & energy it takes to bottle water, but someone cannot own "water" itself. And so, you might want to look into Thomas Paine's

    "Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

    For that. Basically, you pay for the right to exclude others from a piece of land. (a contract in other words. Keep in mind that if you claim that you use "force" to take a piece of land, then the "others" can also use it as well)

    To sum up then, I'd say that I find even your little "flat tax" masturbation either non-realist or amoral and I, deep down, support only two taxes.

    Pollution tax.
    Land tax.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 2. Nope. I got zero respect by default for the military. Respect is something that gets earner, on a case per case basis you see, not a right. You might have thought that merely putting a uniform on, and going fighting with someone else's tax money (don't give me the "I die for you crap". Voluntary action baby. If I wanted you personally to fight for me, I'd send you a signed letter) is all it takes to automatically be treated as a royalty, you thought wrong.

    I'd also say that if you think Clinton military, you are thinking too good actually. I am talking about full closure of all foreign bases. Scaling back to 8 supercarriers or so. Bunch of subs. Bunch of UCAVs. Bunch of nukes. Bunch of TECHINT. Medium counter-sabotage ops. Armed population aaaaaand thats it. 200 Billion budget tops.

    Aka 500+ billion of value yearly back to society. See the good side, lower taxes, hehehe.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 3. Living afterwards, does not imply thinking at that point of time. If anything, said premature babies is actually one of the sources of that knowledge, concerning when the brain becomes active.

    Obviously, since partial birth abortion falls after the 24 weeks, I am against it. Be it banned from Bush or a pot of flowers.

    The paper is junk, because it does the usual rhetoric tactic attempt of taking about "Life" (aka the mere act of cell metabolism) as opposed to "existence of conciousness" and "thinking".
    A body that has had its head stepped over by an 747 could be kept alive, but it is not a person.
    Remember, its consciousness I care about, not cell metabolism. In fact, I'd value human or human like consciousness even if it was not, in fact, based on cells (eg, A.I.).
    On the other hand, I couldn't value a jug full of active human cells, less.

    First the vessel. Then then the mind.
    (and also the present controls the future, not the future the present. Technically you kill a "potential" human every time you choose *not* to have sex)

    ReplyDelete
  11. 4. Since when they created a 10 Trillion debt.

    Remember, real tax, is the value removed from someone's life. Someone can either take positive dollars away from you (tax) OR he can simply spend and give you the bill. (think of them as negative dollars).

    When John has 10 dollars, and someone gives him -6 dollars. Then John's true value and how all the rest of the world treats him is 4 dollars, even if he might be having 10 pieces of paper at hand.

    Spend & Indebt is no different than Tax & Spend.

    The public debt right now is $35000 per American, that's an entire year's average wage Value, pretty much Bush has taxed up your ass there "conservative".

    + Defense, DHS and all the rest tax leeches collectivist wishes. Described as being by far past adequate, and now just serving for useless conservatives to beat their members at.

    + Government intervention wishes to other peoples lives. For me "big government" is not just tax. Who cares about having money, if he cannot live.

    Finally, there is no such thing as "legal" immigration. The entire thing is a thing, honking government intervention to the free market, again, to satisfy collectivist leeches trying to remove Competition from it.
    It is insane to have a world where products have more freedom to move, than the labor to produce them.
    From that point and after, its a matter of the crime of tax evasion, which is the same crime wither someone is an immigrant or domestically born. Since immigrants, because some collectivist leeches (nationalists) have labeled "illegal" have an interest not to register & make their position known, no wonder they are going to do that and is directly hypocritical to even complain about it.

    Essentially, one part of a population, has called some other part illegal, just for changing its gps coordinates, and then they complain that by not telling them where they are as they try to hide, they do a crime which entails registering and telling your location in order to avoid it. (paying taxes)

    Nope,

    - Open borders first.
    - Then tax evasion punishment (for all).
    Then we might discuss it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 4.5. You must have confused the two positions as being equal.

    One is the wish of some people to do a form of contract between them, with real implications on how their stuff is managed.

    The other is the wish of some collectivist leeches to annul other people's contracts, motivated by their middle eastern superstition.

    If you see nothing wrong with that, thats because you probably salivate on the possibilies a mob rule has. What's next? Voting other people slaves? (I say we go for redheads, they are too few and no way will they be able to much our brunette and blond voting power!) Voting Google's property ours?

    Prop8 is the single biggest proof, of how, in the end, conservatives are nothing more than big government collectivists, believe nadda over absolute individual liberty.

    Mass protests, church invasions, riots are natural for people whose lives have just been directly attacked. You have lost the right to complain about them, the moment you decided that intervention by force (eg, legal) into other people's lives IS acceptable.

    ReplyDelete