Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

Real Men...GOP needs your services

T

Testosterone boy

New member
This is an extremely critical election. You have your choice. Do you want:

1) Bigger government

2) More PC

3) More litigation

4) Less accountability

5) Impotent FBI, CIA and military

6) Super potent gays and feminists

7) Heavier taxes

8) Corrupt officials giving our country to Asian businessmen

9) Murderers and rapists freely walking the streets

10) Your guns taken away

If the answer is NO...contact your Republican headquarters and do some volunteer work. Things are getting very earnest right now.
:basket:
 
LOL - sure, Bush and the GOP are the solution to big government...

Between pushing for a gigantic new federal dept. of homeland defense, granting government more power and reducing your right against invasion of privacy with the PATRIOT act, and the addition of 50,000 new government employees with the federalization of airport workers, Bush has managed to push a whole 1/2 of one percent tax cut through (but it's only temporary). Meanwhile pushing for a $200 Billon preemptive war no one outside Bush's advisors seems to have a justification for.

I'll give you # 2, 6, and 10, though. those may be enough reason by themselves to vote republican.
 
Prometheus said:
LOL - sure, Bush and the GOP are the solution to big government...

Between pushing for a gigantic new federal dept. of homeland defense, granting government more power and reducing your right against invasion of privacy with the PATRIOT act, and the addition of 50,000 new government employees with the federalization of airport workers, Bush has managed to push a whole 1/2 of one percent tax cut through (but it's only temporary). Meanwhile pushing for a $200 Billon preemptive war no one outside Bush's advisors seems to have a justification for.

I'll give you # 2, 6, and 10, though. those may be enough reason by themselves to vote republican.
Click to expand...

All due to the 9/11 strike made possible due to the manipulations of the Clinton administration. Planned during and very probably due to his botched assassination attempt of Osama. Plus his weakening of the very agencies responsible for the prevention of such things.
 
Prometheus said:
Between pushing for a gigantic new federal dept. of homeland defense, granting government more power and reducing your right against invasion of privacy with the PATRIOT act,
Click to expand...

Consolidation of redundant functions under one headquarters will eventually make govt more efficient and smaller.

Defense of our nation is one thing that the Constitution mandates that our feds do, it is some of the other garbage that needs to be cut.

Vote Republican, just one hole punch is all that's needed in that voting booth!
 
ttlpkg said:


Consolidation of redundant functions under one headquarters will eventually make govt more efficient and smaller.
Click to expand...

Can you name a single policy or act ever undertaken, by republican or democrat, that was designed to make the Federal government either smaller or more efficient?
 
Prometheus said:


Can you name a single policy or act ever undertaken, by republican or democrat, that was designed to make the Federal government either smaller or more efficient?
Click to expand...

Tax Cuts.
 
Prometheus said:


Can you name a single policy or act ever undertaken, by republican or democrat, that was designed to make the Federal government either smaller or more efficient?
Click to expand...


Oh, and add to that Military Base Closings under Big Bush, which the then Democratic Congress fought all the way.
 
ttlpkg said:


Tax Cuts.
Click to expand...

the last major tax cut enacted was the TRA of 1986. has government gotten either smaller or less efficient since then?

and the idea that real levels of taxation have ever decreased is a fallacy -- the overall effective tax burden on the US citizen has increased steadily throughout the history of the country. "cuts" in the individual income tax brackets are made up for by raising other tax rates or eliminating deductions, credits, and exemptions.
 
ttlpkg said:



Oh, and add to that Military Base Closings under Big Bush, which the then Democratic Congress fought all the way.
Click to expand...

on that you have a good point.

I would still argue that whatever resources saved by closing bases were just redirected to other government activities, and that on the whole the size and/or efficiency did not decrease. but if those savings resulted in a permanent reduction in federal employee count and expenditure, then I take that back....
 
Prometheus said:
the last major tax cut enacted was the TRA of 1986. has government gotten either smaller or less efficient since then?
Click to expand...

Were you living in a cave from 1992-2000? Why do you think government hasn't gotten smaller... WE HAD A DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE FOR 8 YEARS!!!

-Warik

Prometheus said:
and the idea that real levels of taxation have ever decreased is a fallacy -- the overall effective tax burden on the US citizen has increased steadily throughout the history of the country. "cuts" in the individual income tax brackets are made up for by raising other tax rates or eliminating deductions, credits, and exemptions.
Click to expand...

Hence the reason you must go to http://www.lp.org
 
Prometheus said:


the last major tax cut enacted was the TRA of 1986. has government gotten either smaller or less efficient since then?
Click to expand...

Go back and look at your orignal question. I answered it twice and you've just answered it again referrencing the Reagan (GOP) tax cuts of the mid-eighties. A tax cut is by definition a reduction in the size of govt.
 
All tax code changes are limited to 7 years by statute. I guess we'll just have to reelect Bush to get another one.
 
ttlpkg said:

A tax cut is by definition a reduction in the size of govt.
Click to expand...

what if the individual rates are cut by x%, while the corporate and estate rates are raised by y% and z%?

or what if the personal exemption threshhold is reduced?

or what if, as they proposed recently, when the individual rates are cut by 1 percentage point, the step-up basis at death rule is eliminated?

tax code and tax policymaking is very complicated. it doesn't lend itself well to superficial message-board analysis - if you choose to believe that when Bush waves the flag and says "I cut your taxes" that there really has been an increase in your overall spending power, go ahead. i was just offering an alternative view.

Warik -- I wasn't defending either party - they are BOTH to blame.
 
Testosterone boy said:
Frackal said:
Please hush on the truth. Liberal stance is soo fragile.

And this coming from a libertarian. He wants to squash our freedom of speech. How ironic.
Click to expand...




I'm not a liberal, I'd vote republican given the choice between the two, but for god's sake man, cant you see that neither of these parties is healthy for this country at all?

I'll second warik

www.lp.org
Click to expand...
 
Testosterone boy said:
This is an extremely critical election. You have your choice. Do you want:

1) Bigger government

2) More PC

3) More litigation

4) Less accountability

5) Impotent FBI, CIA and military

6) Super potent gays and feminists

7) Heavier taxes

8) Corrupt officials giving our country to Asian businessmen

9) Murderers and rapists freely walking the streets

10) Your guns taken away

If the answer is NO...contact your Republican headquarters and do some volunteer work. Things are getting very earnest right now.
:basket:
Click to expand...

If I want:

1. Better social services provided by all the taxes I spend, isntead of $200 BILLION in corporate welfare a year;

2. Ethnic and cultural diversity, including a recognition of Native treaty rights;

3. More citizen access to the justice system in regards to government or corporate misconduct;

4. Less Bible-banging disguised as "domestic policy;"

5. Less harassment of people whose sexual, physical, ideological, or even chemical-use behaviors differs from a narrowly-imposed order;

6. Tax relief for anyone else besides just the wealthiest fraction of citizens;

7. Freedom of speech, including the right to dissent and challenge my government's actions on ANY topic ofmy choosing;

8. Reform of the death penalty (or at least a debate based on research, not merely opinions and bluster);

9. A challenge to the WTO and IMF's strangulation of American rights (not to mention those of other nations);

10. Foriegn policies based on actual human rights, not merely siding with whatever monsters happen to hate the same people as us;

11. Stronger controls against police brutality;

12. The right to petition, protest, and assemble peacefully without being beaten or tear-gassed;

13. The right to choose my own candidates rather than having the empowered oligarchy select them for me;

14. The right not to be confronted with the implication that I am not a "real man" if I dissent from the GOP's positions...

Then who do I vote for? Which party do I support?
 
lol one day the country will realize warik...itll be great when the constitution actually means something again.
 
Libertarian party is lacking leadership big time.

I gave them some money to support Ed Thompson's governor race in Wisconsin, and he got ONLY 2.2% of the primary vote, despite the fact the WIS has same day registration. (Target was 6% to attain matching funds). The LP asshole political director, Ron Crickenberger, then hailed this as a major breakthrough because it was "the highest a 3rd party gov. candidate had ever gotten in Wisconsin.)

what Ron asshead Crickernberger forgot to say was that ED IS FORMER GOVERNOR TOMMY THOMPSON'S BROTHER. And all he could get was 2.2%????

Then, a little later I see that the LP is asking for an executive directtr of the LP California. So I call the LP pf CA Chairman, Aaron Starr, CPA (dork) and ask him about it. It is basically a sales type position that is designed to "sell memberships" to LP California. Starr said that the preferred people for the position would be someone who has sold things like insurance, etc.

I asked him if he was serious. I told him the job required leadership not ass-backward salesman ship shit. I think Starr might be retarded.

Lastly, an email comes out that there is a new LP National Chairman, and he is of course soliciting money. Turns out the LP is running a $200K deficit, and wantsto raise $300K.

They are running a deficit, with nothing to show for it. All they do is tout all these LP's in office, but does it fucking matter if the mayor of Waldo, FL is a Libertarian? Nope. They are running a deficit and have NOTHING SIGNIFICANT TO SHOW FOR IT.

Despite their ideals and ideologies, much of which I agree with, the LP is a minor league organization that, if it could raise and serious money, and get any clout, would turn into the Dems/Reps in a matter of minutes.

LP is minor league and irrelevant. Until they get new leadership, until they learn how to make serious inroads (which they should - I've been telling them every day), I won't give the fuckers a dime.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:
Libertarian party is lacking leadership big time.

I gave them some money to support Ed Thompson's governor race in Wisconsin, and he got ONLY 2.2% of the primary vote, despite the fact the WIS has same day registration. (Target was 6% to attain matching funds). The LP asshole political director, Ron Crickenberger, then hailed this as a major breakthrough because it was "the highest a 3rd party gov. candidate had ever gotten in Wisconsin.)

what Ron asshead Crickernberger forgot to say was that ED IS FORMER GOVERNOR TOMMY THOMPSON'S BROTHER. And all he could get was 2.2%????

Then, a little later I see that the LP is asking for an executive directtr of the LP California. So I call the LP pf CA Chairman, Aaron Starr, CPA (dork) and ask him about it. It is basically a sales type position that is designed to "sell memberships" to LP California. Starr said that the preferred people for the position would be someone who has sold things like insurance, etc.

I asked him if he was serious. I told him the job required leadership not ass-backward salesman ship shit. I think Starr might be retarded.

Lastly, an email comes out that there is a new LP National Chairman, and he is of course soliciting money. Turns out the LP is running a $200K deficit, and wantsto raise $300K.

They are running a deficit, with nothing to show for it. All they do is tout all these LP's in office, but does it fucking matter if the mayor of Waldo, FL is a Libertarian? Nope. They are running a deficit and have NOTHING SIGNIFICANT TO SHOW FOR IT.

Despite their ideals and ideologies, much of which I agree with, the LP is a minor league organization that, if it could raise and serious money, and get any clout, would turn into the Dems/Reps in a matter of minutes.

LP is minor league and irrelevant. Until they get new leadership, until they learn how to make serious inroads (which they should - I've been telling them every day), I won't give the fuckers a dime.
Click to expand...

word
 
Re: Re: Real Men...GOP needs your services

smokinghawk said:


If I want:

1. Better social services provided by all the taxes I spend, isntead of $200 BILLION in corporate welfare a year;

2. Ethnic and cultural diversity, including a recognition of Native treaty rights;

3. More citizen access to the justice system in regards to government or corporate misconduct;

4. Less Bible-banging disguised as "domestic policy;"

5. Less harassment of people whose sexual, physical, ideological, or even chemical-use behaviors differs from a narrowly-imposed order;

6. Tax relief for anyone else besides just the wealthiest fraction of citizens;

7. Freedom of speech, including the right to dissent and challenge my government's actions on ANY topic ofmy choosing;

8. Reform of the death penalty (or at least a debate based on research, not merely opinions and bluster);

9. A challenge to the WTO and IMF's strangulation of American rights (not to mention those of other nations);

10. Foriegn policies based on actual human rights, not merely siding with whatever monsters happen to hate the same people as us;

11. Stronger controls against police brutality;

12. The right to petition, protest, and assemble peacefully without being beaten or tear-gassed;

13. The right to choose my own candidates rather than having the empowered oligarchy select them for me;

14. The right not to be confronted with the implication that I am not a "real man" if I dissent from the GOP's positions...

Then who do I vote for? Which party do I support?
Click to expand...

wait a minute... you're telling me that the GOP doesn't support these ideals? no way.
 
So the libertarians have stepped up to the plate. Bully for them. Too bad they don't step to the election booth. Closest thing to a libertarian that won an important position was Jesse. He didn't bother to run again. That is EXTREMELY rare.

I find libertarianism interesting much like the person who walks around nude in public. They would be the same if they ever achieved real power because power is derived from money.

Yes...it has been my considered experience that the vast majority of American men who would fit the typical definition of being a real man....are Republicans. I have conducted political surveys and continue to do so.One learns a lot doing this.
 
Testosterone boy said:
So the libertarians have stepped up to the plate. Bully for them. Too bad they don't step to the election booth. Closest thing to a libertarian that won an important position was Jesse. He didn't bother to run again. That is EXTREMELY rare.

I find libertarianism interesting much like the person who walks around nude in public. They would be the same if they ever achieved real power because power is derived from money.

Yes...it has been my considered experience that the vast majority of American men who would fit the typical definition of being a real man....are Republicans. I have conducted political surveys and continue to do so.One learns a lot doing this.
Click to expand...

Yopu're high or misinformed. The elephant is just as bad for us as the donkey. I usually vote the Big R because they tend to be better for the military, and are business oriented. They also have abrogated a ton of rights and continue to do so.

Do "real men" support a 33% tax bracket just because it is better than 39%? Or do they realize that they are getting rooked at any such rate?

Let's face it, the Big R and the Big D have fundamentally the same large donors. It's not the Christian Coalition (right) or teh trial lawyers (left) that are the ones giving these parties all of their money. Sure, they contribute, but across the board, there is more money given by corporations to get specialized legislation passed, than anything else.

Bottom line is, American get divided over issues. There are people (married men among them!!) who pick a candidate based on abortion - stance. How stupid!!

Whether is the the republicans' police state or terh democrats' welfare state, both parties seek only growth, which by defintion must be financed by and come at the expense (lost liberties/rights) of every day citizens. The two party system is the perfect vehicle to do this. Divide and conquer the American people.

You seriously need to wake the fizzzuck up if you are that into one party.

The LP has the right ideas and not enough brainpower or leadership. Their whole strategy is wrong, and they are coming up zeroes on tactics as well. In a nutshell, they have to drive home the point that the federal government (either party) is only concerned about revenue, and provide numerous examples of how shameless lobbying and pandering drive federal - level legislation today.

Step 2 is to decentralize the LP and let the state LPs develop a platform central to their state's needs.

Instead, the LP wastes its time on "pie in the sky" ideals that sound good, but they never talk implementation. wonder why? :)
 
MTS...you need to make your mind up about the LP. Earlier this evening you slammed them pretty hard.

No party will get good marks in a recessionary environment plagued by terrorism fears.
 
Testosterone boy said:
MTS...you need to make your mind up about the LP. Earlier this evening you slammed them pretty hard.

No party will get good marks in a recessionary environment plagued by terrorism fears.
Click to expand...


LP needs to be re-oriented. Good ideas, bad approach. That's all.
 
MattTheSkywalker said:



LP needs to be re-oriented. Good ideas, bad approach. That's all.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with much of that. Do you thin they could maintain their "purity" if they were a real contender with equal funding? I don't...parties are forced to pander to their funders.

What we REALLY need is campaign finance reform...I think. It sounds good. In practice...I'm not sure. Changes are usually made in the hopes of improvement. Do they usually improve anything?
 
Testosterone boy said:


I'd agree with much of that. Do you thin they could maintain their "purity" if they were a real contender with equal funding? I don't...parties are forced to pander to their funders.

What we REALLY need is campaign finance reform...I think. It sounds good. In practice...I'm not sure. Changes are usually made in the hopes of improvement. Do they usually improve anything?
Click to expand...

They can retain their purity if they likewise take money away from everyone else, changing the nature of the process. CFR would be great.

As for change - I disagree, Change usually comes in thruning away from one party in favor of anohter...yeah there may be hope for improvement but a student of histroy knows it is horseshit.
 
ttlpkg said:


Go back and look at your orignal question. I answered it twice and you've just answered it again referrencing the Reagan (GOP) tax cuts of the mid-eighties. A tax cut is by definition a reduction in the size of govt.
Click to expand...

What?


Where are you creating this stuff from?

Please note that Bush is creating a new bill to allow tech companies to sell their stuff to ANY country with moola.

Also, the creation of the homeland dept does nothing to address the inefficiency of the FBI, Cia, or other agencies in charge of intelligence/protection of this country. NOTHING.

Explain the reduction part, and the increase in budget costs for this department.
 
gymnpoppa said:

Explain the reduction part, and the increase in budget costs for this department.
Click to expand...

What part of CUT do you not understand? If you reduce the amount of money the govt takes in, you are restricting the resources and influence the govt had before the cut. In an abstract sense this is quite clear, and no, I'm not going to run off and find some link for you to back that up. It's plain arithmetic.
 
Re: Re: Re: Real Men...GOP needs your services

Warik said:


The Libertarian Party.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the Libertarian party is at variance with a lot of those issues. My instinct so far is that the Greens offer the best match to my personal political/social ethics.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Real Men...GOP needs your services

smokinghawk said:


Sorry, but the Libertarian party is at variance with a lot of those issues. My instinct so far is that the Greens offer the best match to my personal political/social ethics.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your vote. Every vote for the Green party hurts the Democrats. I may send my campaign contribution to them this year instead of to the GOP.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Real Men...GOP needs your services

ttlpkg said:


Thanks for your vote. Every vote for the Green party hurts the Democrats. I may send my campaign contribution to them this year instead of to the GOP.
Click to expand...

Every vote for the Green Party hurts EVERY party that isn't the Green Party. People act like Greens and Democrats are interchangeable, and we're not--we oppose Democrats. So to believe that Greens are "taking votes away" from Democrats is only half-right; every vote for a Green is a vote that neither the Dems NOR Repubs will get. As it should be.

The Democrats and Republicans are not entitled to one single vote. They have to EARN every vote they want, and they haven't earned mine.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Real Men...GOP needs your services

smokinghawk said:


Every vote for the Green Party hurts EVERY party that isn't the Green Party.
Click to expand...

Most Green party voters are disgruntled Dems, so it helps the GOP. Have you ever voted for the democrats?
 
Which party did Ralph Nadar run under? From what I've read and seen of him, I like that guy. He seems like a genuinely decent person who wants to help people.
 
sereneman said:
Which party did Ralph Nadar run under? From what I've read and seen of him, I like that guy. He seems like a genuinely decent person who wants to help people.
Click to expand...

the green party if I'm not mistaken. I'd support them or anyone else besides the dems and republicans. hell I'd even vote for pat buchanan.
 
The Nature Boy said:


the green party if I'm not mistaken. I'd support them or anyone else besides the dems and republicans. hell I'd even vote for pat buchanan.
Click to expand...

"If you're not mistaken?" NB, I thought you VOTED for Nader. Please tell me my idolization of you isn't wrong...

Yeah, Nader was the Green candidate.

And to answer the question, I've voted both Dem and Repub in my life, before Nader/Greens offered political salvation.
 
smokinghawk said:


"If you're not mistaken?" NB, I thought you VOTED for Nader. Please tell me my idolization of you isn't wrong...

Yeah, Nader was the Green candidate.

And to answer the question, I've voted both Dem and Repub in my life, before Nader/Greens offered political salvation.
Click to expand...

I was hung over. and, "if I'm not mistaken" is a phrase I use often. you may resume your idolization :)
 
smokinghawk said:

And to answer the question, I've voted both Dem and Repub in my life, before Nader/Greens offered political salvation.
Click to expand...

Man, you're all over the map! Nader was the Green party candidate, and he hurt Gore. Many in the Dem establishment pleaded with him to withdraw his candidacy.

If he runs again he will again hurt the Democrats. I will send him a check.
 
ttlpkg said:


Man, you're all over the map! Nader was the Green party candidate, and he hurt Gore. Many in the Dem establishment pleaded with him to withdraw his candidacy.

If he runs again he will again hurt the Democrats. I will send him a check.
Click to expand...

I WAS all over the map, because neither party really offered me any good candidates until the Greens.

And Gore hurt Gore, not Nader. Gore was sunk by his own party. Why is it Nader's job to help Gore, if they're in competing parties? We voted for Nader because neither Gore nor Bush were very good candidates, and neither represented our ethics. So why the guilt trip on me that I helped hurt a candidate that I couldn't stand in the first place?
 
If we all voted for Ralphie we could all just close down the economy and get by on $11 a day.

No thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Heh,this article will be sure to stir some shizzle up in here...
Replies
7
Views
1K
nimbus
nimbus
Toptoon1
Steroid Profiles
Replies
0
Views
14K
Toptoon1
Toptoon1
AAP
Top Ten Conservative Idiots
Replies
16
Views
2K
FLASHMAN73
F
I
Interesting read for conspiracy nuts (long)
Replies
14
Views
3K
Testosterone boy
T
p0ink
Detailed Outline of All The LIES in Farenheiht 9/11
Replies
18
Views
5K
Burning_Inside
Burning_Inside
Top Bottom