Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution

[The Whit]

Ah well, I don't want to argue points that we have been beating to death since we started posting to each other. I don't have a "religious conviction" to anything, thank you very much.

If you say so, but I'm about to tell you why you're wrong.

The thing is the basic tenet of each party, what drives the party.
Illregardless of the party name or eavn their proposed platforms (slogans-bushwords-bumper stickers), there are basically two ideals.

No, there's not.  There are as many ideals as there are people on this planet.  but, let's examine your definition of these two to see if we can find any inconsistencies.

Conservative and Liberal!
Conservatives:
restrict human/civil rights
redistribute resources from the middle class to the rich and corrupt corporations
foster fear, hate, and prejudice
dumb down the general populace
prey upon the weak
destroy the environment
promote selvishness and greed
degrade and disenfranchise everyone and everything that isn't white male and religious
Supress voting
decry cultural differences
and believe ethics can be summed up in a phrase "if you don't get caught it isn't a crime."

Holy shit.  Don't bust a vein.  Now, let's do a thought experiment.  Replace "Conservative" with "Atheist" and tell me who that sounds like.

Liberals:
believe in humanity, human rights, diversity
strengthen the middle class
protect the environment
believe in the rule of law

Hmm...Let's replace "Liberal" with "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Jew".   =/  

In fact, if you want to replace "Liberal" with "Christian" you can change "Conservative" to "Muslim" and in some cases "Jew" and it still sounds exactly the same.  I guess the religious don't have a monopoly on bigotry.

Anyway, let's continue...

So on and so forth. Now there are morons and corrupt people on both sides but the basic tenet is the driving force and the difference between the two.
Notice the two I described were not political parties.

No, but you're about to.

So since the Democratic party is mainly Liberal and progress....and....
the republican party is mainly conservative,....

And there it is!  So, what you're saying is that we can replace "Conservative" with "Republican" and "Liberal" with "Democrat" and it will be generally accurate.  Got it.  But does that work?  

Democrats:
believe in humanity, human rights, diversity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

First KKK: As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[19] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.

But that was a while ago.

Third KKK: The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by a numerous independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama

George Wallace was a segregationist Democrat.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Wallace

Still, even that was 50 years ago.  Things change right?

Well, while I will grant that is is mainly Republicans these days speaking out against marriage equality and immigration, the Democratic party is not innocent.

Continuing:

strengthen the middle class

Ohh this one is juicy.  So, hows about that jobless recovery?  Hows about that nearly trillion dollar bailout and the government take overs of Obama?  Hows about the stock market reaching new highs while wages have stagnated and job recovery has been slow.  What about that minumum wage?  Doesn't that help the working class?  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 87975.html

A report last year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office said employment in American Samoa has declined because of the minimum wage increases that began in 2007. The 142-page report said the decrease in employment was a result of losing a tuna cannery in American Samoa. Employers blamed the minimum wage increase for layoffs, work hour reductions and hiring freezes.

So, I think we can bust the myth that Dems "strengthen the middle class".

protect the environment

http://ivn.us/2013/02/11/the-revolving- ... o-company/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-s ... 43810.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/155850/ob ... se_big_oil

believe in the rule of law

Do I need to bring up "Fast and Furious"?  How about Guantanamo?  What about drone strikes?  What about bailing out banks instead of letting them go bankrupt?  What about the second amendment?

it stands to reason that I and any normal logical person that cares about this nation would prefer the Democratic party.

Wrong.

That is not to say that I pull the lever that marks all and just Democratic candidates, but it is to say that I will never vote for a conservative candidate no matter what party that they run in or on.

I would hope no one would vote for anyone that fits your definition of conservative.  However, your definition of conservative is not "the" definition of conservative and as I've shown democrats used to fit your definition of it.

[The Whit]

Third parties in the US don't fare well. And the judiciary is mostly in the hands of big corporations. The system is so rigged that there is little chance it can ever be reformed.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

Read that document real quick and rethink that last statement.

[josephpalazzo]

Third parties in the US don't fare well. And the judiciary is mostly in the hands of big corporations. The system is so rigged that there is little chance it can ever be reformed.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

Read that document real quick and rethink that last statement.

What they fail to anticipate is that corporations would have the same rights as a person (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 1886),  and that money would be equal to free speech (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission -2010), hence the judiciary gave full control of the political system to big money. If you believe you have democracy in the US you are delusional.

[The Whit]

What they fail to anticipate is that corporations would have the same rights as a person (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 1886),  and that money would be equal to free speach (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission -2010), hence the judiciary gave full control of the political system to big money. If you believe you have democracy in the US you are delusional.

Let me be more specific.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[josephpalazzo]

What they fail to anticipate is that corporations would have the same rights as a person (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 1886),  and that money would be equal to free speach (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission -2010), hence the judiciary gave full control of the political system to big money. If you believe you have democracy in the US you are delusional.

Let me be more specific.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

As I said in a previous post, and I'll repeat: We're not going to change human nature. Most people don't give a damn until their little corner is turned upside down.

[Jmpty]

Man I hate the Tea Party. When I hear them speak, or read their bullshit ideas, it makes me sad.

[Colanth]

Your logic doesn't go all the way either.  Everyone can't be a baker, so we only want the best bakers to be bakers.  How do we determine who the best bakers are?  Consumer sovereignty.

In your world that means that everyone buys from the best baker.  In the real world almost everyone buys from the cheapest baker, even if his bread isn't all that good.  So unless best=cheapest, your "logic" fails the reality test.

It's kind of a good point.  But you're really not at all destroying my argument by pointing out that "best" is often a balance between quality and cost.

In the real world there's no "balance" - 98% of the people choose cost.  Why do you think Walmart is the world's most successful retailer?  Quality?

Values are subjective...so the "best" bread will be pretty much whatever consumers decide to spend their money on.

If the real world worked that way, we'd still be hunting with sharpened sticks.  It costs too much to make stone points.

When it comes to steak...sure I love a filet mignon...but more often than not...I prefer a larger less costly steak that will actually satisfy my hunger.

But do you buy aged prime hamburger, or the stuff in the supermarket?  Until human nature changes, the supermarkets have absolutely no incentive to sell good meat, so the cheap, corn-stuffed-in-the-feedlot stuff is all you'll get.

My argument is that we maximize value

Value is what people WILL pay, not what they COULD pay.  What's the "value" of a piece of meat, aged 12 months, then ground?  If it has to sell for $20/pound?  If only a relatively few people in the country would buy it, it has no "value" (which is set by the price actually paid for it) because no one will risk producing it.  But feed-lot beef selling for $1.50/pound has the value of $1.50/pound.

by allowing consumers to give producers feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.

Society will opt for cost, so again, you're equating value with cost.

This is true whether we're talking about the private sector or the public sector.  Eliminate this vetting process and it's impossible for producers to supply the optimal quantities of bread, steak, public education, national defense and so on.

Bread, steak and public education seem to be in sufficient supply.  (Of course, since we put no "value" on quality, some of them aren't worth what we pay for them, but you're talking about quantity, and I haven't heard of a lot of kids not being in school because there wasn't enough education.)

National defense?  We don't count cost, or look at quality, when the nation is attacked.  Remember the last time?  December 7, 1941?  We had a depression.  There was no money.  We produced enough soldiers, and enough materiel, to fight and win a war on 2 fronts.  Not because "the people" chose to put their money into national defense, but because the government chose to spend enough to win the war, even if it had meant bankrupting the country.  You don't tell the mugger that you need your money for your future retirement.  He'll eliminate the problem - and your retirement - for you.  When it comes to life or death, cost is 2nd, quality is 3rd, and there's are only 1 thing you worry about - winning.  You count cost after you win.  (If you lose it doesn't matter any more.)

National defense has as much to do with this discussion as the color of Buggs Bunny's new house does.

[The Whit]

Two hands at work are more effective than a thousand being sat on.  Make a ruckus about it.  Start overturning people's corners.  Neither the American or French Revolutions were started by people who sat around and complained about how shitty everything was and left it at that.

[Colanth]

Keep in mind the Federal Reserve is a cabal of bankers.  If the big banks' bankers decided they wanted to get rid of the small banks, they could control the money supply through the Fed to make it rough on the small banks.  The small banks would have to close or sell out to the big banks.  Something which happened during the Great Depression.

So long ago?  Think 2008-2010.

The only problem I have with this is that it's supposed to be a 30 (or multiples of 30) year cycle, and this was an 80 year period.  The banks "failed" 10 years early.  But it did happen, and for the same reasons.  It'll keep happening until the system changes, and since it's the politicians who are profiting from the situation, they're not going to change it.

As Joseph said, until it hits everyone, no one is going to do anything about it but bitch.  Once it gets bad enough people will do something about it - but the longer it takes, the less pretty it's going to be.  I'm afraid that next time the bankers are going to have some help "jumping" from the windows.  But I won't be here to worry - it won't happen for at least another 60 years.

[The Whit]

Values are subjective...so the "best" bread will be pretty much whatever consumers decide to spend their money on.

If the real world worked that way, we'd still be hunting with sharpened sticks.  It costs too much to make stone points.

What?  It's not about cost, it's about cost-benefit.  The reason we're not running around with sharpened sticks is because the efficiency of stone tools make up for the cost of production.

When it comes to steak...sure I love a filet mignon...but more often than not...I prefer a larger less costly steak that will actually satisfy my hunger.

But do you buy aged prime hamburger, or the stuff in the supermarket?  Until human nature changes, the supermarkets have absolutely no incentive to sell good meat, so the cheap, corn-stuffed-in-the-feedlot stuff is all you'll get.

Yeah, because the people who buy aged prime hamburger go to places that specialize in that.  The reason  most supermarkets don't carry top quality cuts is because the cost exceeds the budget of their customer demographic.  Supermarkets couldn't stock those meats in any considerable quantity without risking them spoiling before being sold.  Spoiled food is wasted money, and wasted money is not good for business.  Likewise, the space they would use to store and display these meats would be better used by stocking products the customers WILL buy.

My argument is that we maximize value

Value is what people WILL pay, not what they COULD pay.  What's the "value" of a piece of meat, aged 12 months, then ground?  If it has to sell for $20/pound?  If only a relatively few people in the country would buy it, it has no "value" (which is set by the price actually paid for it) because no one will risk producing it.  But feed-lot beef selling for $1.50/pound has the value of $1.50/pound.

You mistake value and price as being the same thing.  It's not.  Value is relative to the individual.  A dollar and a pound of ground beef do not have the same value to me.  If I value ground beef more than I value the dollar, I might trade the dollar for the beef.  If I didn't value the beef more, I'd be inclined to keep my dollar.  The relative value of that dollar depends on the amount one has and the opportunity cost of any transaction.  Those who have more money will spend more to purchase higher quality products because the relative value of the dollar has decreased.  If this isn't the case, why do rich people ride around in expensive cars while the less well off drive cheaper vehicles?  I know that if I could afford a brand new BMW M3 I'd be on my way to the dealer right the hell now.

by allowing consumers to give producers feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources.

Society will opt for cost, so again, you're equating value with cost.

No, that was you.

This is true whether we're talking about the private sector or the public sector.  Eliminate this vetting process and it's impossible for producers to supply the optimal quantities of bread, steak, public education, national defense and so on.

Bread, steak and public education seem to be in sufficient supply.  (Of course, since we put no "value" on quality, some of them aren't worth what we pay for them, but you're talking about quantity, and I haven't heard of a lot of kids not being in school because there wasn't enough education.)

THAT WILL ALWAYS BE THE CASE!  Supply is limited while demand is infinite.  Finite ? Infinite.  Supply will NEVER equal demand.  The quality problem is a problem of insufficient competition.

National defense?  We don't count cost, or look at quality, when the nation is attacked.

Really?  How is it NOT in your best interests to give the best quality gear to your soldiers?

Remember the last time?  December 7, 1941?

I've heard of it but I don't remember.  That was 45 years before my birth.

We had a depression.  There was no money.  We produced enough soldiers, and enough materiel, to fight and win a war on 2 fronts.

Damn right!  'Murica, bitches!

Not because "the people" chose to put their money into national defense, but because the government chose to spend enough to win the war, even if it had meant bankrupting the country.

The war was funded in large part by selling war bonds to the people.  Aces and soldiers, including the survivors of Iwo Jima in the picture of the flag raising, toured the country to raise money for the war effort.  Those who bought war bonds wanted it spent correctly, on the best equipment.  Generals wanted that money spent on the best equipment to give their armies the best advantage for success.  Soldiers wanted the best equipment to increase their chances of survival.  The people who made this equipment did the best job they could because it was their brothers, sons and husbands fighting in them.

You don't tell the mugger that you need your money for your future retirement.  He'll eliminate the problem - and your retirement - for you.  When it comes to life or death, cost is 2nd, quality is 3rd, and there's are only 1 thing you worry about - winning.  You count cost after you win.  (If you lose it doesn't matter any more.)

So it's best to not have it a matter of life and death then isn't it?  Better still to not have it a matter of cost!  How do you suggest we do this?

National defense has as much to do with this discussion as the color of Buggs Bunny's new house does.[/quote]

[mykcob4]

Ah well, I don't want to argue points that we have been beating to death since we started posting to each other. I don't have a "religious conviction" to anything, thank you very much.

If you say so, but I'm about to tell you why you're wrong.

The thing is the basic tenet of each party, what drives the party.
Illregardless of the party name or eavn their proposed platforms (slogans-bushwords-bumper stickers), there are basically two ideals.

No, there's not.  There are as many ideals as there are people on this planet.  but, let's examine your definition of these two to see if we can find any inconsistencies.

Conservative and Liberal!
Conservatives:
restrict human/civil rights
redistribute resources from the middle class to the rich and corrupt corporations
foster fear, hate, and prejudice
dumb down the general populace
prey upon the weak
destroy the environment
promote selvishness and greed
degrade and disenfranchise everyone and everything that isn't white male and religious
Supress voting
decry cultural differences
and believe ethics can be summed up in a phrase "if you don't get caught it isn't a crime."

Holy shit.  Don't bust a vein.  Now, let's do a thought experiment.  Replace "Conservative" with "Atheist" and tell me who that sounds like.

Liberals:
believe in humanity, human rights, diversity
strengthen the middle class
protect the environment
believe in the rule of law

Hmm...Let's replace "Liberal" with "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Jew".   =/  

In fact, if you want to replace "Liberal" with "Christian" you can change "Conservative" to "Muslim" and in some cases "Jew" and it still sounds exactly the same.  I guess the religious don't have a monopoly on bigotry.

Anyway, let's continue...

So on and so forth. Now there are morons and corrupt people on both sides but the basic tenet is the driving force and the difference between the two.
Notice the two I described were not political parties.

No, but you're about to.

So since the Democratic party is mainly Liberal and progress....and....
the republican party is mainly conservative,....

And there it is!  So, what you're saying is that we can replace "Conservative" with "Republican" and "Liberal" with "Democrat" and it will be generally accurate.  Got it.  But does that work?  

Democrats:
believe in humanity, human rights, diversity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

First KKK: As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[19] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.

But that was a while ago.

Third KKK: The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by a numerous independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama

George Wallace was a segregationist Democrat.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Wallace

Still, even that was 50 years ago.  Things change right?

Well, while I will grant that is is mainly Republicans these days speaking out against marriage equality and immigration, the Democratic party is not innocent.

Continuing:

strengthen the middle class

Ohh this one is juicy.  So, hows about that jobless recovery?  Hows about that nearly trillion dollar bailout and the government take overs of Obama?  Hows about the stock market reaching new highs while wages have stagnated and job recovery has been slow.  What about that minumum wage?  Doesn't that help the working class?  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... 87975.html

A report last year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office said employment in American Samoa has declined because of the minimum wage increases that began in 2007. The 142-page report said the decrease in employment was a result of losing a tuna cannery in American Samoa. Employers blamed the minimum wage increase for layoffs, work hour reductions and hiring freezes.

So, I think we can bust the myth that Dems "strengthen the middle class".

protect the environment

http://ivn.us/2013/02/11/the-revolving- ... o-company/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-s ... 43810.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/155850/ob ... se_big_oil

believe in the rule of law

Do I need to bring up "Fast and Furious"?  How about Guantanamo?  What about drone strikes?  What about bailing out banks instead of letting them go bankrupt?  What about the second amendment?

it stands to reason that I and any normal logical person that cares about this nation would prefer the Democratic party.

Wrong.

That is not to say that I pull the lever that marks all and just Democratic candidates, but it is to say that I will never vote for a conservative candidate no matter what party that they run in or on.

I would hope no one would vote for anyone that fits your definition of conservative.  However, your definition of conservative is not "the" definition of conservative and as I've shown democrats used to fit your definition of it.

Oh for cryin' out loud. The fact is that conservatives are historically and presently bad when it comes to the rule of law (Meaning the Constitution and civil rights), the environment, the laborer and or workers. Everything I stated about the differences in the two ideals and parties is absolutely TRUE.
And lets NOT replace "liberal" and "conservative" with UNRELATED names like christian and muslim. That is just stupid and illogical.
BTW there are many different ideals but I STATED "the basic tenets."
My definition IS correct concerning conservatives, and the reason is obvious. No matter what an actual conservative feels, they still go along with the republicans which are manipulated and controlled by corrupt corporations, and extreme factions like the NRA. So my definition is spot on.
BTW the southern Dems of the 50s/60s are all republicans now so you can't say that the DEMs are against civil rights. That was a stupid argument on your part.
Your reference to drone strikes is wrong because they are perfectly LEGAL, and the only reason Gitmo isn't shut down is because of REPUBLICANs in Congress are blocking it. "fast and furious" wasn't a party issue. You have to understand that people that work in various government jobs have those jobs longer than the people voted in to head the departments. There are thousands of problems that occur as a culture that has been in place for decades that newly elected people can't solve in their time in office.
Now about the 2nd Amendment. The thing is that the NRA and conservatives have lied and misinterprited the 2nd (A) for decades. The constitution allows the citizen to bare arms, and read it carefully, because there is NO provision for a standing army, therefore the right to bare arms is predicated on being a member of a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"!!!!!!!! As far as the bailout goes I haven't got the patiences to give you the full economic and history lesson that you need. It's easy for people that don't know a damn thing about what they are talking about to say "let the banks fail"!!!!

[Xerographica]

In the real world there's no "balance" - 98% of the people choose cost.  Why do you think Walmart is the world's most successful retailer?  Quality?

It helps people free up money for more valuable uses...

Indeed, presuming that individuals need and will choose to buy, regardless of price, a given level of safety is a grossly simplistic and paternalistic view of human behavior.  Consumers are often willing to forgo safety, because of the cost, in deference to other things.  Some are even willing to forgo health and years of life in order to have other things now.  People smoke even though they know that smoking is harmful.  Poor people buy cheap, less-than-reliable electric appliances because by doing so, they can have more of other things. - Richard B. McKenzie, Bound to Be Free

National defense?  We don't count cost, or look at quality, when the nation is attacked.

An individual human life has no equivalent.  But that is not to say that nothing can be ranked with, let alone outrank, a human life.  The French government knows that each year several drivers lose their lives because of the beautiful roadside avenues of trees, yet they do not cut them down.  Even aesthetic pleasure is (rightly) allowed to outrank a certain number of human lives.  - James Griffin

[Shiranu]

No matter what an actual conservative feels, they still go along with the republicans which are manipulated and controlled by corrupt corporations, and extreme factions like the NRA. So my definition is spot on.

No matter what an actual liberal feels, they still go along with the democrats which are manipulated and controlled by corrupt corporations (TransCanada, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Lockheed Martin, and a wall of text more) and support Obama's extreme policies like the use of drones to kill American citizens without trial or a conservative healthcare initiative. So my definition of American liberals is spot on; they aren't liberals in practice, and often in thought either.

[The Whit]

Oh for cryin' out loud. The fact is that conservatives are historically and presently bad when it comes to the rule of law (Meaning the Constitution and civil rights), the environment, the laborer and or workers.

The fact is that your conservative straw man doesn't fit many people outside of the south, and they used to be Democrats.

Everything I stated about the differences in the two ideals and parties is absolutely TRUE.

No, it isn't.

And lets NOT replace "liberal" and "conservative" with UNRELATED names like christian and muslim. That is just stupid and illogical.

I was doing that to show the parallels between your argument against conservatives and the religious' ignorant, fear mongering views on atheists.  The stupid and illogical bits are yours.

BTW there are many different ideals but I STATED "the basic tenets."

What you basically showed is that you don't have the capacity to think.  I'm starting to think you're only an atheist because someone told you it was cool.

My definition IS correct concerning conservatives, and the reason is obvious. No matter what an actual conservative feels, they still go along with the republicans which are manipulated and controlled by corrupt corporations, and extreme factions like the NRA. So my definition is spot on.

LOL @ the NRA being an extreme faction.  I don't agree with everything the NRA has done but they're far from extreme.

BTW the southern Dems of the 50s/60s are all republicans now so you can't say that the DEMs are against civil rights.

You're right, I was saying they were bigoted assholes.  The fact that they're all republicans now just goes to show that the political party doesn't have much to do with anything.

Your reference to drone strikes is wrong because they are perfectly LEGAL, and the only reason Gitmo isn't shut down is because of REPUBLICANs in Congress are blocking it. "fast and furious" wasn't a party issue. You have to understand that people that work in various government jobs have those jobs longer than the people voted in to head the departments. There are thousands of problems that occur as a culture that has been in place for decades that newly elected people can't solve in their time in office.

Fast and Furious was being carried out until 2011--three years into his first term.  He didn't start it, but he didn't stop it either.  Just like the war in Afghanistan.  It took him how long to finally pull troops out of Iraq after campaigning that he would have everyone home in a few weeks?

Now about the 2nd Amendment. The thing is that the NRA and conservatives have lied and misinterprited the 2nd (A) for decades. The constitution allows the citizen to bare arms, and read it carefully, because there is NO provision for a standing army, therefore the right to bare arms is predicated on being a member of a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA"!!!!!!!!

I have a right to defend myself, period.

As far as the bailout goes I haven't got the patiences to give you the full economic and history lesson that you need. It's easy for people that don't know a damn thing about what they are talking about to say "let the banks fail"!!!!

I dare you to touch on the 2007 market crash and bail-outs.  I dare you.

[LikelyToBreak]

Being lazier than The Whit, I found another list of "Liberals vs. Conservatives"  Thought you guys might enjoy it, and see how the other side thinks about things.

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.

   If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
     

   If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.

   If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned
for everyone.
     

   If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to
defeat his enemy.

   A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look
good.
     

   If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.

   If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
     

   If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves
as independently successful.

   Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of
government protection.
     

   If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better
his situation.

   A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
     

   If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches
channels.

   Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
     

   If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.

   A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion
silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
     

   If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about
shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

   A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
     

   If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs
and is embarrassed.

   If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's
in labor and then sues.

   If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends
can have a good laugh.

   A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".

//http://iwonder2.synthasite.com/news-and-politics.php#nabble-td3915861
This is an accurate portrayal of "Conservatives and Liberals."