Today a person that posts as Cowboy Corn posted this story. Since it kinda fits the time frame of our political climate, I decided to post. And incidentally, I am apolitical so you won't get a rise out of me by attacking either candidate. >>>>>John was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called 'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs. He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced.
This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. He sat on the porch And filled out an efficiency report by listening to the bells.
John's favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for cover.
To John's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one . John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair, and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize, but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise, as well. Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.
Vote carefully this year; the bells are not always audible.<<<<<<
In case Steve T is inclined to do a Snopes, I think it would be a waste of time! LOL Forreal
This message has been edited by Pianisimo on Oct 30, 2008 8:36 PM
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth.
"
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2 .0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.
"
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.
"
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree.
She played while I worked my tail off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party.
"
Often simple illustrations such as the above one can make obvious the fallacies of liberalism. Do liberals have similar illustrations that they use against conservative ideology?
I suppose every conservative understands that to over tax the elite is certainly an artificial way to transfer the wealth of a nation back to the under classes. Can Obama just go away?
Gross national product is produced by the lower and middle classes to the greatest degree and it easily gets transferred to the elites by greed and by the simple ability to do it. It's known as the American way. The parasites get far more than do the worker bees. Some of this transfer of wealth is then utilized to create jobs for the purpose of creating more gross national product and in the process of this the lower and middle classes have jobs. Once again the majority of the gross national product produced lands in the hands of the elite. That transfer of wealth is comfortably not spoken of by what we know as conservatives. Does anyone wonder why?
Who do we tell to go away on this one?
What process is it that causes the employer to live much higher than the employed, while the employed is actually the one who produces the gross national product in anyone's business? That's the real edge the liberals work from when they run for office. [Strong on labor etc]. I understand their edge. We need the checks and balances of the conservative and the liberal. Partisan bickering could go away altogether if we with good intent could all see this.
I see the Rebublicans as the husband and I see the Democrats as the wife.
Neither one needs to go away. We need both.
I am voting for McCain/Palin because of the high stakes in this election.
This message has been edited by doug-64 on Oct 31, 2008 2:30 PM
<<That transfer of wealth is comfortably not spoken of by what we know as conservatives.>> Doug, I don't feel uncomfortable talking about the transfer of wealth. With the exception of government I transfer my wealth voluntarily. I like rich people from this standpoint, they provide jobs for the rest of us and they show us what is achievable. There is a small percentage of rich folks who have it given to them. Most have worked hard for it and taken risks that the rest of us aren't willing to take. They also pay the lion's share of taxes in this country. What's not to like about them as long as they are playing by the rules?
I'm with you in the spirit of what you say, but that is not to say that we do not need the liberal party as much as they need us conservatives. Can you imagine where either party would take us left to themselves! Think about it. The conservatives would ultimately make a law that everyone must be conservative or even a Christian.
The liberals? Who knows what law we would ultimately have to abide by; no conservatives and possibly no Christians.
We desperately need each other until the full manifestation of Jesus occurs!
Doug, when it comes to politics I believe in conservatism. I believe that conservative principles work everywhere they are put in action. I also, along with other Reagan conservatives, believe that liberalism does not work and that their policies and sacraments are a disaster! Look at the large cities where liberal policies have flourished....they are a mess. Now why in the world would we want to mix failure with success? To believe that we need liberals to even out conservatives is to not believe in conservative ideology, not?
The Republican party is in deep deep trouble because of Republicans who get to Washington and start thinking that they need to somehow reach across the aisle and cave into Democrats. John McCain is extremely guilty of this and it may cost him the election yet. The Democrats aren't interested in moving towards the right. When they talk of bipartisanship they what they really mean is that they want Republicans to move to the left and vote with them.
I hope McCain wins and I will likely vote for him out of fear of what an Obama presidency will do to this country. But I will say this that if McCain loses, and if the Republicans lose more seats in Congress, they absolutely deserve to lose. They have abandoned their conservative base to a large degree and it is going to cost them precious votes next Tuesday.
Where do you get the idea that conservatives would even think of banning religions other than christianity if they had the chance? I have never heard of that.
Where do you get the idea that conservatives would even think of banning religions other than christianity if they had the chance? I have never heard of that.
RM, try to be a little bit open-minded. Good grief. Radical conservatism is just as dangerous as radical liberalism. Why is it that when conservatives diss the liberals, they always point at them in the most radical ways (using terms like Marxism, socialism, etc etc)? These are not ideals that are attractive to most "liberals". There are just as many dangerous conservative attributes that could be applied. Elitism, racism and morality nazi-ism come to mind.
Conservative policies haven't worked so well either. Look at our economy. And don't blame the democrats for this, the Republicans have been in power for 8 years. Sure, I suppose conservative policies are generally good, as long as everyone plays by the rules. Less government regulation sounds like a good idea, but if the banks act irresponsibly, then they need to be regulated.
Oh boy, you got me going now BrentD We call liberals Marxists and socialists because that is what they are...at least the liberal politicians. I'll allow that a lot of the liberal citizenry doesn't understand whats going on....they've just got their hand out for what gov. can give them. Obama himself said that he wants to spread the wealth around. That is a Marxist idea. You guys are socialists...you are constantly trying to grow socialist programs. You want to socialize health care. You guys are continually looking to government to supply more for the people. How can it be argued that that is not a socialist idea?
You say "Elitism, racism and morality nazi-ism come to mind" when speaking of conservatives. How? Elitism? I thought conservatives were a bunch of redneck hicks. Racism? It's not hard to see who has been playing the race card in this campaign and it's not Republicans. How are we being moral Nazis? Because we refuse to change the time honored definition of marriage? Bah
Our economy is in shambles but you wrongly blame conservatism for this I think. Look, Bush is not a conservative. I've said that for years. Fiscally speaking the only thing Bush did that was conservative was to cut taxes. That was good in and of itself and it was a boost to the economy. However, he did NOT enact conservatism when it came to spending. Bush even outspent the Clinton administration. I think most conservatives would give him some allowance for the increase in defense spending since that was a necessary for the safety of the country. I understand that would be a sore spot for libs....but then he went on to grow government in more ways than most of us understand. Bush basically let Ted Kennedy write his expensive education bill. He expanded Medicare and a host of other programs that we will never hear about. Instead of limiting government, he grew it! That was not a conservative ideal. This has all contributed to our ever growing debt. So the problem with our economy in my opinion is that we haven't let true conservatism have a chance to work. If true fiscal conservatism has not been employed in the last 20 years then how can you blame it for a result it never produced????
RM, I don't disagree with what you're saying in your last paragraph about the economy. Neither party has shown much responsibility. What you're suggesting though is more of an idealistic economy where government provides the necessities, and then taxes accordingly. I think this is the message of Ross Perot, Ron Paul, and other independents. Their ideas are good, but they seem to be in the serious minority because they can't get the backing of a major party. We seem to have a borrow and spend mentality in this country, and something will really have to hit the fan to turn that around.
However, I will stick with my assertions about conservatives being elitists, racist, and morality nazis. How 'bout this story? I mean, tell me that a lot of right-wing Repubs wouldn't secretly identify with this kind of stuff? http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsCEnrVzDQoU5tg63njLNy0UTDNAD9435AK80
You totally misunderstood my post concerning what conservatives would do about religions. Go read again. Be slow to quote unless you read carefully. It's short this time.
Doug said <<Can you imagine where either party would take us left to themselves! Think about it. The conservatives would ultimately make a law that everyone must be conservative or even a Christian.>>
This is the statement I was addressing. Where did I misunderstand you? To make a law such as you suggested above would be unconstitutional and undesirable.
BrentD, you actually think conservatives would identify in any way with those Neo-nazis? Shudder! Those guys are evil!
BrentD, you actually think conservatives would identify in any way with those Neo-nazis? Shudder! Those guys are evil!
Yes, I do think there are plenty of conservatives that would identify with these guys. In the same sense that radical liberalism leads to socialism, Marxism and communism, radical conservatism leads to white supremacy, KKK, and things like that. There is a certain ideology that can take root on either side, and when it becomes extreme, it becomes evil. Here's another example...people that become radicalized about the abortion issue end up becoming killers themselves. Look at Timothy McVey, I'm pretty sure he was a "conservative". Almost all anti-government people are "conservative" in their ideology.
It doesn't take radical liberalism to lead towards socialism unless you are calling Obama a radical. It is hard to not be a socialist and tell a hardworking American that as a President you intend to "spread the wealth around."
We conservatives despise abortion doctor killers and seek the death penalty for them. Democrats have no problem with Obama's association with former domestic terrorist William Ayers (now a professor at University of Illinois) who not that long ago said he wished they had done more. Interesting that you mention conservatives and KKK in the same sentence... CURRENT Democrat Sen. Byrd ---filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He opposed the nominations of the only Negro justices of the Supreme Court. And he fought valiantly against integrating the military when he wrote, ‘I vow never to fight with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.’--- taken from freerepublic.com
I'm out...you should be around here BrentD and you could go with me and my buddies to see Palin tomorrow at Canton.
I did not mention that conservatives would ban other religions; if left to themselves I said they would have us all to be conservatives or even Christians. That statement had no reference to banning other religions when I made it but I can see that it could have been taken out of the context I was in.
Indeed to ban another religion would be unconstitutional.
On the other hand without proper checks and balances men easily stray from the constitution. I believe both liberals and conservatives are subject to this.
Surely we do not think it is by some accident that liberals and conservatives have showed up in our political process. The U.K have this balancing act. Down-Under has this. Germany has this. France has this. Israel has this. Canada has this. On and on.
To make this Democtatic Republic of law work, absolutely requires both the liberals and conservatives countering, balancing, and checking each other. Without this we simply have a conservative dictatorship or a liberal dictatorship. Do we want a conservative dictorship? Some may indeed want that. It almost seems evident by the dogmatism of some.
Liberals and Conservatives counter back and forth much as a husband and a wife do many times. They balance each other out!
If Obama is voted in we will have something very close to a liberal dictorship, for the liberals will be the vast majority. This thing must balance itself back out soon, if that were to occur.
>>If Obama is voted in we will have something very close to a liberal dictorship, for the liberals will be the vast majority.<<
That may or may not be true, depending on the congressional election results, because without the support of congress, a president has much more difficulty imposing their agenda on the electorate.
However, even if the above were to occur, that in itself might be a balancing out of the Reagan/Bush/Shrub eras in which conservatives had (what many would argue to have been unduly) significant influence on the political stage.
The whole argument over who is best, is sort of dumb, because neither of them are advocating shutting off of the dollar hegemony, which is the cause direct or indirect suffering of millions in this world.
It isn't the President, that is the problem, it is the congress, and whoever has the congress has control.
The system was originally set up to not allow "bills of credit" but only to have gold and silver be money, and if congress had left that there, their hands would be so tied that the working man would still be the highest authority in the land.
A "little" guy could work his land or business and hide his little purse of real money in his backyard, or lend it out for rent, and the government would simply be constrained by it's inability to get their hands on the money by force or deception.
But since everything we do is forced through a debt based, promise orientated system of monetized faith, called the "dollar", well the government is simply printing them up, and spreading them around.
After this election, no matter who gets elected we are going to see the effects of diluted monetized faith, the likes of which no man has ever witnessed before! Few of us are ready, few of us have the means to ride out the tsunami of federal dollars that is heading back to our land, few of us are not going to suffer greatly for the greed and dishonor of the congress that has sold us down the river of legislated deception based on getting elected by promising the voter the "world" at the expense of the little guy.
For me to vote for the lesser of two evils, is to vote for evil.
Fred, if you don't mind me asking....who would you vote for Prez today if you were voting? Chuck Baldwin? I've been under the impression that during the primaries you vote with your heart and on election day you vote with your brain.
I don't trust McCain, but Obama is frightening. As of today the 3rd party ticket doesn't stand a chance. By voting anyone other than McCain you might as well be pulling the lever for Obama.
Got to see Gov. Sarah Palin today...she's great! I could get excited voting her in for Prez.
>>For me to vote for the lesser of two evils, is to vote for evil.<<
Fred, I have a small concern with you concerning your attitude toward voting.
Fred, first of all, as far as I know, there has never been a perfect human being on the face of the planet......ever. Given that assumed fact, no matter who was running for President, even the most upstanding individual you could possibly imagine, this person would have some kind of flaw. (evil in your words, so since I don’t believe in evil I’ll call it flaw). So, if you voted for this almost perfect individual, one who upheld all the ideals that you hold so dearly to, he/she would still have some amount of (“evil”) flaw and you would still be voting for, in your words, “the lesser of two evils”
Fred, please, I think it’s your duty, as citizen of this country, to exercise your right to vote. Please reconsider.
Thank you, Sirius.
This message has been edited by Sirius65 on Nov 2, 2008 5:08 PM This message has been edited by Sirius65 on Nov 2, 2008 5:05 PM
Hey Fred, I'm not going to razz you for not voting since Idaho is a red state But I would like to know who you could vote for given your political beliefs.
Caution: This forum may contain statements and comments that are offensive. If you are easily offended, please exit this forum now.
By using this forum you agree to be accountable and liable for your post's. All postings are the responsibility of the posting participant. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the management.
We call liberals Marxists and socialists because that is what they are...at least the liberal politicians. I'll allow that a lot of the liberal citizenry doesn't understand whats going on....they've just got their hand out for what gov. can give them. Obama himself said that he wants to spread the wealth around. That is a Marxist idea. You guys are socialists...you are constantly trying to grow socialist programs. You want to socialize health care. You guys are continually looking to government to supply more for the people. How can it be argued that that is not a socialist idea? 
