Inspiring

[rtwingextremist]

So I had my shindig for the President tonight. It was beautiful, quite inspiring. If you all thought I was motivated before, you don't even know the half of it. So stay out of my way leftists because if you don't, you'll either be humiliated or converted.

Comments

yes!

[backthatthingip]

I'm with you brother. I just signed up for the volunteer dealio on the Bush site.

Re: yes!

[rtwingextremist]

That's what i'm talking about

I missed you too

[backthatthingip]

i didn't get out of class until 11:30 p.m. But let's plan more Bush propagandizing events for this summer.

[rtwingextremist]

oh, there will definitely be more Bush propagandizing events this summer

oh yeah!!!``

[wahoostarr]

Man, it was so great...

oh wait, i didn't go. :(

[rtwingextremist]

there'll be at least one more....(it's essentially just for you and Bill); so don't worry

[the_tipping_pt]

I won't be converted. Or humiliated for that matter. Of course, I'm not a leftist. Or a rightist. I'm more a sort of realist. You know the kind -- the ones who like to point out to the liberals that getting everything for free really doesn't give a poor person diginity, then who turn around and point out to the conservatives that there are people who need help and that ignoring them isn't going to end the problem. I keep hearing that people don't want to spend their "hard-earned" wages on taxes to pay lazy people not to work. What nobody seems to be saying is that, like it or not, you're going to have spend hard-earned wages on societal problems if you want a decent country. It's like basic car maintenance. I'll agree like crazy that a radiator *should* never blow and that belts *should* never wear out and brake pads *should* last forever, like I'll agree that people *should* take care of their own basic needs. Thje reality is that is just deosn't work that way.

good point

[backthatthingip]

You make a good point. You are overall wrong, but I can see what you mean. Conservatives can learn a lot from liberals in terms of caring for the poor and workless in society. The task of caring for those people, however, should rely heavily on charities, charity (individual), and on state programs. The federal government, though well intentioned (this statement is debatable in itself), has overstepped its constitutional bounds in forming a national welfare system. Is there need for welfare? Yes, there are truly needy people in our own backyards. I would further say that I do not think all government (state or federal) sponsored welfare should be dumped simply because corruption is widespread. Yet, there is a welfare corruption problem and there is a culture that feeds off of welfare and will never work because of the system that is in place. So, what must be done? We are too far past the point where we can take this out of the federal government's hands. Therefore, we must seek to find a solution that will both care for

[rtwingextremist]

it's not true that we absolutely have to spend hard-earned wages on societal ills in order to have a decent country. as has been pointed out, it should be left to charity and philanthropy, not Big Brother. Government is infamously inefficient in this area. if welfare were to be handed over to the private sector, then those that are truly needy would receive care and aid, while those that are capable of working yet simply do not would realize the gravity of the situation and go out and find any work possible.

Amazing

[backthatthingip]

You said what I said and more with clarity and in half the words! It sure would be nice to get welfare out of the Fed's hands. I just don't know if I see that coming... but I guess we must aim high. Most definitely we need to get able bodied people to work. It does nothing for the economy for able bodied people to sit around and receive welfare. I know we are coming out of a recession, but work is work, people have to find it where it is and go there.

I need advice -

[anonymous]

Hi, You know me, but I so choose to not disclose my identity.

I am a defined conservative and voted in these past May 4th Elections for City Council, School Board, and Mayoral. However this time, for the Mayoral race, I voted incumbent, she being Democrat. I voted on the basis that she has been mayor of this city for several years now, and I, being a proud 20+ year resident of the city of virginia beach, have seen significant improvement here, and it doesn't look like it's going to slow down at all. What do you think?

-Conservative in Quandary

Re: I need advice -

[backthatthingip]

I know that the host of this page will disagree with me, but I think that your vote was acceptable. Allow me to explain. At the mayoral level, there are only so many things that can be done that would fall into a partisan category. At least for me, the primary issues such as welfare, abortion, national defense; these things cannot be governed by a mayor. So, on the majors, I don't think that voting for a democrat is some huge sin. With that being said, there are significant reasons not to vote democrat at the mayoral level. The primary reason is fiscal management. A democrat is going to have a different way of looking at taxation and spending than will a republican. Another reason the differentiate is the size of government. A liberal or democrat likes large government whereas republicans tend to favor smaller government (at least it used to be that way.) These are just a few reasons why the choice is important and party affiliation, although not overtly publicized, should be taken into account at the mayoral level. However

Re: I need advice -

[anonymous]

Wow woefully under-educated amateur politician, you really know what you're talking about. I bet you're cute. Hit me up if you wanna talk.

555-3955

*kisses and more kisses* LOL

[rtwingextremist]

oh, take it from me...bill IS cute.