Search This Blog

Monday, November 06, 2006

It's the economy, stupid!!!

One compelling reason to vote Republican is for economic reasons. Democrats intend to repeal the tax cuts that have stimulated the economy so that:

unemployment is at an all-time low
federal tax revenues now being received are higher than expenditures
factories are humming, small businesses are thriving

I am a small businessman and not only did the Bush tax cuts help me survive, I have seen the spending in the business world grow in recent months. I sell network security solutions to businesses and organizations. This is to an extent a form of insurance. Companies skimp on my products, on hiring, on wages, and so on, when things get tight. Now that the economy is buzzing along despite high fuel costs, people are buying from me. On the other hand, if taxes go up then spending will go down and the entire economy will decline.

Trust me, if the Dems get in office and repeal the tax cuts we will all suffer. Cutting taxes for businesses means layoffs. CEOs cut anything and everything before they cut their own salaries, right or wrong. Human nature. Tax cuts to middle-income people like myself help us to buy more "stuff" and grow the economy. The Democrats want to take the money from us and spend it (badly) for us. Government is never as efficient as the private sector. The Republican plan to leave more money in the hands of the people has worked.

Republicans want to fight the terrorists overseas. Dems want to wait until they attack us over here again.

Republicans stand for traditional value systems. Democrats want to bring about gay marriage and make sex with minors acceptable.

Republicans want to make schools better by measuring performance and rewarding good schools, thus promoting better teaching and learning. The Dems are slaves to the teachers unions and fight for the status quo.

Republicans wish to make the killing of babies a rarity, done only to save the life of the mother. Democrats want to slaughter the innocent up to the very second before they would be naturally born. How long before euthanasia for age, for disability, for any reason, becomes part of their platforms????

Republicans want America to be a place where all people may worship as they choose. Democrats want to put an end to the worship of anything other than pleasure.

Am I going a bit overboard? In some instances, slightly. Some Democrats are more moderate than others and there are Republicans who slant liberal. But I am thematically correct.

~~~~~~~

A second death in the family and the short leave taken by my oldest son caused me to have priorities above that of a blog posting. I will be back to normal soon.

Two notes: Please pray for my godson, Cecil, who is a commander of a unit stationed in Baghdad. They hunt for IEDs and I don't think I need to tell you how dangerous that is. Cecil is a fine young man, officer in the military and city official in civilian life. He signs his emails: World Changer/IED Hunter!

I wish to thank and congratulate a poster to this site, xiangtao, who has enlisted in the military in a yet-unnamed capacity. Thanks for loving your country, my friend! May God keep you safe and may your heart be valiant and true!

24 comments:

highboy said...

Yeah, I just caught xiangatao's enlistment in the post down a few. Great stuff! God raised up another warrior.

xiangtao said...

I don't think god has much to do with it. I made a choice that is going to make it possible for me to take care of my new family and along with that, benefit myself in a number of other ways. After basic training, I will be studying at the Defense Language Institute to become a linguist for the airforce.

Radar, obviously we do not see anywhere close to eye to eye ideologically, however, I do appreciate your prayers, though I do not put much stock in them. To me, it is the thought that counts.

oriolebird38 said...

Democrats = sex with minors. That's quite a leap, don't you think?

I still would like to know what gay marriage has to do with pedophilia. If anyone can give me any evidence more substantial than "well it's a slippery slope and if gay people get married then gay people are gonna wanna marry kids and then they're gonna wanna rape kids and then everyone is gonna wanna be gay and rape kids and we're gonna change the name of the country from the united states of america to the united states of man-boy rape" well then i'd love to see it and maybe i'll change my mind.

oriolebird38 said...

Oh, and I don't think "traditional value systems" hold much weight on their own. Slavery and Jim Crow were traditional value systems at one point. So saying someone should vote Republican because they support traditional values isn't really a good reason. Now, if you wanna vote for Republicans because you disapprove of abortion, ok. The phrase traditional values means nothing.

creeper said...

"federal tax revenues now being received are higher than expenditures"

Could you be more specific? Are we looking at a federal budget surplus? Link? I asked you a similar question two or three months ago (more than once), but you chose not to answer.

"Republicans want to fight the terrorists overseas. Dems want to wait until they attack us over here again."

Global terrorist organizations can walk and chew gum at the same time. The 9/11 attackers weren't flown in from the Middle East, they spent years in the West before they attacked. Fighting insurgents in the Middle East isn't going to have much of an impact on sleeper cells in the West.

"Democrats want to [...] make sex with minors acceptable."

Say what?

"Democrats want to put an end to the worship of anything other than pleasure."

Complete nonsense.

"Am I going a bit overboard? In some instances, slightly."

In some instances, completely.

Try to maintain some perspective instead of demonizing people you disagree with. How about trying to understand the actual positions and arguing against them on their merits, instead of distorting them? You had a very difficult time with that in the evolution debate (if you object to that, perhaps you could name a position you didn't distort and still managed to present a good counter-argument), so perhaps you're genuinely not capable of understanding other people's positions at face value.

My condolences on the second death in your family - and all the best of luck to World Changer Cecil, hope he makes it home safe and sound.

highboy said...

"Democrats want to [...] make sex with minors acceptable."

Say what?"

Creeper, knock it off. You know liberals have been campaigning for making the legal age of consent extremely low, some even as low as 12.

"Democrats want to put an end to the worship of anything other than pleasure."

Complete nonsense."

How do you figure?

creeper said...

Highboy,

"Creeper, knock it off. You know liberals have been campaigning for making the legal age of consent extremely low, some even as low as 12."

We were talking about Democrats, not "liberals", and no, I didn't know that. Since you have been known to knowingly speak untruths before (even without correcting yourself once this is pointed out to you), please provide a link to show where Democrats campaigned to make the legal age of consent 12.

Regarding Radar's original comment, sex with minors is legally acceptable in many states, including the so-called "red states", usually providing that the sex partner is close in age. Even without that provision, sex with a minor is legally acceptable in any state where the age of consent is less than 18.

Incidentally, a legal age of consent of 12 years old is what was provided for in the English Common Law. Conservatives should dig this, no? It's a traditional value!

radar: "Democrats want to put an end to the worship of anything other than pleasure."

me: "Complete nonsense."

you: "How do you figure?"


In what way are Democrats trying to put an end to the worship of anything?

creeper said...

Oh, and... Radar?

"federal tax revenues now being received are higher than expenditures"

"Could you be more specific? Are we looking at a federal budget surplus? Link? I asked you a similar question two or three months ago (more than once), but you chose not to answer."

highboy said...

"Since you have been known to knowingly speak untruths before (even without correcting yourself once this is pointed out to you), please provide a link to show where Democrats campaigned to make the legal age of consent 12."

Yeah. You really are a creep. I posted my apology to you and those I discussed the issues with on my blog. Just because I didn't plaster it all over the web that I was wrong doesn't mean I didn't correct myself. Grow up.

"please provide a link to show where Democrats campaigned to make the legal age of consent 12."

They've been doing it since the 70s

As of right now, some legal ages of consent are as low as 14, red and blue states.

I don't know about Dems, but certainly liberals like the ACLU. As for the state I was talking about, it was 13. I was off by a year. Kansas.

creeper said...

"Yeah. You really are a creep. I posted my apology to you and those I discussed the issues with on my blog. Just because I didn't plaster it all over the web that I was wrong doesn't mean I didn't correct myself. Grow up."

Umm, no, you didn't. You didn't post an apology or a correction on your blog, either to me or anyone else you discussed the issue with. Not to this day. And as long as you choose to pile one clearly demonstrable lie on top of another, you're in no position to tell anyone else to "grow up".

Judging from your links, I take it then that Democrats actually did not campaign for an age of consent of 12, despite your earlier insinuations. There was no such campaign, and the allegation you provide instead of support for such a campaign (i.e. that Justice Ginsburg once advocated this) has also been debunked, including by Eugene Volokh himself.

"As of right now, some legal ages of consent are as low as 14, red and blue states."

So the whole "Republicans=so-called traditional values; Democrats=sex with minors" is just so much horse-puckey, thank you very much.

highboy said...

"Judging from your links, I take it then that Democrats actually did not campaign for an age of consent of 12, despite your earlier insinuations"

Seeing as how I didn't insinuate it was the Dems, your comment is, once again, irrelevant. Or did you miss this:

"I don't know about Dems, but certainly liberals like the ACLU."

Read the comments before responding to them. It will make you look smarter.

"and the allegation you provide instead of support for such a campaign (i.e. that Justice Ginsburg once advocated this) has also been debunked,"

Source?

"Umm, no, you didn't. You didn't post an apology or a correction on your blog, either to me or anyone else you discussed the issue with. Not to this day"

Now you're lying. My blog is there for all to read. Like I said: grow up.

"So the whole "Republicans=so-called traditional values; Democrats=sex with minors" is just so much horse-puckey, thank you very much"

You're right, its more like liberals=sex with minors.

creeper said...

Highboy,

""and the allegation you provide instead of support for such a campaign (i.e. that Justice Ginsburg once advocated this) has also been debunked,"

"Source?"


You'll find one such link at the very top of the link you yourself provided - Volokh updating his own story.

me: "Umm, no, you didn't. You didn't post an apology or a correction on your blog, either to me or anyone else you discussed the issue with. Not to this day"

you: "Now you're lying. My blog is there for all to read. Like I said: grow up."


Your blog is indeed there for all to read, which is why it is clear that I am not lying; I just checked the thread in question (again): no correction, no apology. So you just added another demonstrable lie on an already impressive pile. You can keep telling me to "grow up" all you want, but that won't make your obvious lies true, or me a liar.

"I didn't insinuate it was the Dems, your comment is, once again, irrelevant. Or did you miss this:

"I don't know about Dems, but certainly liberals like the ACLU."

Read the comments before responding to them. It will make you look smarter."


I did read your comments. There was this:

me: "please provide a link to show where Democrats campaigned to make the legal age of consent 12."

"They've been doing it since the 70s"


plus your earlier conflation:

"Democrats want to [...] make sex with minors acceptable."

Say what?"

"Creeper, knock it off. You know liberals have been campaigning for making the legal age of consent extremely low, some even as low as 12."


If you now want to distance yourself from Radar's claim that Democrats want to make sex with minors acceptable, that's fine by me.

"You're right, its more like liberals=sex with minors."

More like red states and blue states=sex with minors, as per your earlier observation.

highboy said...

"You're right, its more like liberals=sex with minors."

More like red states and blue states=sex with minors, as per your earlier observation"

Like I said: liberals. The political affiliation of the state is meaningless in that regard.

"Creeper, knock it off. You know liberals have been campaigning for making the legal age of consent extremely low, some even as low as 12

As for my "lies", keep making it up. But coming from a guy who repeatedly ignores comments before he/she/it responds to them, its harldy a credible allegation.

creeper said...

Notice the use of the word "conflation". In response to my questioning Radar about his nonsensical claim that Democrats wanting to make sex with minors acceptable, you reply that liberals have been campaigning bla bla. - acting as if it was obvious that Democrats and liberals are synonymous ("Knock it off. You know liberals have [etc.]").

That's conflation, and that's what I called it. It's not a lie, but an accurate description of your tactic.

"But coming from a guy who repeatedly ignores comments before he/she/it responds to them, its harldy a credible allegation."

Hm. That's something you just did two, maybe even three times in a row in the other thread.

"Like I said: liberals."

Link? You want to tell me all those pregnant teenagers and their boyfriends in the Bible belt are all liberals?

And no, I didn't need to make up any of your lies. You've made them in plain daylight and all I needed to do was point them out. If you think I unfairly accused you of a lie, please point out which one and show it isn't so. For example, you could point out where on your blog you think you apologized for knowingly speaking an untruth on your blog, or explain how you think you corrected yourself.

highboy said...

"Link? You want to tell me all those pregnant teenagers and their boyfriends in the Bible belt are all liberals?"

No, I'll just simply tell you they weren't minors, because they weren't.

"For example, you could point out where on your blog you think you apologized for knowingly speaking an untruth on your blog, or explain how you think you corrected yourself."

First of all, I never knowingly posted an untruth. Second, YOU are the one that said this:

"Since you have been known to knowingly speak untruths before (even without correcting yourself once this is pointed out to you)Notice the plural. This suggest there is some sort of pattern here, and not only do you not refer me to this pattern, you don't refer me to even one. Whereas I can produce multiple instances where I openly declared myself wrong on a position once it was pointed out to me.

Concerning whether marijuana is worse than beer:

Says creeper: "“Or any other such comparison based on scientific facts. Without even that as a starting point, Highboy, your claim that marijuana is that much worse than alcohol in moderate consumption is entirely baseless.

It is of your own free invention."

highboy responds: "Aha! Got me there! I’ll have to keep digging. But I’m beginning to lean toward the criminalization of alcohol."

says creeper: “That would be one way of dealing with the double standard, the existence of which it now appears you’re finally coming around to admitting.”

says highboy: "It wasn’t a double standard. I was just plain wrong."

Concerning the ACLU:

says highboy: "I was wrong though about the ACLU trying to have crosses removed from Arlington Cemetery. The man’s name is Mike Rivers who is trying this, and I thought he said he was an ACLU affiliate. He is actually part of the Utah chapter of the American Atheists. So disregard the previous accustation."

says creeper: "Thank you."

As you can see, I have sort of a track record for correcting myself, or acknowledging someone else's correction of any position I feel was wrong.

creeper said...

Highboy,

"No, I'll just simply tell you they weren't minors, because they weren't."

Could you please define what you understand by "minor" in this context?

As for the other argument, the example I had in mind was your fallacious assertion that a single hit of marijuana will kill millions of brain cells, which stands uncorrected in your blog post to this day, and which you have never been able to back up in any way, despite numerous requests to do so. The fact that you have not corrected this (a simple update is pretty standard netiquette in such instances - and hardly the same as "plastering it all over the web") constitutes knowingly spreading an untruth, on an ongoing basis.

Other instances: okay, we can quibble over "knowingly", but you sure have accused the ACLU of all kinds of things they've never done - so I'm willing to amend that to "ill-informedly" or "wrong-headedly", since the slightest bit of research outside of your apparently very heavily biased sources would have set you straight on the actual facts of those matters.

highboy said...

"As for the other argument, the example I had in mind was your fallacious assertion that a single hit of marijuana will kill millions of brain cells"

I actually thought I had that one covered. I'll fix it now.

"Could you please define what you understand by "minor" in this context?"

Someone below the legal age of adulthood obviously. Those pregnant teenagers in the Bible were old enough to marry, work for a living, etc.

creeper said...

"I actually thought I had that one covered."

I seem to recall you being asked to correct this and resisting the notion at the time, but I can't find the link. In any case, thank you for finally doing the right thing.

"Someone below the legal age of adulthood obviously."

And what age is that?

highboy said...

"And what age is that?"

Depends. Sometimes women were married as young as 13.

creeper said...

When you say married as young as 13, does that mean legally married as young as 13? Wouldn't 13 be considered under the legal age of adulthood?

highboy said...

"Wouldn't 13 be considered under the legal age of adulthood?"

Hebrew culture in Biblical times had different laws than we have today creeper. It was perfectly legal and appropriate for a girl at that age to marry.

creeper said...

"Hebrew culture in Biblical times had different laws than we have today creeper. It was perfectly legal and appropriate for a girl at that age to marry."

I couldn't make heads or tails of this at first, but then it occurred to me that a misunderstanding may have crept into this part of the conversation a few comments ago:

"You want to tell me all those pregnant teenagers and their boyfriends in the Bible belt are all liberals?"

Bible belt, not Bible. If this was a genuine misunderstanding, we can pick it up from there if you'd like.

highboy said...

"Bible belt, not Bible. If this was a genuine misunderstanding, we can pick it up from there if you'd like."

Seriously, I missed the "belt" part. That changes quite a bit.

What I mean when I say liberals=sex with minors (are we talking about the same thing now?) is not that everyone having sex with minors are liberals. ( I would just call them perverts, without dignifying it with liberal or conservative) but that it is part of the liberal agenda to see more decreases in age of consent, more enabling of minors to have sex, and the further condoning of adult/minor relationships. As I already pointed out in a post above it is already happening. Another element is liberal organizations (this will be where I accuse the ACLU) of defending the legalization of child porn, not to mention NAMBLA.

If I'm again talking about something totally off topic I apologize.

highboy said...

Apparently I can't read comments before responding to them either. A shame, it would make me look smarter.