- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
3 edits
@earl-of-trumps saidC'mon Earl,
@jimm619 says -
"'A free society does not burn books, "
------------------------------
Disagree. People in a free society do not burn *other* people's books but are free to burn their own.
"nor is it afraid of new ideas.'"
Oh....? I can think of several in my lifetime, starting out with nuclear bombs strapped to ICBM's.
J ...[text shortened]... your fellow, 'Q-Anon' followers.
-----------------------------
<smile> sure Jimm. Have a nice day
What 'organized book burning have you noticed recently?
Most likely, per pollution laws, can't burn books at all.
Just the same, noticed any book burning?
You know, for our purposes, banning a book,(as per my links) or burning a book are synonymous and, regardless the 'limited' amount of governing, surely you must agree, the prominent force behind book banning is, if you look at history, THE GOVERNMENT and please don't extrapolate 'a new idea' with a nuclear weapon.
So Earl, back to my question.
Have you personally, witnessed any public (or private) book burnings?
https://www.pewtrusts.org/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/01/13/librarians-decry-gop-moves-to-ban-books-in-schools
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/heres-the-long-list-of-topics-republicans-want-banned-from-the-classroom/2022/02
https://www.newsweek.com/arizona-gop-wants-books-like-canterbury-tales-banned-schools-1688844
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@mott-the-hoople saidHey man, being a cross dresser
its sad that someone needs to isnt it?
is nothing to be ashamed of....
Your mother still loves you.....right?
@averagejoe1 saidYou're right. There are different viewpoints. But you cannot look at those factual data and conclude that republicans are the party of limited government. Republicans grow government twice as fast, historically, than Democrats.
Making America Great. There are diff viewpoints, granted. I think he should have spent a lot of money on military, and of course you do not. So from your point of view he overspent. From my point of view he did not. That is one example, but there you have it.
I also like the way the average family had an increase in their income of about $6000. That could not have h ...[text shortened]... the way he writes if we were all sitting in a pub. No response. Do you think he wears a black robe?
So my only point in posting the data for you is so you know that an R vote is a vote for a larger government than a D vote.
Oh no not again. These thin skinned conservatives don't like the modern culture of younger American so they're trying to legislate it out of existence. Yeesh. I know your voters love it but real conservatives see that this isn't how small government works.
https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/breaking-florida-senate-passes-stop-woke-act-bill-heads-to-desantis-desk-for-signature-or-veto
@wildgrass saidI'll study on it. I think in the end that Libs need government big time, Repubs want to be left the hell alone, so there you have it. An example would be that I (a Repub) would get rid of most entitlement programs. liberals create them. Now tell me, which of us needs more govt to pull that off?
You're right. There are different viewpoints. But you cannot look at those factual data and conclude that republicans are the party of limited government. Republicans grow government twice as fast, historically, than Democrats.
So my only point in posting the data for you is so you know that an R vote is a vote for a larger government than a D vote.
@averagejoe1 saidThen Republicans should certainly campaign in their election races to end "entitlement programs" like Social Security, Medicare and the rest.
I'll study on it. I think in the end that Libs need government big time, Repubs want to be left the hell alone, so there you have it. An example would be that I (a Repub) would get rid of most entitlement programs. liberals create them. Now tell me, which of us needs more govt to pull that off?
@no1marauder saidDon't get you there. Medicare and SS are good for out country, fill in the gaps, don't you know.
Then Republicans should certainly campaign in their election races to end "entitlement programs" like Social Security, Medicare and the rest.
So, bad examples from you, but Repubs would DEF ask Feds to leave entitlements to the states. But, contrary to some posts today, Libs think republicans want more government. We actually want states to run their problems, not feds. So how say you....should Feds run entitlements, waste, etc....should there be a Federal Department of Education,, or should states dictate their education curriculums and practices? Should there be (like it is now) a fed AND a state dept of education??? That is wasteful, Marauder. I say dump the Fed one. Which one would you dump?And why won't you answer this question?
2 edits
@averagejoe1 saidIt's not a trivial distinction, Joe. I get your point. Republicans tend to not support the traditional entitlement programs (welfare and food stamps etc.) as much as the Democrats do. So, if that's the case, then why and how are they growing government at twice the rate of the Democrats? It's a huge number.
I'll study on it. I think in the end that Libs need government big time, Repubs want to be left the hell alone, so there you have it. An example would be that I (a Repub) would get rid of most entitlement programs. liberals create them. Now tell me, which of us needs more govt to pull that off?
Those traditional entitlements like social security, medicare, etc. are never cut by any party. But the reason the Republicans spend so much more than Democrats is they support increases in federal spending of other entitlements. Call them the "entitlements no one needs".
US net farm income this year will be more than $119.6 billion. 39% of that income is direct cash payments from the US government. When Trump was in office he increased federal cash payments to farmers - a number which had been constant for decades - by a lot. Tens of billions. Even if you had the political will in the Republican party to slash welfare payments, there's no way it would offset the dramatic increases to spending elsewhere in the budget.
I could understand this if farmers were struggling. They'd need to keep their farms afloat in tough times. But $119 billion in profits suggests they're doing very very well for themselves.
There's many other examples. I know I won't convince you to vote another way - you're too entrenched in the Republican stink - but please please hold your leaders accountable. Don't let them get away with telling you their for limited government while they give your billions away to people who are already rich.
If you're calling Medicare an entitlement, then the farm bill is an entitlement. All of it.
@averagejoe1 saidYou apparently don't know that most Federal expenditures on "entitlements" goes to Social Security and Medicare.
Don't get you there. Medicare and SS are good for out country, fill in the gaps, don't you know.
So, bad examples from you, but Repubs would DEF ask Feds to leave entitlements to the states. But, contrary to some posts today, Libs think republicans want more government. We actually want states to run their problems, not feds. So how say you....should Feds run en ...[text shortened]... Marauder. I say dump the Fed one. Which one would you dump?And why won't you answer this question?
You're complaining that I won't answer a question that you hadn't even asked? LMAO!
If States had done an adequate job funding education, we wouldn't need a Fed Dept of Ed. But they didn't, so one is desirable if not absolutely necessary.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidI asked you.....Which one would you dump? The Federal Dept of Education, or a State Dept of Education. Having both is a waste, and repubs HATE waste, like $50M to the Kennedy center, and Millions to unqualified losers in welfare. That was my question, and libs tend to have more comfort with the big FED Nanny taking care of them. I hate it, I know.
You apparently don't know that most Federal expenditures on "entitlements" goes to Social Security and Medicare.
You're complaining that I won't answer a question that you hadn't even asked? LMAO!
If States had done an adequate job funding education, we wouldn't need a Fed Dept of Ed. But they didn't, so one is desirable if not absolutely necessary.
I do know the broad interpretation of entitlements, I am of course speaking of giving away free stuff. YOU, apparently, know that we pay into SS, and we pay into Medicare. Not so with the loser programs. I know, I hate it, too.
Your last para leaves a lot hanging, but let us let it hang, you fellers love to go Into the weeds. Like, you say that, but you don't mention how much money the state of Georgia in the HOPE fund has, through the state lottery, financed education big time. An adequate job, Marauder. Oh, well.....
@averagejoe1 saidNeither.
I asked you.....Which one would you dump? The Federal Dept of Education, or a State Dept of Education. Having both is a waste, and repubs HATE waste, like $50M to the Kennedy center, and Millions to unqualified losers in welfare. That was my question, and libs tend to have more comfort with the big FED Nanny taking care of them. I hate it, I know.
I do know the b ...[text shortened]... as, through the state lottery, financed education big time. An adequate job, Marauder. Oh, well.....
We pay taxes for many things we don't personally benefit from and/or believe less money should be spent on them. It's laughable you complain about "waste" in government spending but pretty much supported virtually unlimited military spending in another thread! To my mind, most spending for "entitlements" is useful for the economy unlike the waste of excess military spending which serves little purpose.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidWe, and many, simply disagree on military expenditures. The mad dog in today's news has a nuclear button. Jesus. Why don't take him some flowers.
Neither.
We pay taxes for many things we don't personally benefit from and/or believe less money should be spent on them. It's laughable you complain about "waste" in government spending but pretty much supported virtually unlimited military spending in another thread! To my mind, most spending for "entitlements" is useful for the economy unlike the waste of excess military spending which serves little purpose.
Waste? A dept of education in DC, and one in Nebraska and 49 other states? The one in DC, runs at about $90M annually. And why does Nebraska need DC to b involved in teaching their children? You sound like a liberal. One big happy family. Do you think Idaho people would be as soft on crime as all the lib states?
1 edit
@jimm619 says -
"So Earl, back to my question.
Have you personally, witnessed any public (or private) book burnings?"
---------------------------
Well, let me see... 🙄
Ha ha, Yes! It was July, 1978, Comiskey Park, Chicago IL. Disco Demolition Night! Awesome
"... a crate filled with disco records was blown up on the field between games of the twi-night doubleheader between the Chicago White Sox and the Detroit Tigers." - It caused a big riot. 😍
@averagejoe1 saidThe Department of Education isn't involved in "teaching children" by and by:
We, and many, simply disagree on military expenditures. The mad dog in today's news has a nuclear button. Jesus. Why don't take him some flowers.
Waste? A dept of education in DC, and one in Nebraska and 49 other states? The one in DC, runs at about $90M annually. And why does Nebraska need DC to b involved in teaching their children? You sound like a liberal. One big happy family. Do you think Idaho people would be as soft on crime as all the lib states?
"The federal government provides 7.0% of funding for public K-12 education."
https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics
A lot of Federal Funding is grants and loans for college students, which have significantly increased the percentage of high school students who get a college education.
@averagejoe1 said$90 million how quaint. If you took that number and multiplied it by 500 you'd get close to the number of dollars handed out by Republicans to millionaire farmers who were already making a profit. No wonder GOP led government grows faster than Democrat led government.
We, and many, simply disagree on military expenditures. The mad dog in today's news has a nuclear button. Jesus. Why don't take him some flowers.
Waste? A dept of education in DC, and one in Nebraska and 49 other states? The one in DC, runs at about $90M annually. And why does Nebraska need DC to b involved in teaching their children? You sound like a liberal. One big happy family. Do you think Idaho people would be as soft on crime as all the lib states?