[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Satans Mark/Cashless Title: John Boehner And The Republicans Didn't Threaten Bush Over Abortion John Boehner is threatening to shut the government down over abortion. But these same Republicans didn't threaten George Bush with government shutdown over the same issue, even though they controlled congress for much of Bush's reign. Did people really think they were getting this when they voted Republican during the last election? I have been no fan of the Democrats in the past, holding them responsible for the housing crisis along with the Republicans. Both parties were beholden to the international banker cartel. Both parties allowed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Both parties looked the other way while the easy money machine artificially drove up prices on real estate and ruined many with the ensuing crash. But with regard to the government shutdown over abortion, it seems to show the height of irresponsibility on the part of the Republicans. The Democrats exceeded the dollar amount of cuts required by the Republicans. They got what they wanted. The Democrats compromised. Even Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, a Republican, says social bills should be separate from spending bills. I think Wall Street types must be uncomfortable with social Republicans who are, frankly, an embarrassment to the conservative economic movement more times than not. They want to pry into private lives, and Wall Street would not want that! What happens in New York, after all, stays in New York! And I am not a defender of the conservative economic movement because it seeks bigger cuts than we are talking about now. Congressman Ryan wants cuts that could actually implode the GDP of the nation, causing a decline of revenues, as we see happening in Ireland. If you cut too much, you then need to make up for it by more ponzi bubbles. The conservative economic movement didn't want more bubbles and more too big to fail situations I thought. Or am I just being naive? Certainly, Spencer Bachus of Alabama (who spoke out against the Volcker Rule) and Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin want more ponzi schemes, as they are totally against the Volcker Rule that sought to bring sanity to the banking system. Sensenbrenner and Michelle Bachmann, among others, are cosponsors of HR1081 to delay Dodd Frank, which contains the Volcker rule. So, perhaps cutting food to seniors is what Republicans want in exchange for the opportunity to attack mainstreet with more immoral lending schemes? I think so. Talk about morality! So, before we go too far in praising the Republicans as the party of morality, we can see that they want ponzi lending, immoral recklessness, gambling with depositors money, more wars for resources, desire for your social security money in order to generate needless fees, etc. They even want to bet on your death with insurance policies! And as far as abortion is concerned, I could live with either policy. I don't particularly like my tax money going to fund abortion. But unlike drones, the money doesn't actually kill. And that money may even prevent more abortions with other programs than cutting it would do. And drones kill irresponsibly, unlike money, and I would much rather see those banned. But I also believe personal religion is a matter that should be left to the individual, without government intrusion. We can go round and round on these issues of abortion and definitions of death and the like until the cows come home, but we shouldn't threaten the government shutdown because of an issue that is at the heart of separation of church and state versus people who want to tell us how to live our lives. I think we have a moral responsibility to tell government how we feel. But government does not have the moral responsibility to tell us how to live our lives. That gets dangerous, as the history of inquisitions, crusades and the like show. Didn't Christ say his kingdom was not of this world? I think people who equate religion with government are making a big mistake. But I guess Gingrich had a hero in the Puritan Oliver Cromwell. Turns out Cromwell murdered the King of England to replace one state religion with another. Do we want to go back to those days? I don't think so. Makes you wonder about Gingrich doesn't it? Perhaps Boehner, who never saw a tanning bed that he didn't like, cannot see the forest for the trees, and has a misplaced populism at work here. If he really wants to do something moral for the country, he could restrain credit attacks on mainstreet, because, as we all know, money is the root of evil. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/john-boehner-and-the-republicans-didnt-threaten-bush-over-abortion-2011-4#ixzz1JGDQZ9aH
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
Mike, I wouldn't take any investment advice from Gary. He is more than late; he didn't read the memo. Nobody has to worry about abortion except Planned Parenthood who would be out of business if the damn Vatican would allow birth control.
Why do we need "social bills"? How did we as a nation survive before we ever had them?
We had slavery, children working 'round the clock, women couldn't vote and, as it pertains to you, gays couldn't marry. So, you tell me...
America...My Kind Of Place...
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|