Rush Limbaugh, the original American Idiot.

[darthtang aw]

Texas had the opportunity to receive millions in Federal benefits in Medicare payments for destitute children and their families, yet Rick Perry refused them.  If Conservatives cared, "they'd accept the benefits for the good of the citizenry.  Trust me, I deal with Conservatives every day, friends and clients, and they're some of the stingiest people I know.  Their mentality is "What's in it for me".  Your perception of "tax garnishment" is a little skewed.  Federal subsidies for the less fortunate in this country amounts to every taxpayer's taxes to go up maybe $100/year.  Half of those are written off and returned based on our current tax laws.  Conservatives make it sound as if they'll have to move under a bridge if we have to keep supporting these people.
Doesn't matter, statistical fact is conservatives donate more to charities than liberals. Statistical facts show, those asking for a higher tax on the rich, even though they are rich themselves, still use every tax shelter available to keep their own money. Just like your caman properties. You say Conservatives are greedy. Statistics show otherwise.....it also shows the hypocrisy of those rich liberals calling for higher taxes.

I've tried several variations of those "premium" cat foods, and my cats either got sick or turned their noses up at them.  Me thinks your morals and ethics would be a little less affected if more of your customers just bought the expensive stuff in the first place. Can you guarantee that these brands you do sell actually do as they say when it comes to producing them?  Have you visited their manufacturing facilities to verify their production processes and validated the ingredients they put in it?
http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/choosing-dog-food/premium-natural-gourmet-dog-food/
http://www.isohealthy.org/StopFeedingUsRubbish/API_Report.php
You call it "money over ethics" because your customers want the cheap stuff, when in reality, most pet owners could care less what's in the food they serve their animals.  So do you not eat veal because of the inhumane treatment to calves in order to get that cut of meat?  Do you sell dogs from puppy mills?

I will not have a dog food discussion wth you. Based off the links you posted it is clear you just ran a google search and trying to present yourself as more informed. That would be like me getting it the housing debate that you and quills had. That is not my field of expertise....Pet retail is clearly not yours.
Yes, I have toured Horizon's plant, Merricks latest plant in Texas, Fromm Family Foods in Wisconsin newest facility and several others you have never heard of as well. No, it is illegal to sell puppies out of a store front in Albuquerque...A bill I assisted in lobbying for since we have a Huge rescue population.
I never said "cheap" stuff was my issue. As I stated, and if you actually read, I said my issue was with a "Premium" company that has grown very popular. a 70$ bag of dog food.
As far as the photographer spat?
In September we told you the story of a New Mexico photography studio who refused to photograph the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple, claiming that doing so would be a violation of their religious beliefs.
[FLOAT=RIGHT]="Elanephotography" src="http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef019b00e11182970b-250wi" style="margin:0px 0px 5px 5px;width:250px;" title="Elanephotography">
[/FLOAT]The New Mexico Supreme Court originally ruled that Elane Photography was violating the anti-discrimination provisions of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, but Elaine Huguenin and her husband John Huguenin, the couple who owns Elane Photography, have filed a new petition with the argument that the original ruling "will interfere with the expressive activity of photojournalists in general, who engage in the same kind of expression."
Further, the couple claims that not being allowed to turn away a gay couple and having to pose, edit, and present a story through photographs of a homosexual couple that wished to pay for their services would be a form of compelled speech which would be in violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
Now it's not a matter of religious convictions, but one of free speech?  Riiight.  Sounds more like a couple of homophobes that just didn't want to have to take pictures of two homosexuals kissing one another, and tried using the religious beliefs act as an easy way out.  Ooops, that one didn't work, so let our lawyers find another creative way out.
Is it not both? It doesn't matter if they are homophobic or not (however I noticed you automatically labelled them with only having a bit of information about them).

 

[2quills]

Those photographers have it all wrong. I consider myself to be an equal opportunity predator. )*:

 

[mohawkninja]

Oh god... 2Quills...

 

[2quills]

Oh god... 2Quills...
Well as the saying goes..."nature always finds a way".
From a business stand point it is not wise to turn away green money from any person. Think of the people we could help with the taxes that will come from that sale.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/160#post_3536338
And you simply do not understand conservative/libertarians. It is not about how to take care of (fill in the blank) but whether taking care of other people must be at the whim and dictates of the federal government.
In some cases, that's the only alternative. Is it "morally right" to just ignore that sector of the population altogether and leave it to "survival of the fittest"? Conservatives take the premise that anyone and everyone has the opportunity to better themselves, which is inherently untrue. You have a sector of the population that by all accounts is simply too dumb or mentally incapable of making a basic standard living for themselves. So if they don't fit this cookie cutter lifestyle you think every American should have, we should simply kick them out of the country so you don't have to pull a few extra dollars out of your pocket? Hate to burst your bubble, but the Federal Govt. "takes care of you" on several levels - by making sure the food and drugs you take are safe, buy insuring you have an infrastructure in place where you can get from Point A to Point B without getting killed, by having a military to insure you borders are safe,.... So where do you draw the line where the Federal Govt. shouldn't take care of its citizens?

 

[aggiealum]

Doesn't matter, statistical fact is conservatives donate more to charities than liberals. Statistical facts show, those asking for a higher tax on the rich, even though they are rich themselves, still use every tax shelter available to keep their own money. Just like your caman properties. You say Conservatives are greedy. Statistics show otherwise.....it also shows the hypocrisy of those rich liberals calling for higher taxes.

I'd like to see these "statistical facts". That's not the case in my circles. Your second statement makes no sense. If they are "rich themselves", they are abiding by the same tax laws that these other "wealthy Conservatives" use. When I fill out my personal taxes, there's no different tax table for Liberals or Conservatives.

I glad you've done your research in your field of business. It's a shame other businesses aren't as thorough as you. However, you want to begrudge some major dog food company from making their profits by simply repackaging their same product into another brand, and selling it for a higher cost. I don't call that morally wrong, I call it doing whatever it takes to stay in business. Sorry, but that's not limited to dog food. Major food manufacturers do it to the majority of foods you buy everyday. So you don't buy General Mills cereal brands because they sell a box of corn flakes that you can buy the exact same flakes for a buck less in that generic brand that Walmart sells? You don't buy Mrs. Baird's bread because it's essentially repackaged as a store brand for 50 cents less? It's called marketing strategies. Re-branding is a tactic that's been used since I was born.


Technically it is, but that's not the point. They initially stated they refused their business due to their "religious convictions". Now all of a sudden it's violating their free speech. If their intention was to stand on their moral high ground by saying it was strictly religious reasons, why change their mindset from that premise, if not because they simply don't want to deal with homosexuals?

I based my assumptions on this statement -
"the couple claims that not being allowed to turn away a gay couple and having to pose, edit, and present a story through photographs of a homosexual couple". They obviously don't want to have to be subjected to seeing a homosexual couple in "romantic positions". It apparently disgusts them. You can label it whatever you want, but religion teaches us to love all people, regardless of how they look.

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/180#post_3536363
In some cases, that's the only alternative. Is it "morally right" to just ignore that sector of the population altogether and leave it to "survival of the fittest"? Conservatives take the premise that anyone and everyone has the opportunity to better themselves, which is inherently untrue. You have a sector of the population that by all accounts is simply too dumb or mentally incapable of making a basic standard living for themselves. So if they don't fit this cookie cutter lifestyle you think every American should have, we should simply kick them out of the country so you don't have to pull a few extra dollars out of your pocket? Hate to burst your bubble, but the Federal Govt. "takes care of you" on several levels - by making sure the food and drugs you take are safe, buy insuring you have an infrastructure in place where you can get from Point A to Point B without getting killed, by having a military to insure you borders are safe,.... So where do you draw the line where the Federal Govt. shouldn't take care of its citizens?
You have been talking to the wrong conservatives. I don't know anyone that believes no form of government subsidy should ever be given to anyone. I do know a lot of conservatives that don't believe subsidies should be always be given to everyone. Personally, I believe it's a states issue, not a federal issue. However, I will concede that many states have fallen down on their obligations, I will certainly give you that much.

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/180#post_3536365
You have been talking to the wrong conservatives. I don't know anyone that believes no form of government subsidy should ever be given to anyone. I do know a lot of conservatives that don't believe subsidies should be always be given to everyone. Personally, I believe it's a states issue, not a federal issue. However, I will concede that many states have fallen down on their obligations, I will certainly give you that much.
The federal government taxation comes from citizens of each state. The federal government then turns that money back around to the states. Most of the social services administered by state agencies comes from the federal government, including welfare, food stamps, mental health, etc. (Also things like highway renovations and building). The federal government has our money for this purpose and I don't see that ever changing. What I think should change is that states should have direct access (and not just congressional reps) to deciding how and where that money is distributed back to us. Governors and state representatives should have very direct say-so on that.

One thing that really bugs me is when governors grandstand and refuse federal funding for whatever. Guess what?? That money they are refusing does belong to the citizens of that state. So they are refusing money that belongs to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum

You have a sector of the population that by all accounts is simply too dumb or mentally incapable of making a basic standard living for themselves.
And here is the problem with liberal/progressives. They truly believe that there is a segment of the population who is incapable, inept, too dumb. Thus the necessity of productive segments of society to support them forever.

Conservatives believe that everyone has it in them to be self supporting and contributing members of society. Your statement is bigoted. And liberals in general are bigoted in this regard. Because of this, and the resulting political influences progressives have wielded over recent decades, we now have a large segment of the population who are dependent on others--which, unfortunately, in many instances, seems to be inherently generational.

 

[2quills]

So we're do you draw the line where the Federal Govt. shouldn't take care of its citizens?
When the system becomes over bloated with taking care of people that actually have opportunities to take care of themselves. It's easy to stand there and allow people to come flooding here, turn around and take more money from tax payers to help them if it suits your own agenda and then point fingers at those states being effected the most and say "look, they just don't want to help the helpless. I told you". It doesn't work that way.

 

[darthtang aw]

I'd like to see these "statistical facts".  That's not the case in my circles.  Your second statement makes no sense.  If they are "rich themselves", they are abiding by the same tax laws that these other "wealthy Conservatives" use.  When I fill out my personal taxes, there's no different tax table for Liberals or Conservatives.
I glad you've done your research in your field of business.  It's a shame other businesses aren't as thorough as you.  However, you want to begrudge some major dog food company from making their profits by simply repackaging their same product into another brand, and selling it for a higher cost.  I don't call that morally wrong, I call it doing whatever it takes to stay in business.  Sorry, but that's not limited to dog food.  Major food manufacturers do it to the majority of foods you buy everyday.  So you don't buy General Mills cereal brands because they sell a box of corn flakes that you can buy the exact same flakes for a buck less in that generic brand that Walmart sells?  You don't buy Mrs. Baird's bread because it's essentially repackaged as a store brand for 50 cents less?  It's called marketing strategies.  Re-branding is a tactic that's been used since I was born.
Technically it is, but that's not the point.  They initially stated they refused their business due to their "religious convictions".  Now all of a sudden it's violating their free speech.  If their intention was to stand on their moral high ground by saying it was strictly religious reasons, why change their mindset from that premise, if not because they simply don't want to deal with homosexuals?
I based my assumptions on this statement -
"the couple claims that not being allowed to turn away a gay couple and having to pose, edit, and present a story through photographs of a homosexual couple".  They obviously don't want to have to be subjected to seeing a homosexual couple in "romantic positions".  It apparently disgusts them.  You can label it whatever you want, but religion teaches us to love all people, regardless of how they look.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html
I know several democrats that are lying, cheating criminals......does this mean all of them are?
What are you talking about with the dog food? I never stated any of that. Like I said, stick to your industry of expertise....dabbling in mine shows a like of comprehension.
Had it been a Nudist colony that approached them to take pictures of a nude wedding, would they have the right to turn down the job?

 

[darthtang aw]

The federal government taxation comes from citizens of each state.  The federal government then turns that money back around to the states.  Most of the social services administered by state agencies comes from the federal government, including welfare, food stamps, mental health, etc.  (Also things like highway renovations and building).  The federal government has our money for this purpose and I don't see that ever changing.  What I think should change is that states should have direct access (and not just congressional reps) to deciding how and where that money is distributed back to us.  Governors and state representatives should have very direct say-so on that.
One thing that really bugs me is when governors grandstand and refuse federal funding for whatever.  Guess what??  That money they are refusing does belong to the citizens of that state.  So they are refusing money that belongs to us.
And here is the problem with liberal/progressives.  They truly believe that there is a segment of the population who is incapable, inept, too dumb.  Thus the necessity of productive segments of society to support them forever. 
Conservatives believe that everyone has it in them to be self supporting and contributing members of society.  Your statement is bigoted.  And liberals in general are bigoted in this regard.  Because of this, and the resulting political influences progressives have wielded over recent decades, we now have a large segment of the population who are dependent on others--which, unfortunately, in many instances, seems to be inherently generational.
:t^:

 

[2quills]

The federal government taxation comes from citizens of each state.  The federal government then turns that money back around to the states.  Most of the social services administered by state agencies comes from the federal government, including welfare, food stamps, mental health, etc.  (Also things like highway renovations and building).  The federal government has our money for this purpose and I don't see that ever changing.  What I think should change is that states should have direct access (and not just congressional reps) to deciding how and where that money is distributed back to us.  Governors and state representatives should have very direct say-so on that.
One thing that really bugs me is when governors grandstand and refuse federal funding for whatever.  Guess what??  That money they are refusing does belong to the citizens of that state.  So they are refusing money that belongs to us. Maybe they're just trying to set an example and that we really don't need it because those people here are capable of doing it themselves.
And here is the problem with liberal/progressives.  They truly believe that there is a segment of the population who is incapable, inept, too dumb.  Thus the necessity of productive segments of society to support them forever. 
Conservatives believe that everyone has it in them to be self supporting and contributing members of society.  Your statement is bigoted.  And liberals in general are bigoted in this regard.  Because of this, and the resulting political influences progressives have wielded over recent decades, we now have a large segment of the population who are dependent on others--which, unfortunately, in many instances, seems to be inherently generational.
That is the problem. The mentality that everyone is a victim. It's always going to be survival of he fittest out there when it comes to brains or braun. You can't get around that. There will always be haves and have nots no matter how hard you try to help.
Case in point: My wife and I went to a casino last weekend on the Kickapoo Indian Reservation. And it dawned on me while I was there seeing all of these people going about their day to day activities who are being virtually supported by government in almost every way. We give them access to food, shelter, private land an education opportunities. Yet very few of them ever seek to grow or move on to other things that help benefit others. Let's remember that the Natives were living in tipi´s when white men came here. So what need do they have to go out and contribute anything when they have their basic needs covered? We are many generations removed from the American Indian wars now.
How about Hispanic nationals seeking a better life for their families? I understand that the main reason why it's so bad over there is because of the drugs and the corruption associated with fueling the demand of Americans who chose to abuse drugs. I get it. We want to help these people. But throwing more and more money at a problem doesn't always fix it.
So let's end the war on drugs. Let's help people instead of criminalizing, victimizing and demonizing everyone. That way we can attack the root of the problem on both fronts and maybe things will start to get better. We haven't tried because of people's fear that things will just get worse. How do we know that if we haven't tried? War should be a last result not a first response.
There are a lot of things we could be doing, IMO to be helping people that we just aren't doing. And that falls on all sides. Every race has had their people enslaved or held slaves in the past. It's time to start putting people on an even keil. I've met many Hispanics and many of them are great people. Believe me when I tell you that there is no one more resourceful at surviving off of very little than the little guys. And they most certainly aren't all helpless.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/180#post_3536369
The federal government taxation comes from citizens of each state. The federal government then turns that money back around to the states. Most of the social services administered by state agencies comes from the federal government, including welfare, food stamps, mental health, etc. (Also things like highway renovations and building). The federal government has our money for this purpose and I don't see that ever changing. What I think should change is that states should have direct access (and not just congressional reps) to deciding how and where that money is distributed back to us. Governors and state representatives should have very direct say-so on that.

One thing that really bugs me is when governors grandstand and refuse federal funding for whatever. Guess what?? That money they are refusing does belong to the citizens of that state. So they are refusing money that belongs to us.

And here is the problem with liberal/progressives. They truly believe that there is a segment of the population who is incapable, inept, too dumb. Thus the necessity of productive segments of society to support them forever.

Conservatives believe that everyone has it in them to be self supporting and contributing members of society. Your statement is bigoted. And liberals in general are bigoted in this regard. Because of this, and the resulting political influences progressives have wielded over recent decades, we now have a large segment of the population who are dependent on others--which, unfortunately, in many instances, seems to be inherently generational.
So someone with an IQ of 80 can be a productive citizen and make a living for themselves to the point they can live without any assistance from anyone? What about the millions of elderly people in their 70's and 80's that are physically and also mentally incapable of providing for themselves? Their only option is to live in some decrepit nursing home, if they're fortunate to have some sort of Social Security. You base your assumptions on some lazy person that works the system to obtain welfare and food stamp assistance. That is a very small percentage of individuals in those programs. There's cheaters in every system. Conservatives seem to key just on this group and don't look at the overall picture.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/180#post_3536375
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/giving-back-_n_3781505.html
I know several democrats that are lying, cheating criminals......does this mean all of them are?
What are you talking about with the dog food? I never stated any of that. Like I said, stick to your industry of expertise....dabbling in mine shows a like of comprehension.
Had it been a Nudist colony that approached them to take pictures of a nude wedding, would they have the right to turn down the job?
The one statistic says it all. The largest charitable contributions are to religious organizations. No wonder Utah is at the top. The Mormon Church requires every patron to tithe at least 10% of their income to the church. Same goes for those heavily concentrated Catholic states. Then you have the bible thumpers in the South that are scared into giving their money to one of these crooked televangelist.

You're the one that brought up the dog food analogy, not me. You said you refuse to sell some cheap dog food due to some "moral principles", then made some claim that your customers only cared abut saving money instead of wanting quality. You then referenced some "premium" dog food that sells for $70 for whatever reason. I simply showed you why people choose to buy the cheap stuff, and it has absolutely nothing to do with moral principles. Go re-read your posts. You seem to keep forgetting what you're posting.

So if Democrats are as bad as Republicans, where do you get off saying they are hypocrites about paying their fair share of taxes? More circular logic.

Don't know. Is it against their religion to not see naked people they don't know? Go ask them and see what they say. I'd take a guess that if it were a heterosexual couple wanting the pictures, they'd have no problem with it. Then again, it could be construed as pornography, and that in itself is illegal in many states.

 

[darthtang aw]

So someone with an IQ of 80 can be a productive citizen and make a living for themselves to the point they can live without any assistance from anyone?  What about the millions of elderly people in their 70's and 80's that are physically and also mentally incapable of providing for themselves?  Their only option is to live in some decrepit nursing home, if they're fortunate to have some sort of Social Security.  You base your assumptions on some lazy person that works the system to obtain welfare and food stamp assistance.  That is a very small percentage of individuals in those programs.  There's cheaters in every system.  Conservatives seem to key just on this group and don't look at the overall picture.
Less than 2% of the country have the following mental disease or handicaps, learning disability; mental retardation; Alzheimer’s Disease, senility, or dementia; or other mental/emotional condition. Yet 14% are on food stamps.

 

[darthtang aw]

The one statistic says it all.  The largest charitable contributions are to religious organizations.  No wonder Utah is at the top.  The Mormon Church requires every patron to tithe at least 10% of their income to the church.  Same goes for those heavily concentrated Catholic states.  Then you have the bible thumpers in the South that are scared into giving their money to one of these crooked televangelist.
You're the one that brought up the dog food analogy, not me.  You said you refuse to sell some cheap dog food due to some "moral principles", then made some claim that your customers only cared abut saving money instead of wanting quality.  You then referenced some "premium" dog food that sells for $70 for whatever reason.  I simply showed you why people choose to buy the cheap stuff, and it has absolutely nothing to do with moral principles.  Go re-read your posts.  You seem to keep forgetting what you're posting.
So if Democrats are as bad as Republicans, where do you get off saying they are hypocrites about paying their fair share of taxes?  More circular logic.
Don't know.  Is it against their religion to not see naked people they don't know?  Go ask them and see what they say.  I'd take a guess that if it were a heterosexual couple wanting the pictures, they'd have no problem with it.  Then again, it could be construed as pornography, and that in itself is illegal in many states.
Charity is charity. I am sure some democrats go to church as well.
I never said cheap food...you need to go back and read. I mentioned a not carrying a premium food that costs 70 dollars a back. Because I disagree with their practices.....basically not compromising my morals for the dollar. up to speed now?
Once again, failed to give answer and deflected.
Darth (going to go punch myself in the face) Tang

 

[2quills]

Back in the day taking care of the elderly or a handicapped child fell into that particular families responsibility. Now we have a society filled with people bearing children that they can't afford and expect everyone else to do it for them.
People can knock on religion or southern white republicans all they want. The fact of the matter is that those people hold close to their traditional values. Sets of moralistic ideas that allow them to prosper through traditions that have been handed down over the years by people who have been there for people who are going through hard stuff. A blue print if you will for a successful life for those who chose to open their minds up to it. There is no great conspiracy. The only secret to making it in life is to not give up when life beats you down. Because it will beat you down.
Those who wish to break tide with their traditions generally find themselves mixed up in a land of confusion while trying to figure out who they are and where they are going.

 

[darthtang aw]

http://www.roanen.com/1/post/2012/03/what-can-we-do-about-welfare.html
This is by far the best article with a solid perspective on welfare...Even down to the ideas of how to correct things, other than the two typical ideas raising taxes or cutting programs. It is 27 parts I believe. So you will need time to sit and read it. But this gets to the crux of the matter and explains things very well.
Serious welfare reform as whole needs to be looked at in this fashion.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/180#post_3536390
Less than 2% of the country have the following mental disease or handicaps, learning disability; mental retardation; Alzheimer’s Disease, senility, or dementia; or other mental/emotional condition. Yet 14% are on food stamps.
And the other 12% includes individuals that lack the ability to acquire the education to obtain a job that pays more than minimum wage. The minimum wage in Texas is $7.25/hr.. That's less than $15,000/year. A single mother of two can barely pay her rent and the basic necessities, much less purchase the nutritional food she needs for herself and her children. It's a double-edged sword, she can't afford to go to college or vocational school on the wages she earns, and even if she gets assistance, she can't afford to provide childcare for her kids so she can go to school. This is just one of a myriad of scenarios for those who have to subsist on a wage that has never kept up with inflation.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396747/rush-limbaugh-the-original-american-idiot/180#post_3536391
Charity is charity. I am sure some democrats go to church as well.
I never said cheap food...you need to go back and read. I mentioned a not carrying a premium food that costs 70 dollars a back. Because I disagree with their practices.....basically not compromising my morals for the dollar. up to speed now?
Once again, failed to give answer and deflected.
Darth (going to go punch myself in the face) Tang
I don't consider a church a charity. Now let's go down the rabbit hole of how much these "churches" give back to the community instead of their personal pocketbooks. Sure Democrats go to church. Now Mr. Statistician, show me the percentages of Conservatives vs. Liberals that do. Conservatives are inherently more religious than Liberals. That I know for sure.

Yes you did say those things. I guess the next question is, how do you stay in business if you cherry pick what you sell to your customers? I'll give you creds for sticking to your morals about selling some pricey dog food, but if it were me, and it came to selling some overpriced food to people that want to buy it in order to keep my business profitable, I'd sell the food. Moral principles don't pay the bills or put food on the table.