You make a good apologist Blagg.
However you let Herr Womack's major hypocrisy go unchallenged:
.
"The congressman had pointed out that he had joined the military to secure his college education. He also told the crowd that he didn’t think the country owes everyone a college education, the latter being one of few remarks he made that drew applause."
.
In other words the government paid for Womack's education but it should pay for others education.
.
Gimme an H.

H is for hate.
H is for hypocrisy.

Posted by: cdawg

January 8, 2012 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

cdawg,

Military tuition assistance is part of a contract between an employee and employer. Nothing is given. This country does not owe anyone a college education. Albeit, I do think the pell grants in question are good things.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 8, 2012 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bragg: "He’ll show up and hear other opinions.">>

And yell at them when their opinion is wrong?

Bragg: "But how he represents the district won’t change.">>

Doesn't that effectively take out the "listening" part of the "listening tour?" What's the point?

RE: "The congressman had pointed out that he had joined the military to secure his college education."

This ducks her question, which was:

"...why he voted to cut Pell Grants for college students like her but favored subsidies to big oil companies."

He would need to duck that question because there is no good answer to it. That is, other than that Womack, like his conservative brethren, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the big money interests getting shovel loads of direct government subsidy. Worse, when it comes time to cut, he stands up for *them* and asks the working poor to take it in the shorts.

Example:
"President Obama’s 2011 budget proposes to eliminate nine different tax expenditures that primarily benefit oil and gas companies. Cutting these special tax deductions, preferences, and credits would save the government about $45 billion over the next 10 years.
CAP has previously argued for eliminating tax expenditures for multibillion-dollar oil companies such as BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron that would be [vastly] profitable even without government subsidies. Here are the tax expenditures that the Obama administration has targeted for elimination:">>

See the nine specific examples here: http://www.americanprogress.org/issue...

So we know why Womack got mad at the question. This lady called him on his support for funneling huge and entirely unnecessary government subsidies to big oil, while he wants to cut Pell grants to the working poor trying to advance their skill set.

Note: "The Real Cause of Pell Grant Cost Increases"

"...60 percent of the growth in the cost of the Pell Grant program [since '08] had nothing to do with enrollment growth. Instead, the majority of the increasing cost can be attributed to legislative changes to the program."
http://higheredwatch.newamerica.net/b...

Thanks congressman Womack! We know who you work for.

Bonus: "As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies"
"...oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/bus...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 8, 2012 at 8:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT,

“Worse, when it comes time to cut, he stands up for *them* and asks the working poor to take it in the shorts."

A foreign idiom mixed with class welfare? What a surprise; not really. What a crock of crap.

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 11, 2012 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT,

No, I meant "class welfare" because I don't believe in specific targeted groups of private citizens receiving government funds JUST because they are in said group. That goes for the financially wealthy and the financially unwealthy. Liberals are always talking about fairness and equality; so think of it a matter of those two things. Scholarships are numerous in our great meritocracy. I also never said anything about the GOP or their talking points. That was your assumption. Somebody isn’t always out to get the financially less equipped. Additionally, I'm not huge fan of oil subsidies , but…

“some of us, believe it or not, aren’t completely grossed out by the notion of profit — even a lot of profit. Strong earnings are good news not only for those dastardly Oil Barons, but for the millions of people who depend on the industry for their employment, as well as the vast number of Americans who rely on investments in oil to bolster their pension funds, retirement funds, college funds, and so on.

An industry as useful, wide-ranging, and essential to the economy as fossil fuel is inevitably going to entail talk of “billions.” Oil corporations are indeed “highly” profitable, averaging around a 7–8 percent profit margin the past few years — but they’re less profitable than government, which hauls in a higher margin on, for example, gas taxes.”
--David Harsanyi
http://www.nationalreview.com/article...

“Why vote to cut Pell Grants for college students like this mother of two, but favor subsidies to big oil companies?” – FFT

College students don’t provide “million of people…employment…pension funds, retirement funds, college funds, and so on”.

Here is a link to a good balanced look at “class warfare” and “class welfare”.

http://newmexicanvoice.com/2011/09/19...

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 12, 2012 at 1:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT: ""Note: "The Real Cause of Pell Grant Cost Increases"

"...60 percent of the growth in the cost of the Pell Grant program [since '08] had nothing to do with enrollment growth. Instead, the majority of the increasing cost can be attributed to legislative changes to the program."
http://higheredwatch.newamerica.net/b...

Thanks congressman Womack! We know who you work for.""

Right - a 60% increase in 2 years based on congressional laws that increased grant amounts. So what is the beef? A 60% increase in two years is not enough?

I worked while i went to school, borrowed some money, paid it back. No grants. No help from my family. Worked fine back then. Why do 'underprivileged' or "low income' students rank differently than anyone else? When they get their education, will they not have the same ability to pay their loans as a student who is not 'underprivileged' or 'low income'?? Are they not going to make the same money when they graduate as their classmate whose family income made them ineligible for a pell grant? Are low-income college students not already eligible for a plethora of scholarships and grants?

Posted by: commonsense96

January 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

TNK: "Somebody isn’t always out to get the financially less equipped.">>

Womack is, as I have shown above. He has supported increasing the cost for schooling for the working poor, while at the same time supporting shoveling tax money directly to big oil.

TNK: [quote]
“some of us, believe it or not, aren’t completely grossed out by the notion of profit">>

What a load. Big oil can make a nice profit and employ people just fine without direct government subsidies. Your quote is wholly unconvincing.

TNK: [quote] "Oil corporations are indeed “highly” profitable,... but they’re less profitable than government,">>

The government doesn't make a profit. The person you are quoting reveals they are a buffoon.

TNK: "which hauls in a higher margin on, for example, gas taxes.” --David Harsanyi">>

Gas taxes aren't in any way a "profit" and they are used to build and maintain roads. They are too low by 1/2 to even do that. If you are going to read junk like the National Review, you should develop better discernment. Most of it is like this, rubbish.

And then you tackle my question:
“Why vote to cut Pell Grants for college students like this mother of two, but favor subsidies to big oil companies?” – FFT

TNK: "College students don’t provide “million of people…employment…pension funds, retirement funds, college funds,”.>>

Excellent attempt. So your answer is, we need to funnel precious government funds to Big Oil, because they employ people and their profits go toward market funds. Sorry, your answer makes no sense. Big Oil can make a profit quite nicely and employ people as needed without directly sucking on the government teat via corporate, socialized, welfare.

This differs entirely from the obvious societal benefit of subsidies to the working poor so they can go to school and improve their station.

D.
------------
"U.S. House Democrats are seeking to end tax breaks for oil companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP Plc valued at $40 billion for five years to fund initiatives including clean-energy programs." --Bloomberg, Feb, 2011

"Senate Democrats voted on Tuesday to strip the top five oil companies of tax breaks worth some $21 billion over 10 years, with the savings to go to paying down the deficit." --Christian Science Monitor

"Oil and gas companies gave more than $25 million to congressional candidates for the 2010 election, with 77 percent, or $18.9 million, sent to Republicans,...

Exxon, the second-largest contributor behind Koch Industries Inc., gave more than $1.3 million to federal candidates, about 87 percent to Republicans." --ibid

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 12, 2012 at 11:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alpha,

""liberal extremists" have done more to promote veterans' benefits than the conservatives you admire."

Which liberals would those be? The ones burning flags, "9/11 truthers", or the ones that called my brothers-in-arms "imperialist crusaders"?

Why do you discount 30 years of military service rendered by Rep. Womack? It doesn't really matter much. The whole district votes, not just Dickson Street.

FFT,

"improve their station"? Really, you sound like a British East India Company Gentleman's Club officer.

"Gunga Din"
--Rudyard Kipling

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 12, 2012 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT,

"hillbilly" is a racially disparaging term. I guess if you can't deal with a person's argument you defer to the use of racist remarks. Quit trying to make yourself the champion of "the poor". You probably don't like the way “the poor” in Arkansas "communicate" anyway. But I haven’t forgotten, some people only care about other people who champion their causes and don’t beieve in God, family, or country.

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 12, 2012 at 9:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

TNK: "hillbilly" is a racially disparaging term.">>

You'll have to forgive me, I didn't realize "hillbilly" was a "race." The feigned politically correctness doesn't pass the laugh test but at least it continues to distract from your inability to respond to issues substantively, which of course, is your intent.

"Ya'll come back now, y'hear?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beve...

A "racist remark" from that horribly "racist" show, The Beverly Hillbillies. And they managed to put out 274 episodes of that pure, racist, filth. Now playing for the kiddies on TVland I suppose. You should send them a complaint.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 12, 2012 at 10:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT,

"... or for some reason don't come across as a hillbilly when they communicate."

That is definitely a racist comment.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 13, 2012 at 2:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "That is definitely a racist comment."
"Hillbilly" is no more a racist term than "conservative" is. It is possible for people of any race to be hillbillies. Further, the population that inspired the creation of the word were mostly white, and as far as I can tell fft is mostly white, so I don't think he could have been particularly aspersive in a racial sense by using it.

Since the term came about as a result of observable characteristics of people who came from or lived in the backwoods or mountains-- non-standard English and an apparent lack of sophistication-- and those characteristics might now be a less dependable indicator of origin, you might have better luck making fft's use of the term out to be a social stereotype. Why don't you try that?

For my part, I would not contrast my relatively sophisticated use of language to the written or spoken expression of mountain people, which can be quite euphonious, very poetic, and interesting in its archaicisms. But then you wouldn't recognize the significance of the contrast if somebody were to say, "... or for some reason don't come across as a conservative when they communicate."

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 13, 2012 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

This doesn't pertain to Cong. Womack but the Afghan and Iraq is Vietnam all over again. We send our young men over there to not be killed and maimed but to watch their buddies blown apart and tortured and defiled but let them make a mistake and it becomes national and international issue.

Posted by: Afranius

January 13, 2012 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alpha_cat

Of course, the rebuttal of the "tiny" url. By the way, your link doesn't work. Happy MLK Day.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 15, 2012 at 4:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--
The URL for the image I posted is 115 characters long; tinyurl reduced it to 26 characters. This is particularly advantageous for passing links along by e-mail, and it allows forum and bulletin board software to handle links more dependably.

The only excuse I can see for complaining about the use of tinyurl.com is that it makes it harder for you to prejudge linked material. Once again, it is the material that is important, not the most directly-linked source. There is no legitimate reason to dislike tinyurl. They don't even make you look at ads when you use the service.

As for the function of the link, it works for me, and my computer has all the firewall, and antivirus/antimalware software a hillbilly could want.

Thank you, and I hope you also have a worthwhile MLK Day. Perhaps you will go out and do something blatantly "socialist" or "unpatriotic" as a way of appropriately observing the occasion. I plan to. Of course you have the option in Arkansas of observing Robert E. Lee's birthday, if you prefer. And that has nothing to do with racism. Oh, no.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 15, 2012 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley - hang in there! If the libs can't beat you, they will either ignore or demean you. Of course, if you demean them you get a screen full of 'WHINING' posts. When you don't agree with them, then your are automatically 'WHINING'. Of course, their rants are never 'WHINING'. Nothing new, and nothing the average reader cannot discern. Hold your ground and thanks for the posts...

Posted by: commonsense96

January 15, 2012 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

COM is begging for a poke. Ok.

COM: "There are very few 'subsidies for big oil'.">>

Only tens of billions, as referenced above. Again:
"...oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process."

At least you have given up your old hobby horse of saying they receive no subsidies. Progress.

COM: "The great majority of the changes proposed are simply amortizing the costs...">>

A semantic quibble. A tax break, credit or benefit equally have the ability to remove revenue from the government and add it to Big Oil's bottomline. So, same result.

COM: "There are few 'big oil' subsidies.">>

Already dealt with in my first post:
"...nine different tax expenditures that primarily benefit oil and gas companies. Cutting these special tax deductions, preferences, and credits would save the government about $45 billion over the next 10 years." http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2012/ja...

I've challenged you many times to explain why Big Oil needs so much socialism and to be on the dole. You've always ran from that, and with good reason: there is no good reason. Tank tried the lame "they provide jobs and pensions" but that's hardly reason for such wasteful, completely unnecessary and stupid corporate welfare.

Would it really be beyond your capability to perhaps step out side of the line of rightwing goosesteppers and for once admit the truth, which is, subsidizing Big Oily with $45 billion of desperately needed government largess, is stupid and entirely unnecessary.

COM: "Why are low-income children favored over middle-income families.">>

Because they are poor.

FFT [said]: "Tread carefully, might be offensive to sensitive PC types like yourself!">>

COM: "Again, another condescension from the left.">>

Had you read for comprehension you would have known that it was Tank who brought the charge of PC:

"Political correctness is the watch word of those folks..."

Of course, he didn't even attempt to support his charge. Because he can't.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 15, 2012 at 8:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

TANK: "...hear about socialism from a real anti-American socialist.">>

It might be an idea when having exchanges with people that you be honest and refrain from saying things that aren't true. That's my policy and it is a good one. To do otherwise shows poor character and people will quickly find they can't trust your claims, or trust you to honest in your exchanges.

We wouldn't want that.

In my first post and throughout this thread I have pointed out that our fine and courageous president proposed:

"...to eliminate nine different tax expenditures (special tax deductions, preferences, and credits) that primarily benefit oil and gas companies."

I strongly support our president, and your commander in chief, in his endeavor to remove these unnecessary and wasteful subsidizes, to globalized corporations because it weakens America with increased and unnecessary debt (this is what conservatives loosely refer to as "socialism" or "welfare" when it goes to the poor). Perhaps you believe this makes your president an "anti-American socialist." I know a lot on your side of the aisle disrespectfully and ignorantly believe that. I don't agree with them.

If someone has a good argument for why the most profitable industry in the world needs to receive such welfare, let's hear it. That you would need to stoop to claiming it's "because they employ people" just reveals how bankrupt and desperate your position is.

D.
--------------
"Taxpayers Subsidize Big Oil, World’s Most Profitable Industry"

"...The oil industry is the most profitable industry in the world. US oil companies earn about $3 billion in profits every week, yet get $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies every year. In the first quarter of 2011, Big Oil’s profits were up 38% from the first quarter of 2010.

The industry’s outsize profits didn’t stop it from squealing like a stuck pig over proposals to trim $2 billion from its annual subsidies and use the revenue to reduce the deficit by about $21 billion over 10 years."
"The average American pays a higher income tax rate than ExxonMobil, which is the most profitable Fortune 500 company for the 8th year in a row." http://www.truth-out.org/taxpayers-su...

ps. I didn't make that link tiny because I know you find that stressful.

pps. I own oil stock.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 16, 2012 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "I know there are lots of folks on your side of the aisle that are anti-American socialists..."
Please, in the cause of all that is decent, name them. Other than disagreeing with you, what makes them "anti-American"? Tell us. We need to know.

Remember, as you throw around "socialist" as if it is an epithet, that you've made a living off of socialism. The military is socialized protection.

RE "...that jump at any opportunity to bad mouth people like Rep. Womak..."
How is pointing out their factual errors and bad behavior "bad-mouthing"? It's the truth.

RE "...while trying to convince people that conservatives are out to get them."
The facts do a good job of that. There's not much trying involved.

RE "I originally posted that I am not a fan of oil subsidies but showed how they have just as much merit as Pell grants..."
No, you didn't. Your primary (only) source made false assumptions that you went along with. You also didn't set up a proper argumentative framework within which to make apples and oranges comparable.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 16, 2012 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "Calling the US Armed Forces "socialized protection" is just plain dumb."
No, it isn't. Militias are direct protection; any nationalization of the military is socialistic.

RE "My source wasn't good enough for you because it states something you don't agree with."
No, your source wasn't good enough because it tried to cloud the issue of revenue sources by glossing over the use of "billions" in discussing finance as related to the oil industry, and because it claimed that the government makes more of a profit than the oil companies-- in just the short excerpt that you chose to quote. That's just plain dumb.

You didn't name those "anti-American socialists". That's a significant omission on the part of somebody who has sworn to protect this great nation, and whom I pay to do so.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 16, 2012 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

It's a wonderful thing when a conservative gets around to learning the true meaning of one of their favorite pejoratives. Every time a conservative learns what "socialism" means, and angel gets its wings.

TANK: "Calling the US Armed Forces "socialized protection" is just plain dumb.">>

It's hard to imagine any government system that could be a better example of a purely socialized system than the US military. Let's unpack:

Socialism is when a society comes together to deliver or deal with a social need or desire, collectively (i.e. "collectivism").

-US Parks are very socialist in that they are paid for and managed by our government, but at least they have some user fees making part of their funding voluntary.

-Public Education = almost completely socialized and regulated. Regardless of whether you use it, you pay via property taxes or it's built into your rent.

-Police = 100% socialized
-Courts = 100% socialized
-Firehouses = about 95% socialized
-Libraries = about 95% socialized
-Highway system = overwhelmingly socialized minus some private ownership/interest in toll roads

-Health care = at least half socialized and heavily regulated

-Veterans Admin. = 100% pure socialism

-SS, medicare, medicaid etc. = ditto

Where would the Armed Forces come in on such a list? Exactly one hundred percent socialism. While some major parts of the Military Industrial Complex have been privatized out to Halliburton/KBR, (formerly) Blackwater, etc, every penny is paid for by the public, collectively. There are no user fees and no option to "opt out" of paying your portion as a citizen. Pure socialism.

Anyone who doesn't know the US military is (probably the worlds largest) socialist government program is probably like most conservatives, unaware of what the word socialism actually means. Which is rather amazing considering how often they like to throw the word around.

TANK: " I am not a fan of oil subsidies but showed how they have just as much merit as Pell grants, of which I am a fan of.">>

You contradict yourself in one sentence. Think about it.
You are a "fan of Pell grants," which according to you, have as much "merit as oil subsidies," which you are "not a fan of" (but curiously you have attempted to defend 100% of the time throughout this thread).
Muddle confused contradictory positions often caused contradictions to pop up when you express them (this condition is known as "cognitive dissonance").

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 16, 2012 at 8:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

For all those that think that the military is socailized, commit to an enlistment. I dare you. It is a meritocracy to the bone, thankfully.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 18, 2012 at 8:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RE "Ever had to dip your clothes in pyrethrin during the war just to find out (by Duke U. and UCSD) that you now have an incurable Gulf War Disease?"
No but I know a woman and her daughter who are suffering a host of major illnesses, including cancer, because back 35 years ago their neighbor in the country sprayed an herbicide containing 2,4,D.
The Agri Dept was promoting such spraying all over the country until a sufficient number of dead and malformed babies finally led to court cases that ended the practice.
Too bad for the Monsanto Co. and other job creators. Maybe some people lost their jobs because they couldn't keep manufacturing poison.
Just like the Keystone Pipeline, where some construction workers won't get a temporary job building it, which is of course much more important than whether it poisons the underground water for a few million people.
There are sacrifice areas across the country, Cancer Alley in Louisiana, Indian uranium miners in the Southwest.
I am sorry too about the Gulf War Illness.
One doesn't justify the other.

Posted by: Coralie

January 19, 2012 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

"The latest national New York Times/CBS News poll has plenty of interesting tidbits, but reader J.F. flags some numbers I’d overlooked.

Way into the poll — page 26, question 85 — respondents were asked, “How would you mainly describe the policies Barack Obama has pursued as president — as socialist, liberal, moderate, conservative or libertarian?” As near as I can tell, it’s pretty unusual for a major national poll to give respondents some of these choices.

Here’s what people had to say:

Socialist: 26%
Liberal: 22%
Moderate: 28%
Conservative: 6%
Libertarian: 4%
DK/NA: 15%

I suspect for some of President Obama’s critics on the left, the fact that nearly half the country perceives him as either a “liberal” or a “socialist” must be maddening.

But even putting that aside, it appears we’ve reached the point at which “socialist” has lost any of its meaning. No sane person could believe the president wants public control over the means of production and an end to modern capitalism. The notion that this reflects Obama’s ideology isn’t just wrong; it’s loony-tunes crazy.

The problem, though, is that Republican candidates and office-holders — who also don’t know what “socialist” means — have decided the “s” word is synonymous with “really liberal,” so they keep repeating the line over and over again. Some even seem to believe their own rhetoric."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/poli...

Posted by: cdawg

January 20, 2012 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alpha,

Confused? You try to equate an ROTC "stint" to military service. Who is confused? Don't ever accuse me of not knowing what I fight for.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 21, 2012 at 1:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alpha,

When you have 6 deployments with uncountable firefights and mulitple CAS drops let me know.

Posted by: Tankersley101

January 21, 2012 at 4:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "When you have 6 deployments with uncountable firefights and mulitple CAS drops let me know."
It isn't going to happen-- I'm old enough that even the Confederate army would hesitate to take me. Your vast military experience still doesn't entitle you to be so misinformed. Back when the country fought real wars, our veterans actually knew things. I hope you will take full advantage of the GI Bill (socialism) to get out and learn something. I won't mind paying for it.

RE "Opponents of..."
And whom would that be?

RE "...American Exceptionalism..."
This one?
http://defendingthepublicgood.org/201...
Or this one?
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/201... (Note the sources of the information, given at the bottom. The New York Times didn't make this up.)

RE "Go somewhere else, now!"
Typical conservative avoidance reaction.

RE "Northwest Arkansas loves America and the military."
Well, except for the stupid parts. You can see what kind of deep feelings Mr. Womack has engendered.

You keep letting your frustration show, and you still haven't answered cdawg's question.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 21, 2012 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "'real wars'? Are you serious?"
Of course not. I was mouthing off like a conservative. You know-- fondly remembering the "good old days", even though they never existed. Everything was better back then, they say. Wars were officially declared-- against the actual offenders. That sort of thing. All nice and legal.

RE "You just desecrated that grave of every American that has died to defend your out-of-control views."
Yes, being misinformed does that-- in a figurative sense, of course. I've tried to warn you, yet you persist. "Out-of-control"? My views? How so? You seem to be the one who lacks view control here.

You still haven't answered cdawg's question.

It's always a delight, but I have to go now and chase some other kids off my other lawn.

Posted by: AlphaCat

January 21, 2012 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

TANK: "The US military is not socialized.">>

Tank, you can't be this dumb. When society comes together to collect money, create programs and serve the collective societal need of... healthcare, roads, food stamps, libraries, social security, parks etc, this is a socialistic act.

And when when society comes together to collect money, create programs, pay for and run the myriad web of departments associated with providing the collective and necessary societal need of a common defense, this is precisely and exactly a socialistic act.

You conservatives consistently wank that Canada's healthcare is socialist because they as a society come together to address just the insurance part of the healthcare collectively (doctors and hospitals are private). Yet, when the US comes together to collectively to address the need for a common defense (and paying for it or receiving its benefit is *not* optional), you claim *this* is not socialism. That's absurd.

Perhaps you need to learn a bit about these things before you go on about them.

TNK: "You do have choice as to whether you contribute the same amount to it as all other tax payers like veterans,...">>

Notice the weasel word "contribute." You use this word to equivocate between paying taxes for the government program known as US Military, and joining the military. Two completely different uses of the word contribute (equivocation).

Put on your thinking cap. If Canada's healthcare is socialist (or Britain's which like the VA health system is completely socialized), why is the US military not, considering it is exactly a 100% government run, government paid for, collectivist act?

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 22, 2012 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tank, what do you mean by "American Exceptionalilsm" and why should everybody be for it?

Posted by: Coralie

January 23, 2012 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

If Womack were a Democrat he would be perfect for all you liberals who now denigrate him. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. If he were to change parties you would fall over him. I'll bet none of you liberals ever saw a Republican you liked. All one has to have is an "R" associated with his name and you automatically hate him. But oh no, none of you are prejudiced. Laughable!.

Posted by: MrD

January 26, 2012 at 9:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Anyone can say they voted for anybody and who can prove otherwise. I don't believe you, AC.

Posted by: MrD

January 27, 2012 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Excellent point " ldelash511." Pell grants are an excellent investment for our society, but we hardly need to even make the comparison with Pell grants to point out that subsidizing, via corporate welfare, the most profitable industry in the world (big oil) with precious government funds is stupid by any measure. The only people that can't see this are either political prostitutes that have been bought outright, or ideologues like Mr. D who offer services for free.

Speaking of him...

MrD: "If Womack were a Democrat he would be perfect for all you liberals who now denigrate him.">>

Your claim makes no sense. That's like saying: "If Michael Moore was a republican, he would be perfect for all you conservatives."

Mr. Womack gets chastised because he is a right-wing shill who mindlessly supports corporate welfare for big oily, and every other bizarre right-wing position right down the line.

MrD: "If he were to change parties you would fall over him.">>

Womack? You need to lie down and have a nap. You're making less sense than usual.

MrD: "[if one has] an "R" associated with his name and you automatically hate him.">>

Nope, don't care about the R at all. It's not too much to ask that they not be crazy right-wing, and Womack is. But then, consider his constituency... folks like you.

Incidentally, just a friendly reminder about your promise, upon your honor and your word, in front of Mary, God, baby Jesus, the heavenly host and the Holy Ghost, that you will pay me $100, if Obama, in the November 2012 election is not:

"...beaten worse than anyone in the history of the United States."

Your acceptance of this offered is archived here:
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/oc...

I of course will pay you $10,000 if he *is* "beaten worse than anyone in the history of the United States."

As determined by popular vote (the greatest percentage point margin in the popular vote was in 1920 with Harding 60.3% to Cox 34.1%).

In a few short months we will see if you are the kind of honorable Christian gentleman that keeps his word, or not.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

January 27, 2012 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

fightingthelibs--

I'll not go through your post item by item, as you are seemingly new at this, but:

RE "Having government take the place of family and community in providing help and support."
There are some kinds of care and support that families and communities cannot or will not provide. The recent article about the lawsuit against the Bentonville police department shows one example, as does the shooting by Rogers police last year.

RE "A government that thinks it knows best how to educate our next generation vs. the states and local governments."
Get back to us when state and local governments stop trying to pass off book-banning, intelligent design and abstinence-only sex education as actual educating.

RE "Providing unending unemployment benefits allowing the unemployed to continue to look for that 'dream' job vs. getting one and moving on."
Please provide figures for the extent of this problem. In the meantime, note that a lot of employers will not hire people who are unemployed. A lot of employers will not hire over-qualified applicants. The fast-food industry is doing well, and all of the deep fryers are being operated at peak efficiency, so apparently people are taking those jobs.

RE "Stopping job creation in the form of a pipeline that would help us become more energy independent."
Not only would Keystone XL not create the jobs claimed, there is actually evidence that building it would cause a net loss of jobs. Read this: http://tinyurl.com/d9h3fup and this http://tinyurl.com/3lao4ur (cited in the preceding link).

RE "Subsidizing 'green energy' businesses that have no realistic opportunity of succeeding."
For the most part, the Department of Energy loan program has done better than my retirement fund. In fact, the loan program is given some credit for the huge drop in cost-per-watt for solar and wind generation of electricity over the past year or so. Even if a few loans go bad, the program has stimulated private investment, and we all win.

RE "Reference this list of current and former Socialist countries. See if you want to look like them:"

Note the disclaimer at the top of the article you cite:
"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
-- It needs additional citations for verification. Tagged since October 2008.
-- Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since March 2008.
-- It may contain original research. Tagged since February 2008.
-- Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since January 2012."

Also note that most of the countries listed are or were Communist countries. Different thing entirely.

Visit the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom
http://www.heritage.org/index/
and note that the countries that are ahead of the United States are generally rife with socialism of one sort or another. Socialism is not in and of itself a danger, as you point out in the third sentence of your post.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 4, 2012 at 1:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )