Yes, we can.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, i didn't see that All White People stuff. Where?


Though it did clear up certain misunderstandings I had concerning his comments ... so thanks for posting them, Kevy.

[Alex]

It is a glaring demonstration of how liberal Obama is. Despite clearly seeing the needs of people around him, he is so focused on the idea that government is the source of solutions that even as he advanced into a financially secure, and even extravagant by most standards, income bracket it never even occurred to him to dig into his own bank accounts to give directly to solutions.

Instead, he acts on the assumption that he need do nothing directly but instead rely on the government to take what is necessary and redistribute it, leaving the rest behind for his own use. The excess of money he has is to him not a sign of personal charitable failure but rather a governmental failure to take what is needed. To him, the solution is not for him to give more but for the government to take more.

Learning that he gave so little is not a sign of hypocrisy but rather a demonstration of the core values he holds most dearly. And this is the very reason we should be wary of electing him to office. For he has been exposed as being just the radical tax-and-spend liberal that any decent conservative should fear seeing in the highest office in the land.




How did I do at channeling Rush?

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

It is a glaring demonstration of how liberal Obama is. Despite clearly seeing the needs of people around him, he is so focused on the idea that government is the source of solutions that even as he advanced into a financially secure, and even extravagant by most standards, income bracket it never even occurred to him to dig into his own bank accounts to give directly to solutions.

Instead, he acts on the assumption that he need do nothing directly but instead rely on the government to take what is necessary and redistribute it, leaving the rest behind for his own use. The excess of money he has is to him not a sign of personal charitable failure but rather a governmental failure to take what is needed. To him, the solution is not for him to give more but for the government to take more.

Learning that he gave so little is not a sign of hypocrisy but rather a demonstration of the core values he holds most dearly. And this is the very reason we should be wary of electing him to office. For he has been exposed as being just the radical tax-and-spend liberal that any decent conservative should fear seeing in the highest office in the land.




How did I do at channeling Rush?

Actually, I think you are channeling George Will:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032708.php3

[scaeagles]

Perhaps not....but I'd be a lot more understanding of someone making 30K giving less than 1% then I am of someone earning 300K doing the same.

[scaeagles]

A fine job indeed, Alex. And while you didn't mean it to be so, it's a convincing argument.

[Alex]

Yeah, I know it is from a certain point of view. That is the appropriate conservative argument I said you were missing. When/if you repeat it my royalty is $0.002 per use. Contact me by PM on where to send the check.

[wendybeth]

I find it heartwarming that Scaeagles is so worried about the poor.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I find it heartwarming that Scaeagles is so worried about the poor.

How interesting that your post was #666 of this thread.

[wendybeth]

Lol!!!

[scaeagles]

I'm typically not a spewer forth of conservative thoughts that I hear from other sources.....I actually do think the way I write. So the probably of royalties to you of over a dime is highly, highly unlikely.