Did any of the conservatives here notice that Rubio contradicted himself?

[gator996]

He was busy blasting away that government doesn't create oppportunity and the next minute was discussing how he just finished paying off his student loans?

Doesn't Marco think his education helped create an opportunity for him?

A government subsidized education.

Ridiculous...

[LittleBlueLW]

He was busy blasting away that government doesn't create oppportunity and the next minute was discussing how he just finished paying off his student loans?

Doesn't Marco think his education helped create an opportunity for him?

A government subsidized education.

Ridiculous...

He likely meant that opportunity is not created solely by the govt. but if thats your biggest gripe then I guess he did OK by you?

[surfn1080]

He was busy blasting away that government doesn't create oppportunity and the next minute was discussing how he just finished paying off his student loans?

Doesn't Marco think his education helped create an opportunity for him?

A government subsidized education.

Ridiculous...

I guess the govt also took his test, stayed up late and studied, and attended all the classes for him to?

The govt also took the burden of all stress and hard work when he took the chance that helped him achieve what he has?

Your right the govt backed student loans that he paid off did all that.....

[gator996]

He likely meant that opportunity is not created solely by the govt. but if thats your biggest gripe then I guess he did OK by you?



No actually he said government doesn't create opportunities...

[LittleBlueLW]

No actually he said government doesn't create opportunities...

Yeah, he'd be wrong in that regard. But I bet if pressed, any reasonable person would realize that govt alone, all by it self doesnt create opportunities.

Look at all the opportunity the govt has given to our young men and women to go get the asses shot up in meaningless wars.

[gator996]

I guess the govt also took his test, stayed up late and studied, and attended all the classes for him to?

The govt also took the burden of all stress and hard work when he took the chance that helped him achieve what he has?

Your right the govt backed student loans that he paid off did all that.....



I guess the point of this post flew right over your head....

Conservatives don't believe government can create opportunities...
Conservatives want to cut spending on student loans...

Yet, he's the beneficiary of the very programs he's against?

And let's not get into his immigration status... :lie:


Freaking hypocrite and people think he's the best the pubs have?


He won't even be a factor by 2016....

[QGator2414]

Wow is this ever an example of just grasping for something to complain about. It is no surprise that liberal would miss the point Rubio was making...

[orangeblueorangeblue]

A stretch to say the least, OP.

[gator996]

Who said this is the only thing that was BS from Rubio last night?


But on point, how can you be against student loans (govt spending) & deny their benefit when you must admit the govt spending created an opportunity for you?


If he did like Mitt romney said his ass would have been going to broward community college since his daddy was a "illegal" bartender & his momma was an "illegal" maid.


Better question, how can you guys stomach him as the heir apparent leader?

[Matthanuf06]

Rand Paul's response was far better

[QGator2414]

Keep on complaining and enjoy watching what the almighty government created with the student loan bubble in the near future...

[CHFG8R]

A stretch to say the least, OP.

Exactly, it's a student LOAN. If paid off in a timely fashion, the government really had no role other than to back the loan (taking the risk away from the banks). Yeah, that's something, but not nearly what you are trying to portrey. If he did it all on grants, then yes, you might have a point. As it is, you have a pinprick at best.


Then again, this is pretty much par for the course from the true believer crowd.

[QGator2414]

Rand Paul's response was far better

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8POlWwFbn4E

[108]

Exactly, it's a student LOAN. If paid off in a timely fashion, the government really had no role other than to back the loan (taking the risk away from the banks). Yeah, that's something, but not nearly what you are trying to portrey. If he did it all on grants, then yes, you might have a point. As it is, you have a pinprick at best.


Then again, this is pretty much par for the course from the true believer crowd.

backing the loan is everything, or very few kids would get a loan outside of it

but the Gov does much more than that when it comes to education, from kindergarten to higher education

[MastaG8r]

And let's not get into his immigration status... :lie:No let's get into it, what would you like to say about his immigration status?

To respond to your "point," such as it was, there was nothing contradictory in Marco Rubio's speech (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130213/us-state-of-union-gop-response-text/?utm_hp_ref=homepage&ir=homepage), either in the following comments about education or anywhere else:

Helping the middle class grow will also require an education system that gives people the skills today's jobs entail and the knowledge that tomorrow's world will require.

We need to incentivize local school districts to offer more advanced placement courses and more vocational and career training. We need to give all parents, especially the parents of children with special needs, the opportunity to send their children to the school of their choice. And because tuition costs have grown so fast, we need to change the way we pay for higher education.

I believe in federal financial aid. I couldn't have gone to college without it. But it's not just about spending more money on these programs; it's also about strengthening and modernizing them.

A 21st century workforce should not be forced to accept 20th century education solutions. Today's students aren't only 18-year-olds. They're returning veterans. They're single parents who decide to get the education they need to earn a decent wage. And they're workers who have lost jobs that are never coming back and need to be retrained.

We need student aid that does not discriminate against programs that non-traditional students rely on - like online courses, or degree programs that give you credit for work experience.

When I finished school, I owed over $100,000 in student loans, a debt I paid off just a few months ago. Today, many graduates face massive student debt. We must give students more information on the costs and benefits of the student loans they're taking out.

[Tim85]

First off 996 and anyone who thinks Rubio contradicted himself might do themselves a favor and actually watch the video again.


I believe in federal financial aid. I couldn't have gone to college without it. But it's not just about spending more money on these programs; it's also about strengthening and modernizing them.



He then goes on to say, A 21st century workforce should not be forced to accept 20th century education solutions. Today's students aren't only 18 year olds. They're returning veterans. They're single parents who decide to get the education they need to earn a decent wage. And they're workers who have lost jobs that are never coming back and need to be retrained.

We need student aid that does not discriminate against programs that non-traditional students rely on – like online courses, or degree programs that give you credit for work experience.

When I finished school, I owed over 100,000 dollars in student loans, a debt I paid off just a few months ago. Today, many graduates face massive student debt. We must give students more information on the costs and benefits of the student loans they're taking out. All these measures are key to helping the economy grow. But we won't be able to sustain a vibrant middle class unless we solve our debt problem.

You said, "Doesn't Marco think his education helped create an opportunity for him?" Clearly, he does, as he mentioned his speech only seconds before talking about his college loans. What's ridiculous is the premise of this thread.

[gator996]

Exactly, it's a student LOAN. If paid off in a timely fashion, the government really had no role other than to back the loan (taking the risk away from the banks). Yeah, that's something, but not nearly what you are trying to portrey. If he did it all on grants, then yes, you might have a point. As it is, you have a pinprick at best.


Then again, this is pretty much par for the course from the true believer crowd.


Over $100,000 he said last night.

Uhhhh, that's the spending conservatives want to cut right now because they believe it doesn't create opportunity & doesn't spur growth...

What happened to all of those conservatives who want government out of their lives?

I guess except when it benefits THEM...


Rubio's parents entered the country illegally, he's been involved in financial scandal in Florida, he went into foreclosure in Tallahassee...


...and exactky what has he accomplished as a politican again?

[Tim85]

Over $100,000 he said last night.

Uhhhh, that's the spending conservatives want to cut right now because they believe it doesn't create opportunity & doesn't spur growth...

What happened to all of those conservatives who want government out of their lives?

I guess except when it benefits THEM...


Rubio's a suckass, parents entered the country illegally, he's been involved in financial scandal in Florida, he went into foreclosure in Tallahassee...


...and exactky what has he accomplished as a politican again?

Are you going to gloss over my response? Also, how can you come on here and expect to be taken seriously when you can't even debate like an adult? Where's the honest discussion?

I (don't)like how you generalize all Republicans as just people who, "want government out of their lives." I shouldn't even have to say this, but we're not all the same person -- and most Republicans, that I know of at least, don't hate the government and want it eradicated. They want it to be run with common sense and wisdom, but if you want to be someone who's just another partisan-for-lifer with no interest in trying to find out the reality of the situation, that's your decision. The reason the government gets such a bad wrap from a lot of Republicans is because of the blatant inefficiency and incompetence of it, not because they just hate the idea of the government, or the government as a whole.

Your comments, to me at least, show just how extreme your dislike and view of half of this country is/

[gatorev12]

A stretch to say the least, OP.

+1

After 5 years of seeing conservatives blame Obama for any reason they could lay their hands on, no matter how flimsy the connection, it seems liberals are returning to the same behavior they displayed for the 8 years of the Bush Administration.

[gatornana]

*Avoid the topic of race. That's not what this thread is about*

[squigator]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8POlWwFbn4E

Unfortunately, Rand received little coverage in the Obama media and very little on FOX. How is he going to get his message out to the low info. voters?

[fredsanford]

Unfortunately, Rand received little coverage in the Obama media and very little on FOX. How is he going to get his message out to the low info. voters?

Low info voters seek his type of message out. He's their kind of guy.

[cocodrilo]

exactky what has he accomplished as a politican again?

He has proved that he's good at planning ahead, such as making sure he's not thirsty before starting a relatively short speech on national TV.

[Tim85]

He has proved that he's good at planning ahead, such as making sure he's not thirsty before starting a relatively short speech on national TV.

I was waiting for someone to bring this up. I've already seen multiple attempts at media and the public to make fun of this, but I genuinely am glad he did it. He's a human-being trying to give a condensed 10-minute response to like a 30-35 minute speech by the President, he was thirsty, so he had some water. They're normal people who do normal things -- like, you know, drink water when they're thirsty.

[brainstorm]

The water thing alone won me over.

[cocodrilo]

What I want is a leader who can walk on water.

[Row6]

I guess the govt also took his test, stayed up late and studied, and attended all the classes for him to?

The govt also took the burden of all stress and hard work when he took the chance that helped him achieve what he has?

Your right the govt backed student loans that he paid off did all that.....

The government provided the cheap deal and high level of education he got, not to mention the buildings, groundd, libraries, labs, and faculty which educated him. He went to Santa Fe and UF.

[gator421]

The government provided the cheap deal and high level of education he got, not to mention the buildings, groundd, libraries, labs, and faculty which educated him. He went to Santa Fe and UF.

He's really a closet liberal.

[LittleBlueLW]

Let's all bow at the government altar.

[Tim85]

The government provided the cheap deal and high level of education he got, not to mention the buildings, groundd, libraries, labs, and faculty which educated him. He went to Santa Fe and UF.

The government gave him a loan and he paid it off, with interest. He paid taxes, as well as the rest of us, that afforded the government to provide the buildings, ground, libraries, labs, and faculty which educated him. Besides, as I said before and the OP has ignored my post, he acknowledged that he couldn't have done it without the government's help. (Just like they can't do their job without ours.)

[Dreamliner]

Did Obama say "God" every other word ?

[QGator2414]

The government gave him a loan and he paid it off, with interest. He paid taxes, as well as the rest of us, that afforded the government to provide the buildings, ground, libraries, labs, and faculty which educated him. Besides, as I said before and the OP has ignored my post, he acknowledged that he couldn't have done it without the government's help. (Just like they can't do their job without ours.)

Exactly!

[T3goalie]

Lendors who get paid principal and interest are not job creators to the borrower.

Gov't should not be involved in student loans.

[Matthanuf06]

Low info voters seek his type of message out. He's their kind of guy.

This is major BS. His supporters are far more knowledgable and active than say Obama supporters

[Matthanuf06]

This is a classic case of the government creating a problem (meddling in education) and then trying to cure it (backing loans, grants, etc). The left only looks and praises the symptom but ignores the cause.

[rajinGator]

FINALLY someone on our side who painted the differences between Obama's statist ideology and Conservatism with bold colors and NOT pale pastels. Something Romney and his like are unable to do.

[QGator2414]

FINALLY someone on our side who painted the differences between Obama's statist ideology and Conservatism with bold colors and NOT pale pastels. Something Romney and his like are unable to do.

And it scares the OP...

[squigator]

This is major BS. His supporters are far more knowledgable and active than say Obama supporters

Matt, save your breath. All you need to know is that FS is an active Obama supporter.

[Itssaul]

He's really a closet liberal.

Or full on Marxist such as K. Rove and M. Romney

[squigator]

Or full on Marxist such as K. Rove and M. Romney

You're either joking or a low information voter. If the latter, I'd encourage you to read:

http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Stalin-Hitler-Catastrophe-Vintage/dp/140003213X

and

http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0060936428

If after reading these books you still believe that Rove and Romney are Marxists and Obama is not, then you will know that you're not a low info. voter, you're just plain stupid.

[Itssaul]

You're either joking or a low information voter. If the latter, I'd encourage you to read:

http://www.amazon.com/Lenin-Stalin-Hitler-Catastrophe-Vintage/dp/140003213X

and

http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0060936428

If after reading these books you still believe that Rove and Romney are Marxists and Obama is not, then you will know that you're not a low info. voter, you're just plain stupid.

It's a joke that the right is splitting apart with the way right calling both of those liberals...

Obviously exaggerated.

[Gatorrick22]

The government gave him a loan and he paid it off, with interest. He paid taxes, as well as the rest of us, that afforded the government to provide the buildings, ground, libraries, labs, and faculty which educated him. Besides, as I said before and the OP has ignored my post, he acknowledged that he couldn't have done it without the government's help. (Just like they can't do their job without ours.)

The liberals seem to think that the money they get (thought taxes) comes out of thin air.

[fredsanford]

Gov't should not be involved in student loans.

The federal government running the program makes a lot more sense than banks running it, taking all the profits, and sticking the government with the losses.

Which, btw, is the Romney-style "capitalism" model.

[Gatorrick22]

The federal government running the program makes a lot more sense than banks running it, taking all the profits, and sticking the government with the losses.



The Government has been "sticking" us with their losses throughout their entire existence. Unfortunately, we have no way to regulate them like they can, and do, regulate business' that loan money.

[neisgator]

Is your whole body sore from this enormous stretch?

Obama = Gigantic Government Guy (GGG)
Rubio = Large Government Guy (LGG)

[Row6]

The government gave him a loan and he paid it off, with interest. He paid taxes, as well as the rest of us, that afforded the government to provide the buildings, ground, libraries, labs, and faculty which educated him. Besides, as I said before and the OP has ignored my post, he acknowledged that he couldn't have done it without the government's help. (Just like they can't do their job without ours.)

Except for the fact that those of of who went to UF, or another of the states best public universities uniquely benefitted from the taxes paid by others, we agree. So why the dualism on the right that usually insists that the government is not of and for the people? Of course it is and should be employed to do those tasks which private entities can't or won't do very well or cheaply.

[DeanMeadGator]

He has proved that he's good at planning ahead, such as making sure he's not thirsty before starting a relatively short speech on national TV.

$16 trillion in debt and rising like the tide. A drink of water is of great concern.:laugh:

[Gatorrick22]

Is your whole body sore from this enormous stretch?

Obama = Gigantic Government Guy (GGG)
Rubio = Large Government Guy (LGG)

Rubio = smaller government Guy. Way, way smaller than Obama.

[MastaG8r]

Except for the fact that those of of who went to UF, or another of the states best public universities uniquely benefitted from the taxes paid by others, we agree. So why the dualism on the right that usually insists that the government is not of and for the people? Of course it is and should be employed to do those tasks which private entities can't or won't do very well or cheaply.et tu, Row6? You're buying into that ridiculous, played out argument that Conservatives who went to public universities are hypocrites for arguing for smaller government? Come on.

Far be it from me to appoint myself spokesperson for my fellow Conservatives but I think it's fair to say there aren't any of us who think there should be no government and no publicly-funded institutions and nobody should pay any taxes at all. It's a matter of budgeting and prioritizing.

[reformedgator]

I guess the point of this post flew right over your head....

Conservatives don't believe government can create opportunities...
Conservatives want to cut spending on student loans...

Yet, he's the beneficiary of the very programs he's against?

And let's not get into his immigration status... :lie:


Freaking hypocrite and people think he's the best the pubs have?


He won't even be a factor by 2016....

Stranger things have happened. The best the libs had to offer was Gore, Kerry & Obama. Not exactly candidates that instill confidence & yet one of them managed to talk his way into the office.

[T3goalie]

The federal government running the program makes a lot more sense than banks running it, taking all the profits, and sticking the government with the losses.

Which, btw, is the Romney-style "capitalism" model.

i don't believe Gov't should be bailing out banks either! Never did. Nor am I am Romney-ite if that was what you were implying...

Now, of course, we just have Gov't getting stuck with massive default rates...They are still bailing out banks, and we are paying for other kids educations too... Heads they win tails we lose (pay). Your still missing half of the equation. The difference between Romney and Obama is that Obama doubles down, lends, bails and thinks it is patriotic to stick present and future generations by spreading the loss. Students like businesses need to learn the concept of moral hazard.

[MastaG8r]

Did someone mention low information voters? Speak of the devil...

And let's not get into [Rubio's] immigration status... :lie:

If he did like Mitt romney said his ass would have been going to broward community college since his daddy was a "illegal" bartender & his momma was an "illegal" maid.

Maybe Rubio & his family should self-deport and go to the back of the line also, huh?

His family came here illegally, in your conservative mind....how can you even have him in your party?

Rubio's parents entered the country illegally, he's been involved in financial scandal in Florida, he went into foreclosure in Tallahassee...

...and exactky what has he accomplished as a politican again?

You are wrong. Marco Rubio's parents emigrated from Cuba to the United States legally in 1956 because of the horrible economic conditions under the Batista regime that led to the Cuban Revolution. They intended to return someday but when they went back to visit and saw the even worse conditions under Castro, they decided to stay and eventually became naturalized U.S. citizens.

At no point did Rubio's parents enter or remain in the U.S. illegally. In fact I searched online and couldn't find where any such accusation is being made by even the most rabid Rubio haters on the Left, so it's safe to assume you just made it up. Making things up on Too Hot is poor form and the mark of a low quality poster.

But since you evidently regard it as a point of criticism to be an illegal immigrant or the child of one, do tell us what you think about all these people who Democrats took to the SOTU speech last night.

– First lady Michelle Obama is hosting Alan Aleman, a 20-year-old illegal immigrant from Nevada as one of her guests. Under new administration rules, Aleman’s deportation proceedings have been deferred because he was brought into the country while he was under the age of 16.

– Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner has invited 19-year-old Ambar Pinto, an illegal immigrant who goes to Northern Virginia Community College, as his guest.

– Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez is bringing 27-year-old Gabino Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who lives in South Carolina and is fighting deportation, as his guest.

– Texas Democratic Rep. Marc Veasey has invited 32-year-old Julieta Garibay, an illegal immigrant who moved to Austin from Mexico with her family when she was 12, as his guest.

– Florida Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor has invited Jose Godinez-Samperio, who has made news for trying to obtain a law license despite being an illegal immigrant.
When you're done sharing your thoughts on that please tell us what 0bama had "accomplished as a politician" prior to being elected President. Or for that matter, what had he accomplished prior to the 2004 Democratic Convention when he first gave a speech on a national platform like Rubio did last night? Why was he more qualified than Rubio to speak to a national audience on behalf of his party?

[Tim85]

Did someone mention low information voters? Speak of the devil...











You are wrong. Marco Rubio's parents emigrated from Cuba to the United States legally in 1956 because of the horrible economic conditions under the Batista regime that led to the Cuban Revolution. They intended to return someday but when they went back to visit and saw the even worse conditions under Castro, they decided to stay and eventually became naturalized U.S. citizens.

At no point did Rubio's parents enter or remain in the U.S. illegally. In fact I searched online and couldn't find where any such accusation is being made by even the most rabid Rubio haters on the Left, so it's safe to assume you just made it up. Making things up on Too Hot is poor form and the mark of a low quality poster.

But since you evidently regard it as a point of criticism to be an illegal immigrant or the child of one, do tell us what you think about all these people who Democrats took to the SOTU speech last night.


When you're done sharing your thoughts on that please tell us what 0bama had "accomplished as a politician" prior to being elected President. Or for that matter, what had he accomplished prior to the 2004 Democratic Convention when he first gave a speech on a national platform like Rubio did last night? Why was he more qualified than Rubio to speak to a national audience on behalf of his party?

That's a huge issue with this message board. People come here and have no interest in trying to discuss, or expand their ideas, or move forward -- they just want to rant and pat each other with similar ideas on the back. How many times will it have to be repeated that Republicans aren't anti-government? As far as I know, most Republicans I'm familiar with are pro-efficient government.

[QGator2414]

et tu, Row6? You're buying into that ridiculous, played out argument that Conservatives who went to public universities are hypocrites for arguing for smaller government? Come on.

Far be it from me to appoint myself spokesperson for my fellow Conservatives but I think it's fair to say there aren't any of us who think there should be no government and no publicly-funded institutions and nobody should pay any taxes at all. It's a matter of budgeting and prioritizing.

+1

Now we do have a few libertarians that border on not wanting any funding. But the argument is still ridiculous as it is basically impossible to remove government from your life at this point even if you wanted to...

[GatorAvatar]

I guess the point of this post flew right over your head....

Conservatives don't believe government can create opportunities...
Conservatives want to cut spending on student loans...

Yet, he's the beneficiary of the very programs he's against?

And let's not get into his immigration status... :lie:

Freaking hypocrite and people think he's the best the pubs have?

He won't even be a factor by 2016....

He's an opportunistic lying hypocrite.

[MastaG8r]

He's an opportunistic lying hypocrite.No doubt Rubio has availed himself of the opportunities for advancement in life that have presented themselves to him. If that makes him opportunistic, so be it.

He has been a politician for 15 years so I'm sure he's lied at some point. They all do. There are probably no exceptions. Certainly Barack 0bama isn't one. Offhand I'm not aware of anything significant Rubio has lied about though.

Hypocrite? Why is Marco Rubio a hypocrite?

[fredsanford]

Cross the bridge and blow it up behind you--the right wing way.

[jimgata]

Apparently the left recognizes failure and dependency on the government as a badge of success, for they seem to denigrate those who are successful.

[MastaG8r]

Apparently the left recognizes failure and dependency on the government as a badge of success, for they seem to denigrate those who are successful.Geez Jim are you just now noticing this? Newsflash buddy: The Titanic hit an iceberg and sank, 1,514 lost.

Hey speaking of the Titanic, how come that damn Carnival cruise ship with the power blackout is STILL floating around in the Gulf of Mexico with all the passengers on it? The Titanic sank 100 years ago and the survivors got transferred to another ship the same night! We've gone to the moon since then but can't figure out how to rescue stranded ship passengers anymore? Holy smokes send out the RMS Carpathia, those poor people with no working toilets are giving new meaning to the term poop decks.

[Row6]

et tu, Row6? You're buying into that ridiculous, played out argument that Conservatives who went to public universities are hypocrites for arguing for smaller government? Come on.

Far be it from me to appoint myself spokesperson for my fellow Conservatives but I think it's fair to say there aren't any of us who think there should be no government and no publicly-funded institutions and nobody should pay any taxes at all. It's a matter of budgeting and prioritizing.

Arguing for a smaller government, or against it's involvement in specific affairs can be valid and logical. What isn't logical is the more common position on the right nowadays that it is always a the problem and incapable of providing the best solution for certain problems, like providing mass higher education for it's citizens.

[The_Graygator]

:laugh:

Rubio contradicted himself? Have you been watching Obama do this for the last four years?

:roll:

[MastaG8r]

Arguing for a smaller government, or against it's involvement in specific affairs can be valid and logical. What isn't logical is the more common position on the right nowadays that it is always a the problem and incapable of providing the best solution for certain problems, like providing mass higher education for it's citizens.Yeah but...it's NOT a common position on the right that government is always the problem. It is a hell of a problem because of the way it's being run, but it's not always "the" problem. And yes government is incapable of providing the "best" solution for certain problems, but I don't see anybody claiming that state-run universities are an example of unnecessary government spending.

It's just a dumb, cheap, straw-man argument that you guys use, claiming that people who benefit from some government spending are hypocrites for complaining about any government spending. That's like saying you're a hypocrite for buying food at the grocery store after telling your wife that the household budget needs tightening.

[dangolegators]

Yeah but...it's NOT a common position on the right that government is always the problem.

It's a pretty common position on the (far) right that government is (almost) always the problem. Yeah, the military isn't a problem, and a few other security-related tasks the government undertakes isn't the problem, but to those on the far right, that's about it. You mention public education? So you don't think conservatives believe that the government is the problem with public education?

[MastaG8r]

It's a pretty common position on the (far) right that government is (almost) always the problem. Yeah, the military isn't a problem, and a few other security-related tasks the government undertakes isn't the problem, but to those on the far right, that's about it. You mention public education? So you don't think conservatives believe that the government is the problem with public education?You're obfuscating the point. Explain how it's hypocritical for me to complain about too much government spending if I went to a state-run university. Maybe if I was saying state-run universities are a waste of taxpayer dollars and need to be shut down, it would be. But who's saying that?

It's just like 0bama's "You didn't build that" speech. Even people on the Left who claim that line was taken out of context say the "context" was 0bama explaining that we all benefit from government expenditures. Okay. Who's denying that? Why is that a valid point to be making? It's not. It's 0bama pretending that Conservatives see no good in government whatsoever. Not true. It's not an all or nothing proposition. We are Conservatives, not Anarchists.

[QGator2414]

Epic Domination by MastaG8r...

Well done!

Edit: would rep you if I could

[Row6]

Yeah but...it's NOT a common position on the right that government is always the problem. It is a hell of a problem because of the way it's being run, but it's not always "the" problem. And yes government is incapable of providing the "best" solution for certain problems, but I don't see anybody claiming that state-run universities are an example of unnecessary government spending.

It's just a dumb, cheap, straw-man argument that you guys use, claiming that people who benefit from some government spending are hypocrites for complaining about any government spending. That's like saying you're a hypocrite for buying food at the grocery store after telling your wife that the household budget needs tightening.

You must be joking. denouncing the government and anything it engages in is the default position of more than half the regular posters on TH. If you don't recognize that, I'm afraid I'm not willing to waste my time in further discussion with you.

[dangolegators]

You must be joking. denouncing the government and anything it engages in is the default position of more than half the regular posters on TH. If you don't recognize that, I'm afraid I'm not willing to waste my time in further discussion with you.

I don't think Masta reads a whole lot of what his fellow conservatives post here. Maybe he's embarrassed by them.

[MastaG8r]

You must be joking. denouncing the government and anything it engages in is the default position of more than half the regular posters on TH. If you don't recognize that, I'm afraid I'm not willing to waste my time in further discussion with you.So you don't recognize the distinction between criticizing the government in place right now and the way it's being run by the leaders in charge vs. criticizing the very concept of government? Sure you do. Pretending they're the same thing is just a childish oversimplification and downright misrepresentation of the Conservative position that you all engage in for the purpose of making it easier to argue against.

[rajinGator]

You're obfuscating the point. Explain how it's hypocritical for me to complain about too much government spending if I went to a state-run university. Maybe if I was saying state-run universities are a waste of taxpayer dollars and need to be shut down, it would be. But who's saying that?

It's just like 0bama's "You didn't build that" speech. Even people on the Left who claim that line was taken out of context say the "context" was 0bama explaining that we all benefit from government expenditures. Okay. Who's denying that? Why is that a valid point to be making? It's not. It's 0bama pretending that Conservatives see no good in government whatsoever. Not true. It's not an all or nothing proposition. We are Conservatives, not Anarchists.

We Conservatives are much more nuanced.

[fairfaxgator]

I heard that too...and agree...but wait...i must...take...this...sip...of...water...from the less manly, kid version water bottle...and swirl it...around in...my mouth...like Listerine...ok...back...(is my make-up ok?)...:)

[MastaG8r]

I don't think Masta reads a whole lot of what his fellow conservatives post here. Maybe he's embarrassed by them.Do you read what my fellow conservatives post here? If so then kindly direct me to their posts saying that government is inherently bad and nobody benefits from it. Anyone who says that would be quite the hypocrite if they themselves benefited from government expenditures. So who says that?

Or if you don't like that challenge then you can try answering my earlier comment to you. Explain how it's hypocritical for me to complain about too much government spending if I went to a state-run university.

[dangolegators]

So you don't recognize the distinction between criticizing the government in place right now and the way it's being run by the leaders in charge vs. criticizing the very concept of government? Sure you do. Pretending they're the same thing is just a childish oversimplification and downright misrepresentation of the Conservative position that you all engage in for the purpose of making it easier to argue against.

Seems you are the one doing the misrepresenting to me. Criticizing the very concept of government? Anarchists? WTF are you talking about?

[dangolegators]

Do you read what my fellow conservatives post here? If so then kindly direct me to their posts saying that government is inherently bad and nobody benefits from it. Anyone who says that would be quite the hypocrite if they themselves benefited from government expenditures. So who says that?

Or if you don't like that challenge then you can try answering my earlier comment to you. Explain how it's hypocritical for me to complain about too much government spending if I went to a state-run university.

You can see extreme anti-government sentiment all over TH. You can read it if you want. Row is correct. It is pretty much the default position of many conservatives here.

As for explaining how it's hypocritical for you to complain about too much government when you went to a public university, why would I do that? Have I called you a hypocrite for doing this?

[RealGatorFan]

I guess the govt also took his test, stayed up late and studied, and attended all the classes for him to?

The govt also took the burden of all stress and hard work when he took the chance that helped him achieve what he has?

Your right the govt backed student loans that he paid off did all that.....

Obama never took exams at least none that anyone can find. That's why his records are more of a secret than Area 51.

[dangolegators]

So Masta, do you agree with these 2 statements?

More government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back.

More government isn’t going to create more opportunities. It’s going to limit them.

[MastaG8r]

I heard that too...and agree...but wait...i must...take...this...sip...of...water...from the less manly, kid version water bottle...and swirl it...around in...my mouth...like Listerine...ok...back...(is my make-up ok?)...:)The guy took a sip of water. It did look really odd - I don't know why he wouldn't have had his water bottle within reach. But it's quite demonstrative of the immaturity of Liberals that it's all they can talk about today.

They act like adolescents in perpetual rebellion against the Conservative grownups. It was literally the very first thing Rachel Maddow said after the speech. "So yeah he said a bunch of stuff but I think this speech will be remembered for the weird way he reached over to get a sip of water," or something like that, and then kept going on in her typical sarcastic, condescending tone about how funny that was. I'm sure her viewers were eating it up. All 37 of them, not including me.

[MastaG8r]

You can see extreme anti-government sentiment all over TH. You can read it if you want. Row is correct. It is pretty much the default position of many conservatives here.Oh okay. In that case it shouldn't be hard at all to direct me to some posts by Conservatives saying that government is inherently bad and nobody benefits from it.

Extreme anti-0bama government sentiment is not the same as extreme anti-government sentiment. And not only that but I'd wager that of the Conservatives who may be distrustful of government in general, few if any would go so far as to say that it serves no good purpose at all. Thus, even for them, there's nothing necessarily inconsistent about complaining about the government even though they themselves benefit from government services.

As for explaining how it's hypocritical for you to complain about too much government when you went to a public university, why would I do that? Have I called you a hypocrite for doing this?Not as far as I recall. It's an argument made by others and it's what was being discussed when you joined the thread. But fair enough, there's no reason for you to have to explain it if you don't agree with it. Which you don't?

[dangolegators]

Ok, so what other posters have called you a hypocrite for going to UF?

[MastaG8r]

So Masta, do you agree with these 2 statements?

More government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back.

More government isn’t going to create more opportunities. It’s going to limit them.Well I'd like to see some context of what aspects of government were being discussed before those statements were made, presumably by Romney or someone like that.

But generally, yes, I agree that at this point in time with the economic situation we're in, more government is ultimately not going to help us and more government is not going to create more opportunities. More government will cost more money and we don't have any, right? Of course that's right. But if you don't want to respond to that then I guess you can pretend I said we should eliminate government spending altogether because it doesn't do any good at all, and respond to that instead.

[MastaG8r]

Ok, so what other posters have called you a hypocrite for going to UF?Nobody has called me personally a hypocrite. It's been said of Conservatives in general that it's hypocritical of them to rail against government spending if they benefited from government services, like being educated at state-run universities. It was said about Marco Rubio earlier in this thread and that's how it came up.

But just to clarify - you don't agree with that argument, right?

[dangolegators]

Well I'd like to see some context of what aspects of government were being discussed before those statements were made, presumably by Romney or someone like that.

But generally, yes, I agree that at this point in time with the economic situation we're in, more government is ultimately not going to help us and more government is not going to create more opportunities. More government will cost more money and we don't have any, right? Of course that's right. But if you don't want to respond to that then I guess you can pretend I said we should eliminate government spending altogether because it doesn't do any good at all, and respond to that instead.

Um, Marco Rubio said them last night in his response to the SoTU. He said them just before he talked about how great Medicare was for his parents and how his government-backed student loans enabled him to go to college. Those things, Medicare, and financial aid for students represent 'more government'. So while I haven't called you a hypocrite in this thread (yet), I am calling Marco Rubio one.

[dangolegators]

Nobody has called me personally a hypocrite.

Ok, so why are you asking people to defend calling you a hypocrite then?

[QGator2414]

So Masta, do you agree with these 2 statements?

More government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back.

More government isn’t going to create more opportunities. It’s going to limit them.

Continued obsession that misses the point.

We are over $16 trillion in debt so yes going forward government will hold back our future generations. It will limit opprotunities for them as they pay for our selfishness...

[Matthanuf06]

It is the worst argument to make that free market folks are hypocrites for using government run entities. The fact is we live in a government dominated world. We have to live in it. That is independent to whether or not it is a moral society, an efficient society or a society that maximizes production. What do you expect free market folks to do, not use roads, fire, police?

And lets not forget we are paying for it. I pay my taxes. I've paid for all those government run entities. I deserve something in return. No different than any other transaction. Just in this case I'm forced to do it and it involves a highly inefficient middle man. But to act like I'm a hypocrite for getting something for my money...that is freaking ridiculous.

[QGator2414]

It is the worst argument to make that free market folks are hypocrites for using government run entities. The fact is we live in a government dominated world. We have to live in it. That is independent to whether or not it is a moral society, an efficient society or a society that maximizes production. What do you expect free market folks to do, not use roads, fire, police?

And lets not forget we are paying for it. I pay my taxes. I've paid for all those government run entities. I deserve something in return. No different than any other transaction. Just in this case I'm forced to do it and it involves a highly inefficient middle man. But to act like I'm a hypocrite for getting something for my money...that is freaking ridiculous.

Well said!

Unfortunately the government pawns have been indoctrinated and are threatened by the idea of losing tyranny just a little tyranny...

[chemgator]

What I want is a leader who can walk on water.

Well, he can talk on water, isn't that good enough?

[CHFG8R]

Did someone mention low information voters? Speak of the devil...











You are wrong. Marco Rubio's parents emigrated from Cuba to the United States legally in 1956 because of the horrible economic conditions under the Batista regime that led to the Cuban Revolution. They intended to return someday but when they went back to visit and saw the even worse conditions under Castro, they decided to stay and eventually became naturalized U.S. citizens.

At no point did Rubio's parents enter or remain in the U.S. illegally. In fact I searched online and couldn't find where any such accusation is being made by even the most rabid Rubio haters on the Left, so it's safe to assume you just made it up. Making things up on Too Hot is poor form and the mark of a low quality poster.

But since you evidently regard it as a point of criticism to be an illegal immigrant or the child of one, do tell us what you think about all these people who Democrats took to the SOTU speech last night.


When you're done sharing your thoughts on that please tell us what 0bama had "accomplished as a politician" prior to being elected President. Or for that matter, what had he accomplished prior to the 2004 Democratic Convention when he first gave a speech on a national platform like Rubio did last night? Why was he more qualified than Rubio to speak to a national audience on behalf of his party?

Could it be that partisan hypocrisy could come full circle? That, perhaps, a strong Rubio candidacy could give rise to a leftist "birther" movement?

Please, God, let it be so. :laugh:

[Swampmaster]

if a shaky, inexperienced rubio is the republicans great hope in 2016 against hillary or biden, they are in for a big disappointment.

[rajinGator]

Me thinks Rubio scares the britches off the Dem politicians. They want more Romneys and McCains.

[fairfaxgator]

The guy took a sip of water. It did look really odd - I don't know why he wouldn't have had his water bottle within reach. But it's quite demonstrative of the immaturity of Liberals that it's all they can talk about today.

They act like adolescents in perpetual rebellion against the Conservative grownups. It was literally the very first thing Rachel Maddow said after the speech. "So yeah he said a bunch of stuff but I think this speech will be remembered for the weird way he reached over to get a sip of water," or something like that, and then kept going on in her typical sarcastic, condescending tone about how funny that was. I'm sure her viewers were eating it up. All 37 of them, not including me.

You must have blinders on for your lovely Tea Party immaturity for the past 4 years...but carry on...

Rubio is not prepared...

[MastaG8r]

Um, Marco Rubio said them last night in his response to the SoTU. He said them just before he talked about how great Medicare was for his parents and how his government-backed student loans enabled him to go to college. Those things, Medicare, and financial aid for students represent 'more government'. So while I haven't called you a hypocrite in this thread (yet), I am calling Marco Rubio one.Wrong. Those things do not represent "more" government, they are existing government benefits. Do you not understand the significance of the word "more" in the sentences you quoted?

More government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back.

More government isn’t going to create more opportunities. It’s going to limit them.

0bama wants more government involvement in people's lives. Conservatives want there to be less, or at most the status quo, but not more.

Ok, so why are you asking people to defend calling you a hypocrite then?

Geez Francis it's a figure of speech. Could've said Marco Rubio or any Conservative but used myself as an example because I'm one who's benefited from government services and got degrees from a state university and also thinks the government spends too much money inefficiently and shouldn't get a budget increase. And there's nothing inconsistent about those things.

[Gatorrick22]

:laugh:

Rubio contradicted himself? Have you been watching Obama do this for the last four years?

:roll:

I know, right.

[GatorAvatar]

Jon Stewart just destroyed Rubio, exposing his contradictions and hypocrisy.

[Itssaul]

Jon Stewart just destroyed Rubio, exposing his contradictions and hypocrisy.

I bet Rubio is heartbroken

[dangolegators]

Wrong. Those things do not represent "more" government, they are existing government benefits. Do you not understand the significance of the word "more" in the sentences you quoted?


You are really spinning it hard. No, actually Marco is very generally saying that 'more' government is bad, and 'less' government is good. It's made clear by adding a little more context to Marco's statements. He said:

And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.

More government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back.

More government isn’t going to create more opportunities. It’s going to limit them.

I want you to pay very close attention to the bolded part above. What do you think 'that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried' means with regards to existing government programs?

You should probably actually read a transcript of Rubio's speech before you paint yourself into any more corners.

[LittleBlueLW]

Someone here is being deliberately obtuse.

It's been mentioned in this thread and worth mentioning again. When Obama said, 'You didnt build that.' Half claim it meant one thing and half claim it meant another.

Instead of being completely partisan, how about being consistent.

[MastaG8r]

You are really spinning it hard. No, actually Marco is very generally saying that 'more' government is bad, and 'less' government is good. It's made clear by adding a little more context to Marco's statements. He said:

And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.

More government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back.

More government isn’t going to create more opportunities. It’s going to limit them.

I want you to pay very close attention to the bolded part above. What do you think 'that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried' means with regards to existing government programs?

You should probably actually read a transcript of Rubio's speech before you paint yourself into any more corners.Wow. There's not even any need to reference the surrounding context of those quotes to show why your interpretation is wrong. It's plain to see within the quoted portions themselves, including the additional line that was added.

And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.

More government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back.

More government isn’t going to create more opportunities. It’s going to limit them.Other than dangole is there any poster reading this who doesn't understand Rubio's statements to mean that increasing federal spending and expanding the size & scope of government is not the best way to improve our economic conditions?

That European countries have tried to tax-and-spend their way to prosperity, and it hasn't worked? That when you are dangerously overweight from over-eating, more eating is bad for you and less eating is good...but that doesn't mean you need to stop eating altogether?

LittleBlue was right - you're being obtuse by equating opposition to more government with opposition to any government. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and won't say you're doing it "deliberately." I'm sure you can't help it.

[wgbgator]

I bet Rubio is heartbroken

He'll probably have to give up politics now and become a beet farmer.

[jimgata]

The left is morre interested in what maher and stewart says and how someone delivers a speech , than the contents of a speech. Time to grow up and pay attention to what someone does and what they believe and not some silly comments by pseudo comedians.

[wgbgator]

Rubio didnt say anything that Republicans havent already been saying for the last 30 years. Government is bad, except when its helping me, etc.

[gator996]

Me thinks Rubio scares the britches off the Dem politicians. They want more Romneys and McCains.


Conservatives have been saying that since Bush II...

Yeah, criticism of the conservatives must be born from fear... :laugh:


Sarah Pallin
Paul Ryan
Donald Trump
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Herman Cain
Rick Perry
Newt Gringrich
Marco Rubio
Bobby Jindahl


That group invokes fear in anyone?
:grin:

[MastaG8r]

Oh hello 996. Any comment on falsely accusing Marco Rubio's parents of being illegal immigrants? Care to share the source of that accusation you made? Or you can really impress us by being honest and admitting you made it up.

[Row6]

I don't think Masta reads a whole lot of what his fellow conservatives post here. Maybe he's embarrassed by them.

One can hope the problem is lack of information - obvious and glaring as it is. I admire your patience to argue with someone declaring the cloudless sky is not blue.

[mdgator05]

One of the more interesting charts you will find on the matter is at this link:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/keep-your-government-hands-off-my-government-programs/

Over half of all student loan recipients don't list themselves as benefiting from a government social program.

There is a rather amazing list of government programs that people have received that for some reason people don't identify as government. 60% don't think they have when they have received the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction, 44% who received social security, 40% who have received a GI bill, and over a quarter of all people that have received welfare, Medicaid, government-subsidized housing, and food stamps.

This is why people like Rubio and Romney, when they run for office, talk about cutting government programs, but never ever go into specifics. Because there are a huge number of voters who have received those government programs without even thinking about them as government. So a call to cut other people's government is okay, while nobody should cut their government.

It is really a quantification of the "Keep your government hands off of my Medicare" people.

[gator421]

One of the more interesting charts you will find on the matter is at this link:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/keep-your-government-hands-off-my-government-programs/

Over half of all student loan recipients don't list themselves as benefiting from a government social program.

There is a rather amazing list of government programs that people have received that for some reason people don't identify as government. 60% don't think they have when they have received the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction, 44% who received social security, 40% who have received a GI bill, and over a quarter of all people that have received welfare, Medicaid, government-subsidized housing, and food stamps.

This is why people like Rubio and Romney, when they run for office, talk about cutting government programs, but never ever go into specifics. Because there are a huge number of voters who have received those government programs without even thinking about them as government. So a call to cut other people's government is okay, while nobody should cut their government.

It is really a quantification of the "Keep your government hands off of my Medicare" people.

Reminds me of the retired Air Force dentist that lived in The Villages. He was at a Romney rally supporting him because he was tired of all the people on the public dole.

[Row6]

Reminds me of the retired Air Force dentist that lived in The Villages. He was at a Romney rally supporting him because he was tired of all the people on the public dole.

The town that wouldn't exist without SS and Medicare.

[fredsanford]

The right continues to think that it's the messengers and not the message that is the problem.

This country will not swallow a hardcore conservative message, especially as it relates to dismantling SS and Medicare, no matter which huckster pushes it.

[QGator2414]

One of the more interesting charts you will find on the matter is at this link:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/keep-your-government-hands-off-my-government-programs/

Over half of all student loan recipients don't list themselves as benefiting from a government social program.

There is a rather amazing list of government programs that people have received that for some reason people don't identify as government. 60% don't think they have when they have received the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction, 44% who received social security, 40% who have received a GI bill, and over a quarter of all people that have received welfare, Medicaid, government-subsidized housing, and food stamps.

This is why people like Rubio and Romney, when they run for office, talk about cutting government programs, but never ever go into specifics. Because there are a huge number of voters who have received those government programs without even thinking about them as government. So a call to cut other people's government is okay, while nobody should cut their government.

It is really a quantification of the "Keep your government hands off of my Medicare" people.

There is no doubt this is a real problem. And it is unfortunate that we do not have leaders from either party willing to be honest about what we are going to leave the future generations so we can keep the lifestyle we think we are owed...

[Tim85]

One of the more interesting charts you will find on the matter is at this link:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/keep-your-government-hands-off-my-government-programs/

Over half of all student loan recipients don't list themselves as benefiting from a government social program.

There is a rather amazing list of government programs that people have received that for some reason people don't identify as government. 60% don't think they have when they have received the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction, 44% who received social security, 40% who have received a GI bill, and over a quarter of all people that have received welfare, Medicaid, government-subsidized housing, and food stamps.

This is why people like Rubio and Romney, when they run for office, talk about cutting government programs, but never ever go into specifics. Because there are a huge number of voters who have received those government programs without even thinking about them as government. So a call to cut other people's government is okay, while nobody should cut their government.

It is really a quantification of the "Keep your government hands off of my Medicare" people.

I agree that it's a problem, but as I said earlier, Rubio admitted first-hand on National television that the government helped him and he was basically glad for it. What more does he have to say to prove he doesn't hate the government? Why is that being ignored by 996 as well? And why hasn't the OP addressed the comments Masta brought up about falsely accusing Rubio's parents of being illegal?

Rubio said he couldn't have gone to college with out the loans, and that he wanted to modernize it and make it more efficient. Are those things you don't want for government programs? Efficiency? He's not going to go into specific detail because for one, it was a response to a speech, and secondly, he hasn't run for President or Vice-President yet, that's just simply how it works.

[GatorAvatar]

I bet Rubio is heartbroken

No, he just became another Bobby Jindal.

[gatorman_07732]

No, he just became another Bobby Jindal.

Is that supposed to have some meaning?

[wgbgator]

Is that supposed to have some meaning?

Rubio = next governor of Louisiana. :laugh:

[GatorAvatar]

I agree that it's a problem, but as I said earlier, Rubio admitted first-hand on National television that the government helped him and he was basically glad for it. What more does he have to say to prove he doesn't hate the government? Why is that being ignored by 996 as well? And why hasn't the OP addressed the comments Masta brought up about falsely accusing Rubio's parents of being illegal?

Rubio said he couldn't have gone to college with out the loans, and that he wanted to modernize it and make it more efficient. Are those things you don't want for government programs? Efficiency? He's not going to go into specific detail because for one, it was a response to a speech, and secondly, he hasn't run for President or Vice-President yet, that's just simply how it works.

Did you hear the other side of his mouth...he blasted government for doing the same things he benefited from...that's where the hypocrisy label comes from.

[Tim85]

Conservatives have been saying that since Bush II...

Yeah, criticism of the conservatives must be born from fear... :laugh:


Sarah Pallin
Paul Ryan
Donald Trump
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Herman Cain
Rick Perry
Newt Gringrich
Marco Rubio
Bobby Jindahl

That group invokes fear in anyone?
:grin:

Firstly, you only damage your chances at peope taking your opinions and positions seriously by incuding Donald Trump in that list. Can you even consider him a politician? His career isn't even comparable to the others, and neither is his "status" to the Republican party.

Secondly, the three I highlighted are significantly different in a multitude of ways -- and it's not partisan to see that or admit it. Even Wolf Blitzer the other night admitted, "He's [Marco Rubio] got a huge future ahead of him, he's a very impressive guy." Now if you don't want to admit Blitzer is as liberal as they come, then sure, but you certainly can't suggest he's conservative.

[gatorman_07732]

Rubio = next governor of Louisiana. :laugh:

Hey, thanks for clearing that up :laugh:

[GatorAvatar]

Is that supposed to have some meaning?

Lol. Jindal was supposedly the saviour of the GOP and gave the GOP response to Obama's SOTU speech a few years back. What happened, well, let's say the rest is history.

[Tim85]

Did you hear the other side of his mouth...he blasted government for doing the same things he benefited from...that's where the hypocrisy label comes from.

Where did he blast them for doing the same things he benefited from? His transcript can be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-of-the-union-2013-republican-address-to-the-nation-delivered-by-sen-marco-rubio-transcript/2013/02/12/4f8d4c1a-7586-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html

Secondly, in the view of almost all Republicans, our government is incredibly inefficient, and it's going to cost us, and more importantly, it's going to cost the children of today and the future children. They deserve to be "blasted," that's not anti-government, it's anti-inefficiency.

[GatorAvatar]

Firstly, you only damage your chances at peope taking your opinions and positions seriously by incuding Donald Trump in that list. Can you even consider him a politician? His career isn't even comparable to the others, and neither is his "status" to the Republican party.

Secondly, the three I highlighted are significantly different in a multitude of ways -- and it's not partisan to see that or admit it. Even Wolf Blitzer the other night admitted, "He's [Marco Rubio] got a huge future ahead of him, he's a very impressive guy." Now if you don't want to admit Blitzer is as liberal as they come, then sure, but you certainly can't suggest he's conservative.

Blitzer a liberal? Lol. Secondly, Rubio came into the Senate on a teaparty ticket. He won't sniff the White House, unless he makes a u-turn from those policies.

[Tim85]

Lol. Jindal was supposedly the saviour of the GOP and gave the GOP response to Obama's SOTU speech a few years back. What happened, well, let's say the rest is history.

What happened was that he stayed loyal to the state of Lousiana, and nothing more. The guy could do anything he wanted, including run for POTUS, still, to this day. You're suggesting his time is over or something, which is just silliness. The guy is only like 42 years old. This is the type of political-talk that brings or incites no enlightenment or progression -- you're basically slandering the guy with absolutely no facts to back it up.

[GatorAvatar]

What happened was that he stayed loyal to the state of Lousiana, and nothing more. The guy could do anything he wanted, including run for POTUS, still, to this day. You're suggesting his time is over or something, which is just silliness. The guy is only like 42 years old. This is the type of political-talk that brings or incites no enlightenment or progression -- you're basically slandering the guy with absolutely no facts to back it up.

His speech was a snooze fest. It was bizarre to say the least. It was as weird as Rubio's speech (water break, lip smacking, face rubbing etc). After that weird speech Jindal's stock plummeted. His brand got damaged. Rubio's stock is also damaged...he is gonna be remembered as a caricature.

[Tim85]

Blitzer a liberal? Lol. Secondly, Rubio came into the Senate on a teaparty ticket. He won't sniff the White House, unless he makes a u-turn from those policies.

Rubio technically has no affiliation with the teaparty movement as far as I know. He has run as a Republican and won as a Republican. Whether he'll ever sniff the white house, well that I can't say, because I don't know the future. I know most political pundits and sources, regardless of D. or R., think the guy has a pretty good chance at least running for President.

[gatorman_07732]

Lol. Jindal was supposedly the saviour of the GOP and gave the GOP response to Obama's SOTU speech a few years back. What happened, well, let's say the rest is history.

In case you haven't noticed he is a governor and in his second term, so all things considered he's doing alright. This correlation between Rubio and Jindal is a tad silly. Oh, I forgot the both gave a response to a SOTU address. A little news for you is that no single person can be a saviour.

[dangolegators]

Wow. There's not even any need to reference the surrounding context of those quotes to show why your interpretation is wrong. It's plain to see within the quoted portions themselves, including the additional line that was added.

So you think that when Rubio says this:

And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.

That what he really means is this?

One of these programs, Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now.

I would never support any changes to Medicare that would hurt seniors like my mother.

You think he really means "that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried. Except for Medicare. Medicare is awesome!'.

Explain to me what he is actually trying to say here.

[gatorman_07732]

So you think that when Rubio says this:



That what he really means is this?



You think he really means "that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried. Except for Medicare. Medicare is awesome!'.

Explain to me what he is actually trying to say here.

Perhaps you think there are no other solution to the Medicare insolvency problem other than raising taxes and sticking your head in the sand.

[Tim85]

His speech was a snooze fest. It was bizarre to say the least. It was as weird as Rubio's speech (water break, lip smacking, face rubbing etc). After that weird speech Jindal's stock plummeted. His brand got damaged. Rubio's stock is also damaged...he is gonna be remembered as a caricature.

You do reaize all you're basically saying is, "I dont like ice-cream. It's too cold and I just don't think it tastes very good. The texture of it is strange and when it freezes the roof of my mouth, it makes my head hurt. Because I don't like it -- ice cream isn't very popular. People will look back and think ice-cream wasn't as good as it was made out to be." I can't argue against that which you personally like or don't like -- and noone can.

I could say the exact opposite of everything you said, and how would you respond? That I was wrong?

[QGator2414]

Did you hear the other side of his mouth...he blasted government for doing the same things he benefited from...that's where the hypocrisy label comes from.

This is just juvenile...

For example...I benefitted from Florida Bright Futures but it is obvious the program must be (already has since I received it) reformed so the University of Florida can compete. If we want UF to compete then kids will not benefit the way kids did when I went to UF (and it was too generous back then as well)...

[Tim85]

So you think that when Rubio says this:


Quote:
And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.

That what he really means is this?


Quote:
One of these programs, Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now.

I would never support any changes to Medicare that would hurt seniors like my mother.


I think when he says that taxes and spending isn't the answer, that's what he means, and nothing more. How do you get that it's contradictory to be against more spending and taxes and also be pro-medicare?

[reformedgator]

Is that supposed to have some meaning?

Only in the pseudo intellectual world of the liberal mind.

[cocodrilo]

I think Rubio planned the water bit in advance. Now everyone's talking about him.

Just like Saint Rudy Giuliani, back when he was running for the Republican nomination, interrupted himself in a speech to take a cell phone call from his significant other. How human, how touching, how family values! Though I believe it must have been his mistress calling, since his wife had been kicked out of the house.

[dangolegators]

I think when he says that taxes and spending isn't the answer, that's what he means, and nothing more. How do you get that it's contradictory to be against more spending and taxes and also be pro-medicare?

Well, he says that more taxes and more spending is an "idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.". Then he says "One of these programs, Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now.". Those are definitely contradictory statements. That's how I get that it's contradictory.

[gatorman_07732]

Well, he says that more taxes and more spending is an "idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.". Then he says "One of these programs, Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now.". Those are definitely contradictory statements. That's how I get that it's contradictory.

You can be that oblivious not to understand he is referring to taxing and spending as a recipe to the economy and jobs.

[dangolegators]

You can be that oblivious not to understand he is referring to taxing and spending as a recipe to the economy and jobs.

So you think he's saying that "more taxes and more spending is bad for the economy but that's ok in the case of Medicare, because I like Medicare"?

[mdgator05]

This is just juvenile...

For example...I benefitted from Florida Bright Futures but it is obvious the program must be (already has since I received it) reformed so the University of Florida can compete. If we want UF to compete then kids will not benefit the way kids did when I went to UF (and it was too generous back then as well)...

By the conservative logic that you are always free to pay more in taxes, which is given anytime somebody says that they think tax rates are too low, did you give the money back to the state or refuse some of the Bright Futures, since it was too generous?

[gatorman_07732]

So you think he's saying that "more taxes and more spending is bad for the economy but that's ok in the case of Medicare, because I like Medicare"?

With all due respect your argument is dumb. You're trying to make something out of nothing. It's like equating that people who want smaller more reasonable government means they don't want any government.

[dangolegators]

With all due respect your argument is dumb. You're trying to make something out of nothing. It's like equating that people who want smaller more reasonable government means they don't want any government.

So why did he say more taxes and spending is an idea that has 'failed every time it’s been tried'? He didn't say it fails sometimes. He said it fails every time. That would most certainly include the massive expansion of government that was Medicare.

[DeanMeadGator]

Lol. Jindal was supposedly the saviour of the GOP and gave the GOP response to Obama's SOTU speech a few years back. What happened, well, let's say the rest is history.

As history reflects, loans must be repaid or bad things happen. In this case, bad things will be cast upon and left to our children and grandchildren.

The parties and the members thereof continue to cast aspersions on and blame one another for everything. This is far easier than dealing with the most important problem facing America.

Who thinks the country can survive with a projected $20 trillion debt by the end of the President's term?

In responding to this question, please do not waste time in the useless exercise of blame.

This will be history. We were so busy blaming one another that we ignored the major problem of our times. We were unwilling to deal with the problem because we were fiddling while Rome burned.

[gatorman_07732]

So why did he say more taxes and spending is an idea that has 'failed every time it’s been tried'? He didn't say it fails sometimes. He said it fails every time. That would most certainly include the massive expansion of government that was Medicare.

Give it up

[dangolegators]

Give it up

So you can't explain it?

[gatorman_07732]

So you can't explain it?

I can't explain what you are thinking, that's for sure. What I find amazing is when someone is for smaller government means in your mind they can't be for any government. This is an argument the left likes to use and try to neutralized, freeze and turn an argument.

[dangolegators]

I can't explain what you are thinking, that's for sure. What I find amazing is when someone is for smaller government means in your mind they can't be for any government. This is an argument the left likes to use and try to neutralized, freeze and turn an argument.

It's certainly not an argument I am using. I understand that being for smaller government does not mean one is for no government. I am simply trying to get you to explain to me what this statement means:

And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.

In particular, explained to me what 'failed every time' means.

[QGator2414]

By the conservative logic that you are always free to pay more in taxes, which is given anytime somebody says that they think tax rates are too low, did you give the money back to the state or refuse some of the Bright Futures, since it was too generous?

:roll:

No. I am just stating the obvious. Which is the reason kids today get less and it is harder to qualify for the full amount...

Just like I do not blame people for taking the SS check. However if you are not willing to push government to change and are not willing to sacrifice for the good of our further generations you become part of the problem...

[gatorman_07732]

It's certainly not an argument I am using. I understand that being for smaller government does not mean one is for no government. I am simply trying to get you to explain to me what this statement means:



In particular, explained to me what 'failed every time' means.

I already explain it to you, but you're being incredulous. Your reply to me was why didn't he say B instead of A. I can't explain why someone chooses to say something a certain way to satisfy you, although something tells me you would have a problem with it anyway. If you ask 10 reasonable people what he meant they would all say he was referring to the economy and jobs.

[mdgator05]

I agree that it's a problem, but as I said earlier, Rubio admitted first-hand on National television that the government helped him and he was basically glad for it. What more does he have to say to prove he doesn't hate the government? Why is that being ignored by 996 as well? And why hasn't the OP addressed the comments Masta brought up about falsely accusing Rubio's parents of being illegal?

Rubio said he couldn't have gone to college with out the loans, and that he wanted to modernize it and make it more efficient. Are those things you don't want for government programs? Efficiency? He's not going to go into specific detail because for one, it was a response to a speech, and secondly, he hasn't run for President or Vice-President yet, that's just simply how it works.

"Modernize and make it more efficient." What a wonderfully-crafted piece of cliched pabulum. How does he plan to do that? Oh wait, he didn't tell us. Because a big national speech is apparently not the time to give even a rough outline of specifics.

And after he doesn't give those "modernize and make more efficient" details when he does run for President (as neither McCain nor Romney did), what will be the excuse then? "Well a nomination speech isn't the time for specifics. Well a debate isn't the time for specifics..."etc.

[QGator2414]

The liberal idea that one should never use a government service because they believe in limited government and think many programs should be slowly done away with so we do not leave our kids a bill and nothing to show for it is juvenile...

I have an SBA loan as well...we qualified for conventional but I am not going to refuse an option as long as our government puts it out there. I personally think SBA loans are handouts to the banks. A way for banks to put most of the risk on the government. Fortunately there is little risk for the government right now with ours...

[mdgator05]

The liberal idea that one should never use a government service because they believe in limited government and think many programs should be slowly done away with so we do not leave our kids a bill and nothing to show for it is juvenile...

I have an SBA loan as well...we qualified for conventional but I am not going to refuse an option as long as our government puts it out there. I personally think SBA loans are handouts to the banks. A way for banks to put most of the risk on the government. Fortunately there is little risk for the government right now with ours...

Aren't you one of the people that have taunted liberals by claiming they should voluntarily pay more taxes? I seem to remember you responding to Warren Buffett in that manner.

[baygator1]

Did any of the Obama lackeys here notice that Obama contradicts himself daily?

[dangolegators]

I already explain it to you, but you're being incredulous. Your reply to me was why didn't he say B instead of A. I can't explain why someone chooses to say something a certain way to satisfy you, although something tells me you would have a problem with it anyway. If you ask 10 reasonable people what he meant they would all say he was referring to the economy and jobs.

Nah, you're just putting words in his mouth in an attempt to cover for his obvious contradictions.

[gatorman_07732]

Nah, you're just putting words in his mouth in an attempt to cover for his obvious contradictions.

Hey, believe what you want

[QGator2414]

Aren't you one of the people that have taunted liberals by claiming they should voluntarily pay more taxes? I seem to remember you responding to Warren Buffett in that manner.

Yes I have zero respect for Buffett. A man that does not call for the removal of the carried interest loophole and ISO loophole while pushing for high estate taxes that hammer hard working people while he shields it all...

It irks me that family businesses have to be sold because of the estate tax and Buffett chimes in about how the estate tax needs to be high while he has his estate headed to the Gates Foundation...

[QGator2414]

I know liberals think the federal government is better equipped to help out Ocala Florida compared to my family and the others that live in and pass through our great city.

It is a sad reality...

[GatorAvatar]

I know liberals think the federal government is better equipped to help out Ocala Florida compared to my family and the others that live in and pass through our great city.

It is a sad reality...

Wait till a hurricane ravages through your town...

[gatorman_07732]

Wait till a hurricane ravages through your town...

It already has

[mdgator05]

Yes I have zero respect for Buffett. A man that does not call for the removal of the carried interest loophole and ISO loophole while pushing for high estate taxes that hammer hard working people while he shields it all...

It irks me that family businesses have to be sold because of the estate tax and Buffett chimes in about how the estate tax needs to be high while he has his estate headed to the Gates Foundation...

Aside from the right-wing version of class warfare, the same argument could be made about you. If you hadn't taken advantage of an individually optimal economic decision to take the "too generous" government program, hurting future generations of students, more money would be available today.

So basically, you recognized that you were making an individually optimal decision that you don't feel you should have. Basically, for all the venom you spew towards him, your actions are in no way different on an economic level from Buffett's actions.

[mdgator05]

:roll:

No. I am just stating the obvious. Which is the reason kids today get less and it is harder to qualify for the full amount...

Just like I do not blame people for taking the SS check. However if you are not willing to push government to change and are not willing to sacrifice for the good of our further generations you become part of the problem...

So then based on your unwillingness to voluntarily and unilaterally surrender your Bright Futures, you became a part of the problem.

[MastaG8r]

So you think that when Rubio says this:



That what he really means is this?



You think he really means "that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried. Except for Medicare. Medicare is awesome!'.

Explain to me what he is actually trying to say here.I've already explained it and gatorman has too, but I'll take another shot at it. It's really not hard to understand.

I expect you'll take this sincere question as a potshot or an insult even though it honestly isn't meant that way...but is English not your first or native language? NTTIAWWT. I've noticed before that some of the subtleties of the language seem lost on you so that would explain a lot.

Anyway. When Marco Rubio said, "the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried," what he meant was...exactly what he said. It doesn't require any interpretation if you have a basic understanding of world history and current international events.

When countries facing economic challenges have tried to tax & spend their way to prosperity, like Greece, France and any number of other European nations have done, they have failed. So there's no reason to believe 0bama and the Dems when they say we can grow our economy by raising taxes and expanding the reach of government.

Again, the key word in Rubio's statement is "more." 0bama says the government isn't taking in enough money. He thinks more government revenue will help our economy. Rubio disagrees. But it's ridiculous to suggest that Rubio is saying there should be no government revenue. It's also ridiculous to suggest it is somehow hypocritical of him to oppose tax increases and praise Medicare at the same time.

[wgbgator]

Actually, taxing and spending worked extremely well from about 1934-1975. Then it didnt work so well anymore due to a number of disparate factors. But Democrats arent really advocating a return to a mid-20th century political economy. Really, Rubio's argument is mostly a strawman, and his presciptions for growth (tax cuts) are suspect.

[MastaG8r]

Actually, taxing and spending worked extremely well from about 1934-1975. Then it didnt work so well anymore due to a number of disparate factors. But Democrats arent really advocating a return to a mid-20th century political economy. Really, Rubio's argument is mostly a strawman, and his presciptions for growth (tax cuts) are suspect.Listen if you want to argue that Rubio is wrong when he says more taxes are not the path to economic recovery, then have at it. That's a fair argument to make if you've got the proof to support it. What's not fair or accurate is claiming there is something inherently inconsistent or hypocritical in what he's saying.

[neisgator]

Jon Stewart just destroyed Rubio, exposing his contradictions and hypocrisy.

The only thing Jon Stewart ever destroys is his own diaper.

[dangolegators]

Listen if you want to argue that Rubio is wrong when he says more taxes are not the path to success, then have at it. That's a fair argument to make if you've got the proof to support it. What's not fair or accurate is claiming there is something inherently inconsistent or hypocritical in what he's saying.

Nah, there is obvious inconsistency and hypocrisy in what Rubio said. He argues against big government and then turns around and praises one of the biggest expansions of government of the 20th century. This is really easy to understand and needs no nuance to explain, unless that is, you are trying to explain Rubio's way out of his obvious contradictions.

Rubio said these things for 2 obvious and opposing reasons. One is that the Republicans want to be known as the party of small government (even though in practice, they are not). The other is Republicans are terrified of saying anything bad about Medicare. They want old people to like them. If you were being honest, you would just man up and admit that this just an obvious example of a politician being a politician.

I expect you'll take this sincere question as a potshot or an insult even though it honestly isn't meant that way...but is English not your first or native language? NTTIAWWT. I've noticed before that some of the subtleties of the language seem lost on you so that would explain a lot.

A pot shot from you? Never. What I've noticed from you is that you change your interpretive style depending on the statement and who said it. For example, right now you're bending over backwards, applying nuance, subtlety, and spin in an attempt to reinterpret what Rubio actually said. But when it's Obama, and something like 'you didn't build that', you take a strict literal approach. I guess it just depends whether or not you are on the defensive (as in this thread) or the offensive (as in the many 'you didn't build that' threads). Again, that's just something I've noticed from you before.

[QGator2414]

Wait till a hurricane ravages through your town...

What a pathetic response. States, Communities and Charties will help others out in disasters. Sadly the federal government uses disasters to waste tax payer dollars. Just look at Sandy...

I will give you that Charlie Crist has put our state in real jeopardy if a large hurricane hits wrt Citizens insurance. That said it is our responsibility to deal with it not the federal government...

[QGator2414]

Aside from the right-wing version of class warfare, the same argument could be made about you. If you hadn't taken advantage of an individually optimal economic decision to take the "too generous" government program, hurting future generations of students, more money would be available today.

So basically, you recognized that you were making an individually optimal decision that you don't feel you should have. Basically, for all the venom you spew towards him, your actions are in no way different on an economic level from Buffett's actions.

No I actually would have been willing to sacrifice while using the system we participated in while Buffett is not and hides behind the complex tax code to act like he is a great guy...

I do not blame anyone for using the system they/we are participating in. It is the fact many people like you who feel we cannot change programs because they/we got a good deal even though the programs are unsustainable and damaging to our future generations who eventually will be left with nothing but a burden...

As I said earlier...One should take their SS check if they are receiving it now. But they should be willing and pushing to sacrifice so we leave a respectful program to the future generations who have no say/vote...Unfortunately we get strawmen arguments of we paid this you did that rather than actually look at the facts and reality. It stinks we were sold a bill of goods and forced to participate in a bad program. But it is time to do the right thing instead of continue figuring out how to selfishly server ourselves...

The same crap argument is made by libs all the time wrt a pub who did not support the terrible stimulus policy but then brings money home from it. Once the thing passed the money was going to be spent. At that point the entire sitution changes from trying to look out for your citizens by stopping wreckless spending to at least bringing in some of that wreckless spending to their citizens since it was going to happen after the bill passed...

[QGator2414]

So then based on your unwillingness to voluntarily and unilaterally surrender your Bright Futures, you became a part of the problem.

:roll:

answered in the pervious post...

[MastaG8r]

Nah, there is obvious inconsistency and hypocrisy in what Rubio said. He argues against big government and then turns around and praises one of the biggest expansions of government of the 20th century. This is really easy to understand and needs no nuance to explain, unless that is, you are trying to explain Rubio's way out of his obvious contradictions.

Rubio said these things for 2 obvious and opposing reasons. One is that the Republicans want to be known as the party of small government (even though in practice, they are not). The other is Republicans are terrified of saying anything bad about Medicare. They want old people to like them. If you were being honest, you would just man up and admit that this just an obvious example of a politician being a politician.

A pot shot from you? Never. What I've noticed from you is that you change your interpretive style depending on the statement and who said it. For example, right now you're bending over backwards, applying nuance, subtlety, and spin in an attempt to reinterpret what Rubio actually said. But when it's Obama, and something like 'you didn't build that', you take a strict literal approach. I guess it just depends whether or not you are on the defensive (as in this thread) or the offensive (as in the many 'you didn't build that' threads). Again, that's just something I've noticed from you before.So let's see. Myself and others who are arguing with you (and please don't let it escape your attention that nobody is backing you up) are interpreting what Marco Rubio said at plain, face value: America doesn't need more government. More government is not the solution to the economic problems we're facing. Simple as that.

Never did Rubio say we don't need any government. In fact in the quotes we're talking about he didn't even say we could get by with less government, although based on other comments he does feel that way and deservedly so. All he said here, though, is that more government is not the answer. That's what he said, and most of us understand that he meant just that.

You, on the other hand, are interpreting his opposition to more government as opposition to any and all government. Of course that's not what he said at all, but you claim that's what he meant based on...well, really based on nothing more than your partisan tendency to negatively interpret everything any Republican politician says.

So myself and others are reading nothing extra into Rubio's simply-worded statements, whereas you are interpreting them to mean something more than what he said, and yet according to you we are the ones "applying nuance, subtlety, and spin."

You're just wrong, that's all.

Obama says the best way to improve economic conditions is for there to be more government programs paid for with more tax revenue. Rubio disagrees with 0bama and says more government is not the answer. At the same time Rubio does see the value in existing government programs like Medicare and wants to ensure that they are available for future generations by making them more efficient.

No inconsistency there. No hypocrisy. None whatsoever.

Now, you want to argue that Rubio is wrong, and that more government taxing & spending will revive the economy? Like I said, have at it. Nothing necessarily dishonest about that argument. But arguing that people like Rubio have no standing to oppose government expansion if they themselves have benefited from government services? Patently absurd.

[dangolegators]

Let's get real basic Masta. Did Medicare when it was enacted represent more taxation and more government spending? Just a yes or no will suffice.

[dangolegators]

You, on the other hand, are interpreting his opposition to more government as opposition to any and all government.

You must be joking. When did I ever say Rubio was opposed to any and all government?

[dangolegators]

Never did Rubio say we don't need any government.

And never did I say he said this. You, unable to debate what I am actually saying, are creating a strawman to debate instead.

[MastaG8r]

Let's get real basic Masta. Did Medicare when it was enacted represent more taxation and more government spending? Just a yes or no will suffice.Yes, of course Medicare represented more government taxation and spending when it was enacted. So what?

[mdgator05]

No I actually would have been willing to sacrifice while using the system we participated in while Buffett is not and hides behind the complex tax code to act like he is a great guy...

I do not blame anyone for using the system they/we are participating in. It is the fact many people like you who feel we cannot change programs because they/we got a good deal even though the programs are unsustainable and damaging to our future generations who eventually will be left with nothing but a burden...

As I said earlier...One should take their SS check if they are receiving it now. But they should be willing and pushing to sacrifice so we leave a respectful program to the future generations who have no say/vote...Unfortunately we get strawmen arguments of we paid this you did that rather than actually look at the facts and reality. It stinks we were sold a bill of goods and forced to participate in a bad program. But it is time to do the right thing instead of continue figuring out how to selfishly server ourselves...

The same crap argument is made by libs all the time wrt a pub who did not support the terrible stimulus policy but then brings money home from it. Once the thing passed the money was going to be spent. At that point the entire sitution changes from trying to look out for your citizens by stopping wreckless spending to at least bringing in some of that wreckless spending to their citizens since it was going to happen after the bill passed...

The conservative ability to frame is amazing to me. So he "hides behind" the complex tax code for acting in accordance with current tax code, while you were just using the law as it is currently written. There isn't a difference. He uses the legal system to benefit himself. You used the legal system to benefit yourself. He wants to change that system. You want to change that system.

The framing allows you to convince yourself that you don't blame somebody for participating in the system we have...literally a paragraph after doing exactly that.

And I bet you have managed to convince yourself through your framing in your own head that it is different. But on an economic level, it really isn't.

[dangolegators]

Yes, of course Medicare represented more government taxation and spending when it was enacted. So what?

Ok. Step 2. Rubio says "And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.".

So we've established that more taxes and more government spending includes programs like Medicare.

What does the second half of the statement "that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried" mean? Oh, and keep in mind that he is using past tense here.

[MastaG8r]

Ok. Step 2. Rubio says "And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.".

So we've established that more taxes and more government spending includes programs like Medicare.

What does the second half of the statement "that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried" mean? Oh, and keep in mind that he is using past tense here.Medicare is not a program that was started with the intention of growing the economy. That was never its purpose, and it never had that effect.

As I mentioned earlier when countries have tried to tax-and-spend their way to better economic conditions, it has failed. What we see going on over in Europe right now is the most recent example.

0bama says the best way to improve the economy and help middle class taxpayers is to have more government programs that are paid for with more tax revenues. Rubio disagrees. He says that's been tried before and it failed. He's not referring to Medicare when he says that because that's not a program that was intended to improve the economy.

[dangolegators]

Medicare is not a program that was started with the intention of growing the economy. That was never its purpose, and it never had that effect.

Oh. Did he say "And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to GROW THE ECONOMY – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried."? Let me check again.

Nope. He said "And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.".

But then he turns around and praises Medicare to high heavens because it helped his hardworking middle class parents.

[gatorman_07732]

Ok. Step 2. Rubio says "And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.".

So we've established that more taxes and more government spending includes programs like Medicare.

What does the second half of the statement "that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried" mean? Oh, and keep in mind that he is using past tense here.

Your argument is terrible

[MastaG8r]

Oh. Did he say "And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to GROW THE ECONOMY – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried."? Let me check again.

Nope. He said "And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.".

But then he turns around and praises Medicare to high heavens because it helped his hardworking middle class parents.Oh my God. Are you for real? Based on the forum rules against insulting other posters you should get a banning. That post was an insult to the collective intelligence of all of us.

On that note I am off to be with my Valentine but I shall return tomorrow to continue biting my thumb at thee and farting in thy general direction.

[dangolegators]

Your argument is terrible

Nah, my argument is fine. Rubio contradicted himself, denouncing big government but then practically tripping over himself to praise Medicare, which is big government. It's really simple. You don't want to admit it because you are very biased.

[dangolegators]

Oh my God. Are you for real? Based on the forum rules against insulting other posters you should get a banning. That post was an insult to the collective intelligence of all of us.

On that note I am off to be with my Valentine but I shall return tomorrow to continue biting my thumb at thee and farting in thy general direction.

Down to the insults and potshots again. And another debate against Masta won by Dangolegators.

[dangolegators]

So I've got 2 conservatives who are down to insults because they can't argue against my points. Smells like victory.

[gatorman_07732]

Nah, my argument is fine. Rubio contradicted himself, denouncing big government but then practically tripping over himself to praise Medicare, which is big government. It's really simple. You don't want to admit it because you are very biased.

So by your standard, people that don't believe taxing and spending stimulate the economy, and if they are on Medicare they automatically contradict themselves. That is complete awesomeness.

[dangolegators]

So by your standard, people that don't believe taxing and spending stimulate the economy, and if they are on Medicare they automatically contradict themselves. That is complete awesomeness.

No. By my standard, politicians who denounce big government as being bad and not helping people (saying it has 'failed every time') and then immediately go on to say how great Medicare is are automatically contradicting themselves.

I have no problem with people who 'don't believe taxing and spending stimulate the economy' but at the same time are on Medicare. That's fine and not contradictory. You are trying to create that strawman again. You are trying to argue against points I am not even making.

[neisgator]

This is in the Too Hot Hall of Fame for straw grasping.

[gatorman_07732]

No. By my standard, politicians who denounce big government as being bad and not helping people (saying it has 'failed every time') and then immediately go on to say how great Medicare is are automatically contradicting themselves.

I have no problem with people who 'don't believe taxing and spending stimulate the economy' but at the same time are on Medicare. That's fine and not contradictory. You are trying to create that strawman again. You are trying to argue against points I am not even making.

Good lord :zombie:

[fredsanford]

The pub power structure has realized their anti-government venom went too far when they attacked SS and Medicare.

They HAVE to get the codger vote to win elections. Scare them off, and they have no shot.

[QGator2414]

So let's see. Myself and others who are arguing with you (and please don't let it escape your attention that nobody is backing you up) are interpreting what Marco Rubio said at plain, face value: America doesn't need more government. More government is not the solution to the economic problems we're facing. Simple as that.

Never did Rubio say we don't need any government. In fact in the quotes we're talking about he didn't even say we could get by with less government, although based on other comments he does feel that way and deservedly so. All he said here, though, is that more government is not the answer. That's what he said, and most of us understand that he meant just that.

You, on the other hand, are interpreting his opposition to more government as opposition to any and all government. Of course that's not what he said at all, but you claim that's what he meant based on...well, really based on nothing more than your partisan tendency to negatively interpret everything any Republican politician says.

So myself and others are reading nothing extra into Rubio's simply-worded statements, whereas you are interpreting them to mean something more than what he said, and yet according to you we are the ones "applying nuance, subtlety, and spin."

You're just wrong, that's all.

Obama says the best way to improve economic conditions is for there to be more government programs paid for with more tax revenue. Rubio disagrees with 0bama and says more government is not the answer. At the same time Rubio does see the value in existing government programs like Medicare and wants to ensure that they are available for future generations by making them more efficient.

No inconsistency there. No hypocrisy. None whatsoever.

Now, you want to argue that Rubio is wrong, and that more government taxing & spending will revive the economy? Like I said, have at it. Nothing necessarily dishonest about that argument. But arguing that people like Rubio have no standing to oppose government expansion if they themselves have benefited from government services? Patently absurd.

Exactly!

[QGator2414]

The conservative ability to frame is amazing to me. So he "hides behind" the complex tax code for acting in accordance with current tax code, while you were just using the law as it is currently written. There isn't a difference. He uses the legal system to benefit himself. You used the legal system to benefit yourself. He wants to change that system. You want to change that system.

The framing allows you to convince yourself that you don't blame somebody for participating in the system we have...literally a paragraph after doing exactly that.

And I bet you have managed to convince yourself through your framing in your own head that it is different. But on an economic level, it really isn't.

You missed my point. He does not want to reform the tax code the way he portrays it...IE he still wants the carried interest and ISO loopholes for the "über" rich...

Now when he comes out and calls for the income he earns off investing other peoples money (not his own) to be taxed like his secretary at marginal rates I will respect him...And I would still expect him to use those loopholes until they were closed...

[QGator2414]

This is in the Too Hot Hall of Fame for straw grasping.

Defining the reality that Rubio is a threat to the libs...

[NJG8tor]

Rubio=Rick Perry. It is what it is.

[Tim85]

Rubio=Rick Perry. It is what it is.

Except he's 20 years younger, Puerto-Rican, more charistmatic, a Floridian(Being a Texan is kind of big), and a much better speaker. So yes, they're the same. :roll:

[LittleBlueLW]

Just caught up on the thread. Some resident Dems have learned the fine art of 'Riverdancing'.

Rubios words 'failed every time' are taken literally by resident Dems.

Obamas words 'you didnt build that' are taken figuratively.

Hmmmm. No inconsistency there.

Carry on.

[GatorAvatar]

What a pathetic response. States, Communities and Charties will help others out in disasters. Sadly the federal government uses disasters to waste tax payer dollars. Just look at Sandy...



I take it you don't live in the Sandy affected areas, some of which don't have power up to now. Maybe some of you folks in Ocala could teach them a thing or two.

[dangolegators]

Except he's 20 years younger, Puerto-Rican, more charistmatic, a Floridian(Being a Texan is kind of big), and a much better speaker. So yes, they're the same. :roll:

Yeah, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican... It's all the same.

[gatorman_07732]

Yeah, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican... It's all the same.

What the hell are you people talking about. This gets as nonsensical as it gets

[fredsanford]

What the hell are you people talking about. This gets as nonsensical as it gets

He's Cuban, not PR as the previous poster called him.

[dangolegators]

What the hell are you people talking about. This gets as nonsensical as it gets

And posts in this thread continue to go right over your head.

[QGator2414]

I take it you don't live in the Sandy affected areas, some of which don't have power up to now. Maybe some of you folks in Ocala could teach them a thing or two.

???

If the Feds are responsible as you imply then where is the power?

They will get power up and it takes a long time unfortunately for some (I have been lucky with my hurricane experiences while people less than a mile away were not so lucky). The federal government will not be the reason it gets back up either...

[gatorman_07732]

And posts in this thread continue to go right over your head.

You're the one that is posting nonsense. You have been on a roll today

'Originally Posted by dangolegators
Yeah, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican... It's all the same.

[CalSFGator]

Rubios words 'failed every time' are taken literally by resident Dems.

Obamas words 'you didnt build that' are taken figuratively.

Hmmmm. No inconsistency there.

Carry on.

Meaning that you are consistent and agree that the "you didn't build that" misinterp on the right is absurd and you reject it or not?

[LittleBlueLW]

Meaning that you are consistent and agree that the "you didn't build that" misinterp on the right is absurd and you reject it or not?

Uh, yes. Try and keep up.

[fredsanford]

And posts in this thread continue to go right over your head.

Most here do.

[Tim85]

Yeah, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican... It's all the same.

I made a mistake, sorry for that, was at school most of the day and had looked some stuff up on him and for some reason Puerto Rico was stuck in my head. Nice of you take one statement and assume that I'm racist. How do you expect to gain any knowledge or wisdom from these threads when you're so quick to assume something about someone?

[GatorAvatar]

I made a mistake, sorry for that, was at school most of the day and had looked some stuff up on him and for some reason Puerto Rico was stuck in my head. Nice of you take one statement and assume that I'm racist. How do you expect to gain any knowledge or wisdom from these threads when you're so quick to assume something about someone?

Where did he say you were racist lol? Don't be quick to assume ;)

[GatorAvatar]

???

If the Feds are responsible as you imply then where is the power?

They will get power up and it takes a long time unfortunately for some (I have been lucky with my hurricane experiences while people less than a mile away were not so lucky). The federal government will not be the reason it gets back up either...

Do you even watch the news?

[MastaG8r]

Down to the insults and potshots again. And another debate against Masta won by Dangolegators.Hahaha! When someone makes the observation that your absurd, senseless arguments are absurd and make no sense, as I and several others have done in this thread and in countless other threads in the past, it's not an insult that means you win the argument. It's a statement of fact that means you lose.

From the State of the Union Response (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-marco-rubios-state-union-response/story?id=18484413) by The Man Who is Going to Steal the Hispanic Vote from the Dems, which is all the GOP needs to do to create an entrenched majority and restore America to greatness:

Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity. But President Obama? He believes it's the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn't tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.

This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it's just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies. And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried.

More government isn't going to help you get ahead. It's going to hold you back. More government isn't going to create more opportunities. It's going to limit them. And more government isn't going to inspire new ideas, new businesses and new private sector jobs. It's going to create uncertainty. Because more government breeds complicated rules and laws that a small business can't afford to follow. Because more government raises taxes on employers who then pass the costs on to their employees through fewer hours, lower pay and even layoffs.
...

Now does this mean there's no role for government? Of course not. It plays a crucial part in keeping us safe, enforcing rules, and providing some security against the risks of modern life. But government's role is wisely limited by the Constitution. And it can't play its essential role when it ignores those limits.

As our Great Senator for Florida Marco Rubio says, our government serves the crucial role of "providing some security against the risks of modern life," which is the purpose of programs such as Medicare. But expanding the size of government and assigning it costly new jobs to do is not the best way to grow the economy, and it jeopardizes government's ability to adequately serve those essential purposes that we agree it should serve.

[Tim85]

Where did he say you were racist lol? Don't be quick to assume ;)

He/she insinuated it.

[QGator2414]

Do you even watch the news?

Why?

Not much lately...

Been quite busy getting ready for the arrival of our third child and just tired of the same old same old.

[dangolegators]

Hahaha! When someone makes the observation that your absurd, senseless arguments are absurd and make no sense, as I and several others have done in this thread and in countless other threads in the past, it's not an insult that means you win the argument. It's a statement of fact that means you lose.

From the State of the Union Response (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-marco-rubios-state-union-response/story?id=18484413) by The Man Who is Going to Steal the Hispanic Vote from the Dems, which is all the GOP needs to do to create an entrenched majority and restore America to greatness:

As our Great Senator for Florida Marco Rubio says, our government serves the crucial role of "providing some security against the risks of modern life," which is the purpose of programs such as Medicare. But expanding the size of government and assigning it costly new jobs to do is not the best way to grow the economy, and it jeopardizes government's ability to adequately serve those essential purposes that we agree it should serve.


Rubio says government programs fail every time:

And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried. More government isn't going to help you get ahead. It's going to hold you back. More government isn't going to create more opportunities. It's going to limit them.

Rubio evokes his dead daddy to say how awesome Medicare is:

One of these programs, Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now. I would never support any changes to Medicare that would hurt seniors like my mother.

[MastaG8r]

Rubio says government programs fail every time:



Rubio evokes his dead daddy to say how awesome Medicare is:

Rubio evokes "his dead daddy," huh? You're so classy.

Every poster but you - Left and Right - understands that when Rubio said "fails every time" he was referring directly to 0bama's approach to the economy that Rubio described two sentences earlier in the speech: "[H]is solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more."

Rubio clearly explained that Medicare is an important, beneficial program that needs to be preserved, but that increasing the overall size of government is not the best way to do it. In fact he is saying that growing the government and giving it new jobs to do will jeopardize its ability to efficiently perform the jobs it does now.

Now does this mean there's no role for government? Of course not. It plays a crucial part in keeping us safe, enforcing rules, and providing some security against the risks of modern life. But government's role is wisely limited by the Constitution. And it can't play its essential role when it ignores those limits.

Let's see a show of hands from posters other than dangole who think there's something inconsistent about what Rubio is saying, considering the context of his whole speech (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-marco-rubios-state-union-response/story?id=18484413).

[dangolegators]

Rubio evokes "his dead daddy," huh? You're so classy.

Every poster but you - Left and Right - understands that when Rubio said "fails every time" he was referring directly to 0bama's approach to the economy that Rubio described two sentences earlier in the speech: "[H]is solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more."

So the solution to the problem of old people not being able to afford healthcare was to tax more, borrow more, and spend more.

Then Rubio says taxing more, borrowing more, and spending more fails every time:

And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried. More government isn't going to help you get ahead. It's going to hold you back. More government isn't going to create more opportunities. It's going to limit them.


Then Rubio evokes his dead daddy to say how awesome Medicare is:

One of these programs, Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now. I would never support any changes to Medicare that would hurt seniors like my mother.

[MastaG8r]

Show of hands?


Anyone?


Anyone?


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/f4zyjLyBp64" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[MastaG8r]

Hmm. Zero hands went up.

Also, unless I missed it I think we're still waiting for 996's apology for falsely claiming that Marco Rubio's parents were illegal immigrants.

[Gatorrick22]

Jon Stewart just destroyed Rubio, exposing his contradictions and hypocrisy.

Obama's the one doing all the lying.

[MastaG8r]

And let's not get into [Rubio's] immigration status... :lie:

If he did like Mitt romney said his ass would have been going to broward community college since his daddy was a "illegal" bartender & his momma was an "illegal" maid.

Maybe Rubio & his family should self-deport and go to the back of the line also, huh?

His family came here illegally, in your conservative mind....how can you even have him in your party?

Rubio's parents entered the country illegally, he's been involved in financial scandal in Florida, he went into foreclosure in Tallahassee...

...and exactky what has he accomplished as a politican again?

These false accusations remain unacknowledged by the same poster who most recently claimed, without any proof at all, that the "GOP Wrote Scripts & Found Prostitutes to Smear Sen. Menedez (http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=258296)[sic]."