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

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

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]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Nobody has called me personally a hypocrite.

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

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well said!

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

[chemgator]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

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

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

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

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]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

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.

Originally Posted by dangolegators

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]

Originally Posted by The_Graygator

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

I know, right.

[GatorAvatar]

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

[Itssaul]

Originally Posted by GatorAvatar

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

I bet Rubio is heartbroken

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

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]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

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:

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]

Originally Posted by Itssaul

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.