The Republican Philosophy of It's all about me' - New England Patriots Forums

***Patters*** · 02-27-2006, 04:27 PM

It's all me first with the Republicans. The majority of them don't even want to give health care to kids they're so cheap and selfish. So, this Republican crime certainly seems like a metaphor for the Republican Philosophy of "It's all about me":

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1667009&page=1

***BelichickFan*** · 02-27-2006, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

The majority of them don't even want to give health care to kids they're so cheap and selfish.

And the kind of generalizations strikes again.

BlueTalon · 02-27-2006, 07:30 PM

I don't think what Patters did even rises to the level of generalization. He made a cheap comment about Republicans being greedy and selfish and not wanting children to have health care, and he added a link. The link went to an ABC News story about a Republican who was convicted of prostituting himself for bribes.

How the heck are those two things connected? And no, I'm not going to waste my time reading through the entire article looking for the obscure connection.

Patters, if you're going to try and make a rational argument about Republicans being greedy and selfish and not wanting children to have health care, you need to do a better job of it. This just made you look silly.

***Patters*** · 02-27-2006, 07:34 PM

BlueTalon, I think the Republican philosophy lends itself to selfishness. It does not mean that all Republicans are selfish, but it does mean that most selfish people are Republican. Cunningham is an example of that. It also does not mean that Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats. In the long haul, both are pretty equal in that regard.

I also think it's plain awful that Republicans have consistently fought child health care, and you'll find that's an issue I bring up frequently.

pats-blue · 02-27-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueTalon

I don't think what Patters did even rises to the level of generalization. He made a cheap comment about Republicans being greedy and selfish and not wanting children to have health care, and he added a link. The link went to an ABC News story about a Republican who was convicted of prostituting himself for bribes.

How the heck are those two things connected? And no, I'm not going to waste my time reading through the entire article looking for the obscure connection.

Patters, if you're going to try and make a rational argument about Republicans being greedy and selfish and not wanting children to have health care, you need to do a better job of it. This just made you look silly.

PATTERS "The majority of them don't even want to give health care to kids they're so cheap and selfish."

Talon, I did read the article and there is absolutely NO connection to this statement at all. One could find articles on almost anything and make a general statement...try that with one of Patters "protected" classes and THEN it is uncalled for.

***BelichickFan*** · 02-27-2006, 07:56 PM

Patters has already gone back on his initial statement. Most selfish people being Republican does not equal most Republicans being selfish.

For this (me) psuedo Republican, I am for health care for kids that's needed but not for blank check writing. Just like I'm for education but don't think additional spending would improve things. Liberals think throwing more dollars at something is directly proportional to how much better it will get. There, now I'm generalizing

***PatsWickedPissah*** · 02-27-2006, 08:01 PM

Patters is a pure ideolog. Rationality does not matter to the true believer. Emotional arguements are all that counts.

Chevy · 02-27-2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

BlueTalon, I think the Republican philosophy lends itself to selfishness. It does not mean that all Republicans are selfish, but it does mean that most selfish people are Republican. Cunningham is an example of that. It also does not mean that Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats. In the long haul, both are pretty equal in that regard.

I also think it's plain awful that Republicans have consistently fought child health care, and you'll find that's an issue I bring up frequently.

Once again, you fail to understand the simple concept of personal reliability. An individual needs to earn assistance, it is not a birthright.

The layers of responsibility are individual-parent-government. Until the first two do all they can, honestly, the third should not be involved.

Why should hard-working American's pay for the lazy breeders?

***PatsWickedPissah*** · 02-27-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chevy

Once again, you fail to understand the simple concept of personal reliability. He understands it; he just rejects it An individual needs to earn assistance, it is not a birthright.

The layers of responsibility are individual-parent-government. Until the first two do all they can, honestly, the third should not be involved.

Why should hard-working American's pay for the lazy breeders?

Because Patters ideology demands it be so. To do otherwise is to be "mean spirited" and therefore ostracized in the incestuous self aggrandizing community of Canterbridgian elite.

Turd Furguson · 02-28-2006, 03:55 AM

Because Patters can lean on his emotions, DONT YOU SEE THOSE SICK KIDS OUT THERE????? If you dont start writing blank checks for Laquisha and Sue-Ann and their combined 13 kids to get free health care then you must hate kids.