Smart, Rich Conservatives versus Poor, Dumb Conservatives

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We, poor dumb conservatives were smart enough not to support Romney in the primary. What's your excuse for backing a loser?

If the 'smart' people consider me dim, then I'd prefer to be dim in their eyes. As Reagan once said, "you believe so much that just isn't so."

[Wisconsin+17]

"Sister Souljah moment with the Trump/Beck/Bachmann wing of the party."

Last I checked, Clinton won. The moderates are welcome to try going all Clinton on us. Clinton went to the middle with two parties on his right, Romney wanted to go to the middle without the split.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your analysis would be more believable without the D-NJ. FWIW.

Speaking as one of those low-income voters - why do I support conservativism? It's because I can't afford to waste money on the latest fashionable cause de jour, and I certainly don't like liberals like you taking my money and using it to fund the things that you want.

Perhaps I would be a liberal - if I worked in the government or for a union. Then I'd be making lots more money then I do now, and I could afford to be a liberal.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why we are spending 2/3rds of a trillion dollars just on overhead for welfare, and only 1/3rd of a trillion on the actual recipients.

Would you donate to a local charity that spent 2/3rds of your money on administration?

[Wisconsin+17]

Apparently progressive reality has issues with reading comprehension. I said welfare. Neither of those are welfare.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Answer the question - would you support a charity that was spending two thirds of what they take in as overhead?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oddly enough - I don't see that in the constitution.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that President Bush and McCain all outperformed Romney, I think we can finally toss that myth in the dustbin.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you don't believe that we are governed by the constitution, then what are we governed by? The whims of our present leaders?

The reason I support the constitution, is because the constitution is the founding principle of the United States of America. If one wants to be a citizen of the United States - one of the things that you swear to do is to uphold the constitution.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The programs are all very different from each other, conflating them muddies the waters.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/03/us/growth-in-welfare-cost-outpaces-number-on-rolls.html

The primary cause, they say, is a complex and bloated bureaucracy.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One, it's the NYT.

Two, if you believe that the administration suddenly stopped being 'bloated' after the age of Clinton, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that the NYT is a hostile witness, yes. Or are you calling the Times a liar?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The NYT is generally in opposition to welfare reform. If it is so bad as to deserve mention in the Times, then it must be absolutely terrible. Generally when a source is biased the other way, you can expect that source to be reliable on this issue.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nazi Germany propaganda is reliable for establishing minimum German casulties, not maximum. The NYT is reliable for pointing out actual instances of government mismanagement, they are unreliable for it's scope.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actual quotation from my textbook on 'assessing historical reliability'.