That's right- according to Democratic candidates and strategists and pundits and blogs, every tea party candidate supports privatizing popular and successful Social Security program, or at least this is the word-for-word line that Democratic candidates and strategists and pundits and blogs are parroting. By similar logic, every Democratic Candidate Supports Nationalizing Popular and Successful Car Companies! Oh wait...
So you're saying that just because one person or a couple people who is affiliated with something says something or characterizes something in a certain way we can't blanket stereotype everyone from that group? Yes, it is true that some Tea Party candidates believe in privatizing Social Security, although since there is no real official 'tea party' that would be hard to be clear on, plus there is no national 'tea party' platform, so it would be hard to prove that a candidate who isn't labeled 'tea party' supports a platform that isn't written down anywhere. So I guess saying 'every tea party candidate supports' is as accurate as saying 'every Democractic candidate supports.' But the rest of the statement is true, right?
So you're saying that exaggerating the position of a group isn't something that we should do? Some candidates support modernizing and changing and hoping and unicorning a program like Social Security by allowing people choices and control, but this isn't the same things as 'privatizing' the program, any more than Obama and the Democrats swooping in and seizing a large private company in violation to the bankruptcy laws of our nation is the same as nationalizing a company. Overstating positions and exaggerating a candidates position is the kind of sleight-of-hand and trickery that real candidates, blogs, and pundits shouldn't rely on. Although in retrospect, I guess I'm still confused how what Obama and the Democrats did to GM was not illegally nationalizing a company so that political elites could divide up its assets and distribute them to political supporters. Regardless, GM and Social Security were both successful and popular, right?
Does successful and popular mean a giant pyramid scheme that benefits a particular group in society? Oh sure, old people and those nearing retirement age really like social security, but young people and those far from retirement age don't (and if they do they are morons). It won't be there for them when they retire, at least not in its current form, so the deal that is being made now- pay a fair percentage of your income to the government to hold on to it for you so that when you retire you can retire with a comfortable source of income- is a raw deal. Young people will pay their entire lives into a system that will pay them greatly reduced benefits when they retire, but old people who are getting the sweet deal now certainly like it, that's for sure. Oh, and as far as being successful- I've got a business opportunity for you, you just sell this thing to seven people, and if they sell it to seven people, then you'll make lots of money... social security is successful just like Democrats are successful, in that it exists and is sucking the system dry before it collapses.
Huh, weird, when you actually listen to what liberals and Democrats say and throw it through some logic and analysis, their best arguments are pretty lame.
The artist striving to paint impressionist style may agonise over every brush mark, robbing the painting of expression and defeating the object of painting Impressionist. How can the artist create expressive paintings?
is often sold in tubes, and when squeezed out, a brownish substance will emerge. Once mixed with the pigment, it will not affect the colour, but will thicken the consistency of the oil paint. Mix to about one parts to four. Adding too much may take the tinting strength from the oil paint. The impasto mixture can then be used for palette knife techniques or Sgraffito with textures.