| Author | Message | ||
     Doug_s |
The number of impoverished has declined. Simply look at the statistics for household income adjusted for inflation. No other statistics need apply. i agree. unfortunately, you are dead wrong about the number of impoverished in this country, from 1970 to today. and, re: household income adjusted for inflation, see above: • Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975. i love it when folks who disagree w/facts they don't like, start disparaging those facts, calling them things like "inane" and "deceptive". and then they resort to name calling. i am not certain who here is moronic, weak-minded, idiot, or has the insight of a 4 year old. but, i have my ideas, and i know for sure it isn't me.  and, where did i ever say seeking honest profit is not good? (where did barack ever say that?) at least there is acknowledgment that greed is not good. that's exactly what i am talking about - it is the greedy corporations that are running things now. no, not the small businesses trying to earn an honest profit - i am all for that. these folks are getting screwed along w/most everyone else. the only ones making out are those top 5%, who are the only ones who have seen their actual wealth grow in comparison to the rate of inflation, for the past 35 years. and, if you choose not to believe it, you are only helping things get worse, by supporting policies in direct contradiction to your own interests. doug s. | ||
| Jerry_haughton |
Sheriff Joe seems to have not inclination to run for a Federal office. He would be great, though. Tom, my knowledge of the events leading up to the Revolution is, sadly, admittedly weak, but ever expanding. "1776" by David McCullough is an excellent read, and D and I are presently watching an excellent mini-series about John Adams, based on Mr. McCullough's writings. (The series begins in Boston in 1770, and the overall foul mood of our countrymen then seems to mirror the overall foul mood here in America now, which I find encouraging.) My take is that some/many/most of our Founding Fathers did not actively seek political office, but, rather, reluctantly and modestly accepted these positions only after the relentless insistence of their peers. Would you agree, and, if so, might this add even more weight to your favorable opinion of Sheriff Joe? I have little faith that a "career" politician, regardless of his or her party affiliation or political leanings, is what this country needs right now. I think the challenge will be finding a leader who fully believes in the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the sacrifices made to secure our independence, someone who fully believes in the rule book that is the Constitution, yet someone who is not afraid to make tough decisions for fear of jeopardizing their career. Who do you see that might be able to save our great nation? FB | ||
| Doug_s |
regarding executive compensation, this is not a new problem. it is one reason why i won't buy a car made by a corporation headquartered in america. i remember, back in 1992, when america was had trade tariffs against japanese imported cars. (which only hurt the middle class, making all cars more expensive. beneficial to the rich car execs and rich stockholders, tho.) then-prez george hw bush organized a trade "junta" to japan to discuss the state of the world auto industry. (this was the trip made famous when prez george hw bush puked in the lap of japan's prime minister kiichi miyazawa at a formal state dinner.) at these meetings, then-chrysler-ceo lee iacocca chastised then-toyota-ceo shoichiro toyoda for its "unfair trade practices", (which, basically were producing superior products for less money.) mr toyoda countered that maybe management practices were the reason, not "unfair trade practices": he queried mr iacocca as to why iacocca earned 15 million dollars the past year, when chrysler had registered one of its worst years ever at that time, losing >one billion dollars; when, during the same period, toyota had the most profitable year in the history of the company, and mr toyoda earned $800,000. iacocca also criticized the japanese for "not hiring americans" when they built all those cars. well, he can eat his words there, too. especially considering all the outsourcing done by the american manufacturers. you do the math. you decide which car to buy. doug s. | ||
| Doug_s |
as long as somebody has to run for office, the moneyed interests will win. (you know - the greedy ones, not those wanting to make an honest profit.) especially since now the supreme court has deemed corporations are people, with rights just like people. regardless of which political party, the office will go to the person whose interests are represented by the highest bidder. the original ancient greek democracy was based on its leaders chosen by lottery from its citizens. you want real reform? choose congress by lottery from all its citizens. let those in congress choose the prez and vp from amongst its own members. is this a hairbrained idea? absolutely! lemme know when you come up w/a better one.  doug s. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Dougs, What do the top 5% do with their money? | ||
| Doug_s |
What do the top 5% do with their money? hire illegals to build their houses, do their yards, be their kid's nannies, serve them at restaurants. sorry, trickle-down theory does not work. otherwise there wouldn't be such a large increase between the haves and have-nots that america has experienced over the past 40 years, w/the middle class slowly disappearing... now, maybe if the greedy were not so greedy... if the execs in america went back to earning "only" 30 times that of the average worker, instead of 300 times... if an average middle-class family could be supported by a single wage earner, so one parent could stay home & take care of the kids... when i got my first summer job at age 16, the minimum wage was $2/hour. to equal that today, it would be ~$11/hour... i remember my first job out of college. i started at $4/hour. i was doing ok. after a year, i was making $8/hour, had a company truck, and gas card; i was really doing well... ymmv, doug s. | ||
| Blake |
>>> unfortunately, you are dead wrong about the number of impoverished in this country, from 1970 to today. and, re: household income adjusted for inflation, see above: There you go again. Insisting comparison be made to the data of "today", while still mired deep in the throws of a horrible economic decline. And to be clear and honest, "the number of impoverished" should be "the ratio of impoverished". As the population doubles over four decades, if the "number of impoverished" increases by 90%, then on balance per capita the portion of impoverished has declined, which is the case. We won't even account for the MILLIONS of oppressed and impoverished illegal immigrants currently in the country, which are no doubt accounted for in the number you are dealing, nor have we compared what constitutes "impoverished" now versus three or more decades ago. How many "impoverished" today own cell phones, computers, televisions, etc. Get honest! Deal straight! Ditch the rhetoric and deceptive statistics! PROVE your contention with honest full disclosure, the WHOLE story, not just the cherry-picked portions that support your agenda. I dare you! Show the overall trend of household income, accurately/honestly adjusted for inflation, over time since 1900. No rhetoric is necessary. I dare you. You won't. To do so would shatter your fantasy world of deusion and hate. What corporations do you imagine are behaving greedily? John Deere? Boeing? Dell? Ford Motor Company? Exxon-Mobil, Walmart? General Electric? General Motors? Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac? Okay, I might agree on the last four if you can show the evidence. The ones I know of, ENRON, Tyco, Global Crossing, Bernie Madoff, Whitewater, George Soros, a ethora of congressmen and women, were greedy people, not corporations. We do agree that greed leads to corruption, lies, deceit, nothing good for America. Someone stated that president BHO bears no personal responsibility for the mortgage industry crash that is responsible for the economic recession and jobs lost the last two years. BHO was a frontline soldier in the push to force banks to grant sub-prime mortgages to high risk individuals. All the congresspeople who voted against regulatory reform of the mortgage industry are also responsible. The ones in charge of the congressional commitees bear heavy blame as they BLOCKED the needed reform. The greedy executives running the government backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bear massive blame. Yet they were enabled by the lying scoundrels in congress. Community Reinvestment Act run amuck. Socialist interference in the free market. The outcome was 100% predictable; it ALWAYS is. Socialism pretends to elevate all to utopian fantasy. The glaring truth is that Socialism, interference in a free and fair market (no monopolies or ENRON corruption) only and always stifles prosperity, instead of elevating the poor, it enables the under-class, and oppresses/enslaves those with ambition and desire to prosper. Freedom is paramount to prosperity. Socialism, the aim of Progressivism, or nanny statism, begets nothing but oppression and slavery to the almighty state. It is evil incarnate. At least with greedy corporations, we can choose to boycot. As we debate, the majority in congress is planning an outrageous lame duck session blatantly in opposition to the will of the American voters. They care not for consent of the governed, only their misguided Socialist agenda. If they indeed perpetrate such an outrage, I hope that America's voters remember it for a very long time and ensure that the organizations and parties and people responsible are figuratively tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. I and many, many others are already outraged at having Socialists' legislation rammed down our throats against the will of the voting public. A lame duck repeat could spark political revolution. Conservatives, libertarians, and all freedom loving Americans need to take off the gloves and stop mincing rhetoric with liars and deceivers, the leaders and enablers of "Progressivism", the coldly calculated march to total statism, jack-booted national socialism. Gingrich 2012!!! Newt Gingrich Letter August 4, 2010 · Vol. 5, No.31 No Lame Duck In the election of 1800, the country thoroughly repudiated the Federalist Party. President John Adams was defeated in his reelection campaign by Thomas Jefferson and the Democrat-Republicans gained majorities in the House and Senate. The Federalists had clearly lost the support of the people. Yet, in a “lame duck” congressional session, which is when the outgoing Congress returns to Washington before the newly elected Congress takes over, the Federalists enacted the Judiciary Act of 1801. The Act nearly doubled the number of federal judgeships, which President Adams filled with his Federalist allies. These appointments were an explicit, and ultimately futile, action to hamstring the newly elected President and Congress (the Jeffersonians simply repealed the Act with the Judiciary Act of 1802). With this action, the Federalists made the ultimate mistake in a governmental system that derives its authority from the consent of the governed. Instead of heeding the will of the people, John Adams and the Federalists decided to thwart it. In the process, they set their party on a course toward extinction. The Federalists never regained power, eventually disappearing by the 1820s. Are the Democrats about to make the same mistake the Federalists made? Democratic leaders today have been sending clear signals that they are willing to use the lame duck session of Congress to pass the most unpopular and destructive parts of their agenda. Like the Federalists' actions in 1801, any attempt by the outgoing Congress to pass legislation they were unwilling to defend in an election would be an attempt to thwart the will of the people. As destructive as the Democratic Congress and President Obama have been in the past 18 months, it is worth remembering that things could have been a lot worse if not for the vocal and consistent activism of the American people opposing the Democrats' radical agenda. The Orwellian named Employee Free Choice Act, which would strip workers of the right to a secret ballot when deciding when to join a union, is not yet law. The job killing energy tax – or cap and trade – passed the House but remains hung up in the Senate. The Democrats have also not been able to pass an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants. And let's not forget that President Obama's ‘Deficit Commission' is expected to recommend tax increases, possibly in the form of a value added tax (VAT), that could raise the cost of everything Americans buy. Conveniently, the Commission will not report its findings until after the November 2nd elections, just in time for a lame duck Congressional session. The Lame Duck Congress Will Be Dramatically Different than the 2011 Congress. As my colleague Randy Evans has noted, there are already six Democrats and six Republicans retiring from the Senate this year. Two more (one Democrat and one Republican) were defeated in their primary elections and will not return. Meanwhile, in the House, there are 17 Democrats and 20 Republicans retiring and three more have been defeated in their primaries. So, even without considering the results of this coming election, we already know that 14 senators and 40 members of the House currently in office will not be there in the new Congress. And let's be perfectly clear, all the recent generic congressional ballot polls show Republicans with a clear lead. Democrats are expected to suffer substantial losses due to the radicalism of their job killing agenda and the failure of their party to lead. Power from Consent of the Governed, Not In Spite of the Governed The Left is vividly aware that they are likely to lose the House of Representatives and, at best, have a much smaller majority in the Senate in January. So there is panic setting in about all the Left-wing goals that have yet to be accomplished. Democrats know that their members facing tough elections this year can't vote for these enormously unpopular, left-wing bills if they want to get reelected. But they also know that significant losses this November are all but certain, and they will never be able to advance their agenda under a realigned House and Senate. So more and more Democratic leaders are raising the specter of passing the unfinished items on the Left's wish list during in a lame duck session of Congress. At a recent conference with left wing bloggers, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) assured the audience about the Left's unfinished priorities, saying “We're going to have to have a lame duck session, so we're not giving up.” Speaking about card check legislation, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) recently stated “A lot of things can happen in a lame duck session, too.” The most shameless statement came from Sen. John Kerry: “I have to tell you, [cap and trade] is not dead…if it is after the election, it may well be that some members are free and liberated and feeling that they can take a risk or do something.” Consider the implications of what Kerry is saying here. The Declaration of Independence states that governments “[derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” That means that elected representatives should feel the most empowered with the support of the American people. But the model for Sen. Kerry and the Democrats is precisely the opposite: their members feel empowered to enact their agenda when they do not have to answer to the people. It is hard to think of an attitude more fundamentally at odds with the spirit of our democratic republic than the idea that an elected representative should feel “liberated” to pass bills the American people do not support once he or she is freed from the burden of having to face the voters. How to Defeat a Machine In my new book, To Save America , I make the case that the modern left can only be understood as a secular-socialist machine. The Democratic Congress' plans to pass unpopular bills during the lame duck Congress after being thoroughly repudiated by the American people at the ballot box is just further evidence of that machine mentality on the Left. The American people do not have to stand for this. Fortunately, in To Save America, I also point out that the way to defeat a powerful machine is simple (though by no means easy): insist on the truth. The No Lame Duck Pledge We need to get every elected representative on the record about whether they support or oppose a lame duck session after the election. The Democrats have already proven with the healthcare bill that they are willing to use cheap tricks to thwart the will of the people. They ignored the town hall meetings and the clear signal the voters of Massachusetts sent by electing Scott Brown and passed the healthcare bill anyway. Given this track record and the statements from Sen. Kerry and other Democratic leaders hinting they are willing to pass radical and unpopular bills in the lame duck session, the American people have the right to know where their elected representatives stand. At American Solutions, we have developed the No Lame Duck Pledge: I, undersigned Member of the 111th Congress, pledge to the citizens of the State of _____________ I will not participate in a Lame Duck session of Congress. I believe reconvening the Congress after the November 2nd election and prior to the seating of the new 112th Congress, smacks of the worst kind of political corruption. Attempting to pass unpopular legislation subverts the will of the American people and is an abusive power grab. You can visit AmericanSolutions for tools on how to reach out to your congressman and organize your friends and neighbors to insist they take the pledge. Some congressmen and senators may insist that a lame duck session is necessary to complete work on a budget. But this is a lie. First of all, it was Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's decision to avoid crafting a budget this year. They did it precisely so they would not have to answer for tax hikes or big pork projects to the American people. To claim that their abdication of responsibility requires us to accept a lame duck session is the height of irresponsibility and dishonesty. Second, Congress does not even need to pass a budget to avoid a lame duck session. They only need to pass a clean, pork-free continuing budget resolution through March that will fund the government at current levels. That will leave it up to the new Congress—one that reflects the will of the American people—to develop a new budget based on the mandate given to them by the “consent of the governed.” More importantly, it would remove the excuse for a lame duck session of Congress, during which the Democratic machine would no doubt try to pass the unfinished items on their agenda despite the clearly expressed wishes of the American people. Visit AmericanSolutions today to find out what you can do to convince your Congressman and Senators to take the No Lame Duck Pledge. Your friend, Newt P.S. Last week, I gave a major national security address on the dangers of radical Islamism and how we need to rethink our efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere within that context. You can watch highlights and the full speech here. http://content.eaglepub.com/?ddri.nvD.OQ57nXDNOIwD sVliHhsuNMRd&http://www.newt.org/newt-direct/video -highlights-newts-speech-america-risk | ||
| Reindog |
There are parallels between 1774 and today. The Federal Government is as responsive to the People as King James was to the Colonists. The voice of the People is silenced almost on a daily basis, by activist judges who no longer rule on the merit of law. Unconstitutional "fees" will burden the People once the Socialist Health Care Bill goes into effect. Gross misuse of Eminent Domain allows governments to forcibly steal private property while the Supreme Court sits on its hands. The Democrats are doing everything in their power to grant amnesty to illegals while openly inviting a tidal wave of new illegals in order to garner votes and power. The President allows Congress to spend our way to bankruptcy and only wants to increase spending. We will stand accused by the next generation of gross incompetence and squalor as they become enslaved by debt owed to China. Friends, our Republic is in mortal danger. I can't believe my country is increasingly populated by citizens who knowingly desire to be enslaved. We will get what we wish. For the first time in my life, I am dreaming of a Second Declaration of Independence to cast off the shackles of Tyranny that is slowly becoming the accepted norm. I am confident that a Leader who measures up to the stature of Reagan, Lincoln, and Washington will come to stop this slow drift to oblivion. Luckily, I own two Ulys and derive Freedom from them. "Our work or your guns. You are free to choose either but you cannot choose both." | ||
| Reindog |
Gingrich continues to impress me with his intellect and understanding of political issues. If we had a Hollywood B actor turn into a great President, then maybe a guy named Newt can also fill the bill. | ||
| Doug_s |
>>> unfortunately, you are dead wrong about the number of impoverished in this country, from 1970 to today. and, re: household income adjusted for inflation, see above: There you go again. Insisting comparison be made to the data of "today", while still mired deep in the throws of a horrible economic decline. "there you go again"? are you really as ignorant as the brain dead a** who coined that phrase? ok - in 2007, (before the present economic downturn), compared to 1970, the stats are pretty much the same. huge spread in the gap in america between rich and poor. And to be clear and honest, "the number of impoverished" should be "the ratio of impoverished". As the population doubles over four decades, if the "number of impoverished" increases by 90%, then on balance per capita the portion of impoverished has declined, which is the case. i know my math - duh! but, as i said before - you are wrong. on balance, per capita, the portion of the impoverished in america has increased between 1970 and 2007. We won't even account for the MILLIONS of oppressed and impoverished illegal immigrants currently in the country, which are no doubt accounted for in the number you are dealing, nor have we compared what constitutes "impoverished" now versus three or more decades ago. How many "impoverished" today own cell phones, computers, televisions, etc. uh, no, i am talking about legal residents. Get honest! Deal straight! Ditch the rhetoric and deceptive statistics! PROVE your contention with honest full disclosure, the WHOLE story, not just the cherry-picked portions that support your agenda. I dare you! Show the overall trend of household income, accurately/honestly adjusted for inflation, over time since 1900. No rhetoric is necessary. I dare you. You won't. To do so would shatter your fantasy world of deusion and hate. damn, dude, are you really that slow? i have been reading about this for several years now, no cherry picking needed. google anything you want, regarding standard of living in this country between ~1970 and before the collapse at the end of 2008. and i was not talking about between 1900 & 1970 - when did i ever say i was. thanks to reasonable govt., america did ok between 1900 and 1970. talk about living in a deluded fantasy world! man - you win the grand prize! no, i am not gonna do all the legwork for you to prove my facts - why not do it yourself, to try to disprove them? i dare you!  ok, i will throw you a few bones, cuz maybe you really are as backwards as you appear, and you don't know how to find out for yourself... http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44381 http://forums.techguy.org/civilized-debate/441665- gap-between-rich-poor-growing.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/worldbu siness/29iht-income.4.5075504.html The United States has one of the widest rich-poor gaps of any high-income nation today, and that gap continues to grow.[16] In recent times, some prominent economists including Alan Greenspan have warned that the widening rich-poor gap in the U.S. population is a problem that could undermine and destabilize the country's economy and standard of living stating that "The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in _the_United_States http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27295405/ http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/georegi ons/northamerica/china03.htm http://www.worldwatch.org/node/82 http://www.businesspundit.com/wealth-distribution- in-the-united-states/ damn, the stats are overwhelming really; i could go on for a long time posting this stuff... What corporations do you imagine are behaving greedily? John Deere? Boeing? Dell? Ford Motor Company? Exxon-Mobil, Walmart? General Electric? General Motors? Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac? Okay, I might agree on the last four if you can show the evidence. The ones I know of, ENRON, Tyco, Global Crossing, Bernie Madoff, Whitewater, George Soros, a ethora of congressmen and women, were greedy people, not corporations. i'd say any corporation where its top execs earn 300-500 times what its average workers earn. the problem is not what's downright criminal that's taking place; the problem is what's legal that's taking place - the system is gamed for the ultra rich. not for small business owners trying to make an honest profit. not for middle management employees trying to support a family. not for blue collar workers, not for service workers, only for the wealthy. which is why the stats cited above are the way the are... when you have someone like alan greenspan, even, who states: Alan Greenspan have warned that the widening rich-poor gap in the U.S. population is a problem that could undermine and destabilize the country's economy and standard of living stating that "The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself...." well, all i can say is it's gotta be bad. We do agree that greed leads to corruption, lies, deceit, nothing good for America. yup, you yust do not see the whole picture. Someone stated that president BHO bears no personal responsibility for the mortgage industry crash that is responsible for the economic recession and jobs lost the last two years. BHO was a frontline soldier in the push to force banks to grant sub-prime mortgages to high risk individuals. uh, sorry, you are drinking the kool-aid. misrrepresenting statements, taking them out of context. ya know - like you accuesd me of doing? this is what barack said: In his speech in Albuquerque, NM, later today, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., will depict Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as an advocate of subprime loans. "As recently as September of last year (Obama) said that subprime loans had been, quote, 'a good idea,'" McCain will say, according to prepared remarks provided by his campaign. "Well, Senator Obama, that 'good idea' has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." The actual quote from Obama from last September has a slightly more complex context. In that September 17, 2007 speech -- titled "Our Common Stake in America's Prosperity -- Obama criticized the "dangerous erosion of the rules and principles that have allowed our market to work and our economy to thrive." He said that dynamic reared its head "during the Enron and WorldCom scandals …and we cannot help but see some reflections of these practices when we look at the subprime mortgage fiasco today." Obama said that "subprime lending started off as a good idea -- helping Americans buy homes who couldn't previously afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories and spread them out among investors around the country and around the world. In theory, this should have allowed mortgage lending to be less risky and more diversified." But then, Obama said, something went wrong. "As certain lenders and brokers began to see how much money could be made, they began to lower their standards," Obama said. "Some appraisers began inflating their estimates to get the deals done. Some borrowers started claiming income they didn't have just to qualify for the loans, and some were engaging in irresponsible speculation. But many borrowers were tricked into glossing over the fine print. And ratings agencies began rating bundles of different kinds of these loans as low-risk even though they were very high-risk. Most everyone knew that some of these deals were just too good to be true, but all that money flowing in made it tempting to look the other way and ignore the unscrupulous practice of some bad actors...Repeated calls for better disclosure and stronger oversight were met with millions in mortgage industry lobbying. Far too many continued to put their own short-term gain ahead of what they knew the long-term consequences would be when those rates exploded." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/mc cain-obama-ca.html All the congresspeople who voted against regulatory reform of the mortgage industry are also responsible. The ones in charge of the congressional commitees bear heavy blame as they BLOCKED the needed reform. The greedy executives running the government backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bear massive blame. Yet they were enabled by the lying scoundrels in congress. Community Reinvestment Act run amuck. Socialist interference in the free market. The outcome was 100% predictable; it ALWAYS is. i agree w/most of this - as i said before, the entire political system is gamed for the ultra rich. which is why it's so screwed up. but, socialism has nothing to do with it. unless you call welfare for the rich socialism. because, by and large, that's what you have. Socialism pretends to elevate all to utopian fantasy. The glaring truth is that Socialism, interference in a free and fair market (no monopolies or ENRON corruption) only and always stifles prosperity, instead of elevating the poor, it enables the under-class, and oppresses/enslaves those with ambition and desire to prosper. Freedom is paramount to prosperity. Socialism, the aim of Progressivism, or nanny statism, begets nothing but oppression and slavery to the almighty state. It is evil incarnate. At least with greedy corporations, we can choose to boycot. As we debate, the majority in congress is planning an outrageous lame duck session blatantly in opposition to the will of the American voters. They care not for consent of the governed, only their misguided Socialist agenda. If they indeed perpetrate such an outrage, I hope that America's voters remember it for a very long time and ensure that the organizations and parties and people responsible are figuratively tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. I and many, many others are already outraged at having Socialists' legislation rammed down our throats against the will of the voting public. A lame duck repeat could spark political revolution. Conservatives, libertarians, and all freedom loving Americans need to take off the gloves and stop mincing rhetoric with liars and deceivers, the leaders and enablers of "Progressivism", the coldly calculated march to total statism, jack-booted national socialism. Gingrich 2012!!! it still cracks me up, all this mindless talk about barack and socialism. barack is an unapologetic capitalist. otherwise, do you think there would be a health care bill that requires everyone to have it? what a cash cow for the insurance companies!!! 45 million presently uninsured in this country. 45 million new customers!!! i wish barack were a socialist; then he might have fought hard for a single payer plan. the only way to really lower healthcare costs - eliminate all the redundancy of people & paperwork doing the same thing over and over - why not yust do it once? and, eliminate the yobs of those who get paid yust to try to deny policy holders coverage for needed services. it's ridiculous, really, how much we spend for health insurance that goes to folks trying to deny us coverage... as inefficient as the govt may be, well, it would still cost less when you don't have dozens of companies - all middlemen trying to make a profit off of people who get sick. i am all for people having good yobs - but not when they are destructive to society as a whole. why not sink the money into healthcare itself, instead of people making money denying coverage and having redundant administrative costs? folks say in canada, they have to wait? canadians pay 1/2 per capita what americans pay for healthcare, yet everyone is covered. imagine how much better their system would be if they doubled their healthcare budget. hmmm... i am a socialist, and i am unapologetic about it. but, barack obama isn't. which is why i supported dennis kucinich for prez.... ymmv, doug s. | ||
| Reindog |
doug_s said:
Just capturing this Socialist's own words before he has a chance to retract them. From here on out, I will afford you the same courtesy that I would extend to a National Socialist. You might be a good guy but I abhor what you believe in. Please quit trolling. Pretty please with sugar on top. This thread which you are intent on hijacking, is a civil discussion about which Conservative candidate can best unseat the current President. Contribute or leave. | ||
| Stirz007 |
Ok - time for a short humor break. Check this one out. I do a fair amount of work at Camp Williams and heard something about this a few weeks ago. Read all the way to the end. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/saltlaketribune/o bituary.aspx?n=robert-snyder&pid=143718501 | ||
| Blake |
>>> huge spread in the gap in america between rich and poor. That is an entirely different issue than the portion of impoverished Americans. It's an issue that does concern me, but freedom comes first. >>> ok - in 2007, (before the present economic downturn), compared to 1970, the stats are pretty much the same. You just conceded defeat in the debate, and I applaud your stroke of integrity. Obama was a community organizer who instructed groups of people in Chicago how to push (intimidate, threaten, strong-arm, ie the Chicago way) local banks into granting sub prime mortgages, Clinton and congress helped via the community reinvestment act which compelled banks to do so. This is factual history, not a snippet from a campaign speech. Now please honor the thread author's request to cease the hijacking. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
now, maybe if the greedy were not so greedy. Sheer foolishness. How is it greedy to want to keep what one has legally earned? Why don't those workers who are so mistreated start their own companies and become their own bosses? It's only been in the last 100 years that workers were instilled with a misguided belief that an employer should provide everything for them cradle to grave. if an average middle-class family could be supported by a single wage earner, so one parent could stay home & take care of the kids... They can. For years my wife and I have. It meant that we buy used cars instead new like our neighbors. It means we keep those cars longer (much longer) than our neighbors. It means we eat out much less. It means we don't have the biggest and best of everything. It means that when your TV takes a dump, you borrow your buddies old TV when he upgrades to a flat panel. when i got my first summer job at age 16, the minimum wage was $2/hour. to equal that today, it would be ~$11/hour... i remember my first job out of college. i started at $4/hour. i was doing ok. after a year, i was making $8/hour, had a company truck, and gas card; i was really doing well... So what's the problem? | ||
| Blake |
He made was back to earning minimum wage campaigning for Kucinich? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
So take from the rich and give to the poor, I vote we start with Obama, Clinton, Gore, Sorros, Jones, Sarode. or did you just mean the rich you dont agree with ? | ||
| M2me |
Here is the Republican/Conservative/Tea Party dream ticket for 2012: Sarah Palin-Michelle Bachmann. Of course, this would cause a slight rise in unemployment as all the writers at SNL, the Daily Show, Colbert Report, the Simpsons, etc. would be laid off. Who needs comedy writers with a Palin-Bachmann ticket? Just reading the transcripts from the campaign would have everyone howling with laughter! Now that I think about it, employment would probably go up in the medical field. They would need to hire more staff to deal with a marked increase in side aches, involuntary urination and general exhaustion as everyone laughs themselves silly! Palin-Bachmann 2012! It'd be good for the economy! | ||
| Doug_s |
doug_s said: quote: i am a socialist, and i am unapologetic about it. but, barack obama isn't. which is why i supported dennis kucinich for prez.... Just capturing this Socialist's own words before he has a chance to retract them. From here on out, I will afford you the same courtesy that I would extend to a National Socialist. You might be a good guy but I abhor what you believe in. Please quit trolling. Pretty please with sugar on top. This thread which you are intent on hijacking, is a civil discussion about which Conservative candidate can best unseat the current President. Contribute or leave. well, your ignorance is showing if you equate my beliefs (or beliefs of other socialists) w/those of nazi's. especially humourous in my case, considering i was raised by jewish parents. you say "just capturing this Socialist's own words before he has a chance to retract them..." what, you think i am somehow embarrassed about my beliefs? as far as what i believe in and you abhorring it, well, i really do not see what's so bad in believing every civilized society should be able to guarantee all its citizens healthcare, food, a safe place to live, and protection against unwarranted intrusion into your personal life. that's not so abhorrent, imho. not even a little bit. in fact, i think it's indicative of a society w/advanced intellect and morality. as far as trolling, the title of this thread is trolling, as it's on an open public forum. as far as which conservative candidate can unseat the current president, i suggest someone who is not beholden to the big money/big corporate interests, and puts the plight of the honest hard working average american first. good luck. doug s. | ||
| Doug_s |
>>> huge spread in the gap in america between rich and poor. That is an entirely different issue than the portion of impoverished Americans. It's an issue that does concern me, but freedom comes first. >>> ok - in 2007, (before the present economic downturn), compared to 1970, the stats are pretty much the same. You just conceded defeat in the debate, and I applaud your stroke of integrity. ok, now please explain this to me - i posted a "22 stats" post where it shows how much ground everyone is losing to the rich, and how much more impoverished everyone else is, and you attacked it as "cherry picking" because you said it was unfair to compare 1970 to what we are now experiencing in 2010 in the middle of an economic downturn. i then stated that it would still apply even if you compared 1970 to just before the economic downturn, and cited lots of evidence that supports this. it is really overwhelming, how much evidence like this is out there - dozens & dozens of articles, surveys, etc. anyone who doesn't believe it must really have their head buried deep. so tell me, oh wise one, what interpretation of the english language are you using that shows i concede defeat?!?  Obama was a community organizer who instructed groups of people in Chicago how to push (intimidate, threaten, strong-arm, ie the Chicago way) local banks into granting sub prime mortgages, Clinton and congress helped via the community reinvestment act which compelled banks to do so. This is factual history, not a snippet from a campaign speech. ya, i know all about it. but, as barack said in his speech, it is different, imo, to work to try to help the down and out, and those facing discrimination in the banking and housing industry, than to accept as ok how the banks went overboard and started lending money to anybody w/a pulse. and, i have no argument about clinton - he (and his wife) are in the pocket of the big corporate biz interests as much or more than any republican. nafta? f-u-b-c! Now please honor the thread author's request to cease the hijacking. where's the hijacking? a huge troll thread on a public forum - "don't open this thread if you are a democrat, progressive, socialist, or communist "?!? you are kidding, right? as i said in my prior post, simply find someone who has hardworking american's interests at heart, and is not beholden to big-moneyed corporate interests. it would also help if they are not part of the radical right wing christian fundamentalists. as i also said, good luck finding someone. you cannot even find democrats that fit that description, let alone republicans. doug s. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Would your litmus test for "radical right wing christian fundamentalists" be "somebody that doesn't think its OK to murder a baby in it's mothers womb?" | ||
| Doug_s |
If we had a Hollywood B actor turn into a great President... too bad that never happened... doug s. | ||
| Reindog |
He was a Hollywood A actor? Now I know you have truly flipped. | ||
| Reindog |
The ultimate irony about Nazism is that there is evidence that Hitler had Jewish blood. Read Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". Heil Schickelgruber (sp) doesn't have the same ring to it. | ||
| Reindog |
Michelle Bachmann has lots of potential and Conservatives will pay increasing attention to her. Palin is not ready, if ever, so I don't think a Palin-Bachmann ticket is viable. I know m2me will be disappointed. When were you allowed back in the barn? Try not to pull a Rocket. Isn't it funny how a Conservative thread has attracted two Socialists? This is the Conservative Clubhouse. You might consider starting your own Socialist Slimepit thread to wallow in. Ironically, I was about to introduce doug_s to the Borg and m2me so that they could lip lock in their delusional paradise. (Message edited by reindog on August 06, 2010) | ||
| Doug_s |
he was a hollywood "b" actor... from 1980-1988... adolph was 12.5% jewish, and not even german; he was austrian. socialist slimepit? so, you must also mean conservative craphouse. afaik, this is the quickboard, no room for conservative clubhouses or socialist societies. ymmv, doug s. | ||
| Doug_s |
Would your litmus test for "radical right wing christian fundamentalists" be "somebody that doesn't think its OK to murder a baby in it's mothers womb?" only fetuses reside in a mother's womb. it is not possible to murder babies there. doug s. | ||
| Hootowl |
Would you still agree with Roe v. Wade if it had been used against you? | ||
| Doug_s |
Would you still agree with Roe v. Wade if it had been used against you? obviously not, as i wouldn't be here.  doug s. | ||
| Hootowl |
Don't you find that a bit hypocritical? | ||
| Spike |
Could you spell out what medical changes occur while sliding through the birth canal that turn the killable fetus into the unkillable baby? Is there a halfway point where it's only ok to injure them but not kill them? If they're not babies until they're born, can we pull them out at 8 months and beat them to death with hammers? |
