Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess they are assuming that a bill will pass, and that it will not be to their liking? Did they consult their fortune tellers or something?

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like my health care and I don't need barry or the ex gov. or anybody else telling me witch doctor to visit or anything of the sort. I'm sick and tired of the gov. telling me what's good for me. Local (smoking ban) or federal (health care) Just to mention 2. The gov. can kiss my butt. Let us run our own life.

Posted by shadou (anonymous) on October 28, 2009 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I understand the bills that are being offered, no one has to choose to take a government insurance plan. As a matter of fact, those of us who already have our plans through work or Medicare are not even eligible for the new option.

No where have I found any restrictions regarding your choice of doctors or hospitals, unless the doctor or hospital wants to opt out of the plan. Nothing is really changed at all as far as health care itself is concerned.

All that is happening is that people without insurance now will be offered an opportunity to go with a government plan that can't cancel someone out due to prior conditions or loss of a job. Now, that doesn't sound so frightening, does it? And one they might be able to afford.

The point is, this is not "health care" reform, it is an expansion of access to health care for millions of folks who aren't blessed with company or current government insurance plans. Why is that so bad? Do we hate the "uninsured" so much that we would deny them that access we have?

I'll bet Peggy already has coverage, as well the others demanding a change in the Constitution that would deny many deserving people the opportunity to get insurance due to cost or prior condition or job loss. When Peggy and her cohort decide to give up their own coverage than perhaps I will pay attention to their lunacy.

When Jesus said we should care for the least of us (Mark), perhaps this is the sort of situation He meant. Maybe to deny them ain't so very Christian?

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 12:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

shadou:
If there is a government sponsored plan that each individual can access at a "minimum" rate, why would your employer or mine continue to pay for our insurance policy? With the economy as it is, wouldn't it be in their bast interests to cut that expense as soon as possible to maintain a profit? You seem to be assuming that companies won't do this, but based on the reductions in policies, increases in employee premiums and dropping of profit sharing and bonuses that has characterized the past ten years, I assume that they will drop benefits altogether as soon as they can. Then what?

BTW, when Jesus said that, He was speaking to the believers that made up the church, not the government or the non-believers.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 12:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

*best* interests, not bast............. and" layoffs" was supposed to be in the list of reductions and eliminations

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 2:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And now for the rest of the story. Go to Kansas Watchdog-Health Care Amendment-and find out about "Potomic Fever," which causes the swelling of the head to the point that are representatives forget who elected them. These government mandates are unfunded and unconstitutional. It isn't about Health Care, it's about the fight between bureaucrats and insurance companies over control.--Watch the video highlights.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The way I understood it...those with employer based plans are forbidden from dropping them to go on the public plan. If the employer however drops the plan then I don't see how you can blame that failure on anybody but the employer. I don,t know what if any steps are in the plan to keep this from happening.

As far as this attempt to change the state constitution is concerned.....It sounds to me like we have some people that are so driven to protect themselves and their existing plan, they are willing to pretty much guarantee that many people without health care coverage now will continue to be without it in the future. Talk about self centered

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are already provisions in place for those who don't have health insurance but not by choice. It's called a county health dept. and/or county hospital. It is tax funded for this reason and there is one in every county across the nation. It isn't a perfect provision and could use some fixing, but it is completely ignored by the liberals in this discussion.

If my employer dropped me, yes I would place some blame on them, but I would also blame the politicians and lobbyists who pushed to give them one more "out." It isn't as if they actually want any of us on private health insurance.....they know that companies will drop it and the private insurers will go under. They aren't worried about that at all, but they cover their tails by saying the *insured* can't take that step.
I think it's really selfish to refuse other ideas because they aren't yours and sink everybody in an attempt to save a few when there are other ideas that would better protect the many and still save the few.

Posted by ZaneRokklyn (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wait, isn't a Constitutional amendment "the government telling us what's good for us"?

If we don't want the govt telling us what's good for us, surely maximum choice (i.e. a public option) would be preferable to less choice.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Haven't seen the bill yet. It's hard to criticize what we haven't seen yet. There may not even be a bill. To say we can or we cannot keep our own insurance if we like it is a little presumptuous. As far as the opposing Republicans organizing an effort to thwart the bill ahead of time, I say why not. Why let the Democrats take us down and have their way with us without even a fight? If there is any kind of a bill that gets passed for our health care, it will be excessive law IMO.
We need more Cash for Clunkers programs and less health care programs.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh well, any law or amendment is pretty much worthless anymore anyway, it all gets changed by whoever needs it changed to benefit their stay in power. Just like in Mass - the Dems put in a law that the Repub governor couldn't appoint a Senator to replace Kerry if he was elected, then they reversed it this year after Kennedy died so they could. What's the point of having laws/amendments anyway? LOL

Posted by rcakmon (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow...these folks are amazing. Already stirring up protest against a bill not yet passed. Brings a new level to the meaning "party of no."

It's interesting that people with insurance are so angry about reform while people without insurance are hopeful. You would think it would be the other way around.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So why does the party of "yes" always say "no" to tort reform, among other things? Those folks are amazing, too........ ;-)

Posted by shadou (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Almost all of tort law is at the state level and each state has different rules regarding torts. If you want tort reform you'll have to get it state by state, not at the federal level.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Each state has different insurance and laws regarding health care. So what? Every time it is proposed as part of the health care reform, it is shot down - the question is why? (even though the answer is obvious).

Posted by shadou (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof, there was no "church" when Jesus was reported to have said that.

Regarding the question of why we wouldn't all rush into a "public option", we might very well do that if it is cheaper and more effective than the existing system. And small businesses are being offered tax credits for keeping their benefit packages including existing insurance packages.

If the current insurance companies want the business, they will have to do some soul searching. Do they want to charge reasonable premiums or do they want to lose the business? According to the plans I've seen or heard that are being advanced in the House and the Senate, any government plan will have to be supported by premiums paid in by the users or by other savings, not by tax revenues. The plans must be tax-neutral.

According to the Whitehouse and the CBO there is about the same amount of waste in the present insurance system as the cost of the proposed plans. Cut that out, with the help of the Insurance companies whose best interests undoubtedly lie with the health of our citizenry ?), and you have a very affordable, very effective way of seeing to it that most if not all of us have access to health care.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes, What business is it of yours if someone needs to bring a law suit against a doctor who, through negligence and mal practice, injured them? Oh, I forgot, tort reform is just another one of the talking points the Republicans use to justify their opposition to anything the Democrats propose. Your party says it, so you say it too. You don’t even know what tort reform is, yet you constantly demand it. I hope they pass “tort reform” and you find yourself injured by a dangerous product that the producer knew was dangerous but sold it to you anyway knowing that after you hurt yourself there would be nothing you could do about it but pay your own medical bills that you cannot afford to pay.

Sorry, I don’t hope that on anyone. But you really should try to fully understand exactly what you advocate and not just ride the bandwagon singing their song just because you know the words.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The plans must be tax-neutral."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ................................. whew ..................................... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since everyone seems to think the insurance companies are ripping us off (to the tune of $98 per year) - they all "really should try to fully understand exactly what you advocate and not just ride the bandwagon singing their song just because you know the words".

I also remember a certain group that was extremely unpatriotic and the "party of No" during the runup and early stages of the Iraq war.

Good thing nobody listened to those fools then, eh? Besides, when you have a super-majority, and you don't need a single vote, you can shove anything through you want. You don't have to listen to anything. (Which we've seen ample evidence of - the GOP is often quoted that they are being completely shut out of committees, none of their proposals is being given any consideration). Who's the real party of "No" here? What about the party that says "No, I won't listen to anything you have to say because I don't need you"? Could someone explain to me exactly what it means to be labeled a "party of No"? Will everyone here get their usual case of sudden blanket amnesia next time the tables turn and the Dems are labeled the party of No? Bet they will..... Obama should declare amnesia a National Emergency Epidemic in this country..... ;-)

Although I do wish I'd spill some hot McDonald's coffee on me and get $3 million ;-)

So let's see, we're being told all the wonderful things about this health bill. Let's see what else we've been told lately:
The stimulus bill would keep unemployment from ever going over 8%
We now find out that the number of jobs created by the stimulus plan has been overstated by thousands...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/t...
We now find out that the Cash for Clunkers actaully cost the taxpayers $24,000 per car...
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/cl...

So forgive me for having my doubts about all the wonderful savings and benefits promised by the health care bill. Some of us weren't born yesterday.

Besides...... if there is so much fraud in Medicare....... why don't we fix it? With or without a health care reform bill? Or make that the reform? Anyone????......

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are 2 sides to every coin, YY4U. And while you do have a point with your high horse ranting about unfair practices, that is not what tort reform aims to block. It is the undeserving awards that are driving expenses up.

You might be interested to know what some of your own "party line" have to say....

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/5312...

"Howard Dean: Democrats Left Tort Reform Out of Health Care Bill Because They Feared 'Taking On' Trial Lawyers"

So........ you're against insurance companies making $98/year/person, but you're all for lawyers getting rich ripping us off. And in many cases.... that's exactly what happens. Some more interesting reading for you if you care to "try to fully understand exactly what you advocate and not just ride the bandwagon singing their song just because you know the words."

http://www.therazor.org/?p=841

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A few snippets since I guess people rarely follow links....

The American Medical Association lists North Carolina’s current health care situation as a “crisis” and blames it on medical-malpractice lawsuits such as the ones that made Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards a millionaire many times over..........
“The John Edwards we know crushed [obstetrics, gynecology] and neurosurgery in North Carolina,” said Dr. Craig VanDerVeer, a Charlotte neurosurgeon. “As a result, thousands of patients lost their health care.”
“And all of this for the little people?” he asked, a reference to Mr. Edwards’ argument that he represented regular people against mighty foes such as prosperous doctors and big insurance companies. “How many little people do you know who will supply you with $60 million in legal fees over a couple of years?”.........
One of his most noted victories was a $23 million settlement he got from a 1995 case — his last before joining the Senate — in which he sued the doctor, gynecological clinic, anesthesiologist and hospital involved in the birth of Bailey Griffin, who had cerebral palsy and other medical problems.
Linking complications during childbirth to cerebral palsy became a specialty for Mr. Edwards. In the courtroom, he was known to dramatize the events at birth by speaking to jurors as if he were the unborn baby, begging for help, begging to be let out of the womb.
“He was very good at it,” said Dr. John Schmitt, an obstetrician and gynecologist who used to practice in Mr. Edwards’ hometown of Raleigh. “But the science behind a lot of his arguments was flawed.”
In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a joint study that cast serious doubt on whether events at childbirth cause cerebral palsy. The “vast majority” of cerebral palsy cases originate long before childbirth, according to the study.
“Now, he would have a much harder time proving a lot of his cases,” said Dr. Schmitt, who now practices at the University of Virginia Health System........

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another profitable area of litigation for Mr. Edwards was lawsuits against psychiatrists whose patients committed suicide.
During jury selection, Mr. Edwards asked potential jurors whether they could hold a doctor responsible for the suicide of their patients.
“I got a lot of speeches from potential jurors who said they did not understand how that doctor could be responsible,” Mr. Edwards recalled in an interview shortly after the trial. Those persons were excluded from the jury............
As a result of these and other cases, insurance rates for doctors have skyrocketed — putting some out of business and driving others away, especially from rural areas. And doctors who have lost cases to Mr. Edwards have been bankrupted.
Patients, meanwhile, are left with rising health care costs and fewer — if any — doctors in their area. It is increasingly a nationwide problem, physicians say.
Dr. VanDerVeer, the Charlotte neurosurgeon, recalled one recent night on duty when two patients arrived in an emergency room in Myrtle Beach, S.C., where the area’s last neurosurgeons quit earlier this year.
“No one in Myrtle Beach would accept responsibility for these patients,” he said. And because it was raining, the helicopters were grounded, so the patients were loaded into ambulances and driven the four hours to Charlotte.
Upon arrival, one patient had died, and the other learned that she merely had a minor concussion — and a $6,000 bill for the ambulance ride.
“That’s just one little slice of life here,” Dr. VanDerVeer said. “It’s a direct result of the medical-malpractice situation that John Edwards fomented.”
Dr. Schmitt had spent 20 years delivering babies in Raleigh. Though he had no claims against him, his insurance tripled in one year. With no assurances that his rates would ever drop, or just stop rising, he left town.......................
“We are currently being sued out of existence,” Dr. VanDerVeer said. “People have to choose whether they want these lawyers to make gazillions of dollars in pain and suffering awards or whether they want health care.”

------------------------------------------
Now, I'm not against people getting deserved awards for medical incompetence or such. I AM against frivolous lawsuits. Unless they benefit me....... of course..... ;-)

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Although I do wish I'd spill some hot McDonald's coffee on me and get $3 million ;-)"

This one goes out to open_eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHuzRuFQF...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL seriouslyrfolks - thx.

I don't know what bandwagon I would hitch to, since the Republicans piss me off way too often to every lower myself to registering as one. But, to prove I look at both sides, here's some of the latest news you can find anywhere - but this particular one came from the Huffington Post, so you can't say I walk around with conservative blinders on - LOL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13...

Politics as usual ;-)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"We now find out that the number of jobs created by the stimulus plan has been overstated by thousands...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/t......
We now find out that the Cash for Clunkers actaully cost the taxpayers $24,000 per car...
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/cl......

So forgive me for having my doubts about all the wonderful savings and benefits promised by the health care bill. Some of us weren't born yesterday.

Both of these are impossible to quantify or prove at this time. A great deal of the stimulous has still not even been released and Edmund.com claims are just that, claims, I'll wait and see before I take them as fact.

Perhaps I can answer the question on the what is to keep Employer's from dropping coverage, the way I read the bill it says they will pay a fine per employee, whether that will be sufficient or not will depend on what the final version and fine is.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The funny thing about that "impossible to quantify or prove" statistic is that the examples given are pretty straightforward. The companies themselves even admit their errors. Oh well.

But then again, you were going to try to refrain from everyone having to read all the posts twice, so I'm sure based on your last post (or was it mine? Well, most of it was) you'll say that's also impossible to quantify and prove..... LOL

Hopefully they will do a better job of regulating it than they did when they tried universal health care for children in Hawaii and everyone ended up dropping and getting on it, and it went broke in 7 months. Gee, now there's a novel idea - the government learning from its mistakes..........nah, that's just plain crazy talk......

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The White House is promising that new figures being released Friday will be a more accurate showing of progress in President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan........
Ed DeSeve, serving as Obama's stimulus overseer, said the administration has been working for weeks to correct mistakes in early counts that identified more than 30,000 jobs paid for with stimulus money. He said a new stimulus report Friday should correct many mistakes an Associated Press review found that showed the earlier report overstated thousands of stimulus jobs."

Well waddaya know. The White House itself even admits it. That's good enough proof for me.

As for the Clunkers, that point I'll give you - hard to quantify. Still, its worth pointing out that things aren't always as simple and efficient as they seem up front.

Or as the government likes to claim they are.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have insurance through my work. Will my employer decide to keep it when the gov. comes out with theirs? I don't know and I'd rather not find out.
We keep hearing that their are 47M uninsured. How many of them are illeagal aliens, or people who have the opportunity to get insurance at work and just don't take it? That # is estimated at 35M so that leaves 12M that need insurance or want it.
I want to know how many people that know this is so good for us have actually read the bill? I haven't and don't intend to (supposedly 1900 pages). I have read parts of it and it would take serveral New York lawyers, tax lawyers, CPA's and who knows who else to figure it out.
You want free insurance go on welfare because it sure as hell ain't going to be free. Some one some where is going to pay for it and it will either be higher taxes or higher cost of what we buy when the costs are passed down from the manufacturers.
When was the last time you heard HI I'M HERE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND I'M HERE TO HELP and it really worked?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, The government can't run anything and make it work. So why do people think they can run a health care plan?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think an email I just got says it all. tbluma, you need to quit worrying. Just read this and everything will become clear to you ;-)

"Let me get this straight.

We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.

What possibly could go wrong? "

LOL

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 8:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes I like the way you think.
As Rush says
How's that hope and change working for you?

Posted by ToxicPink (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on /The Emporia Gazette Website/ about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That was a good one ToxicPink. I know you are a liberal because you didn't to mention the U.S. Military :-)

I can't help but notice that the majority of the conservatives around here who oppose Health Care Reform because it is "Big Government" have been enjoying the services provided by Social Security Administration for many years.

Personally, I could care less one way or the other. I am confident in my own knowledge, skills and abilities so I will be able to care for me and mine no matter what happens. Of course I would be amiss if I didn't credit the government for providing me with the advanced training.

Posted by ToxicPink (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't take credit for that, I wish I could I laugh every time I read it. I don't know the original creator for it, but I'm sure they'd love to read your feedback. =P

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's a good one, ToxicPink. There's always a balance and middle ground needed/required - nobody wants total anarchy (except anarchists). I certainly don't. But tell me - if all of this is good, then more is better, right? Then why does carrying it to the extreme such as communism or fascism always fail? If 50% is good then 100% is twice as good, right?
I've always wondered why people who are always for more and bigger government never move to a country where they can get their wish. Instead of always the other way around, people always trying to come here to this horribly under-governmented country. There are plenty of them out there. Some you won't even have to worry about getting worked up on boards like this one - because the governemnt won't let you. But hey, they take care of more than we do here, so they've got to be better.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 11:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think I'm going to claim allegiance to the "Party Of 'I Told You So'."

In my teen years, my best friend and I compiled a list of rules to live by. Most of them only make sense if you were us where we were, but Rule 4 still plays an important role in my life: "Nod, smile and just go along with it." (patronizing intent, of course) Sometimes on these forums, I can't decide whether to go by that rule or the one that I can't remember the number to: "Violence is never the answer............mental torture, yes, but never violence!
I think I'll go with Rule 4 for tonight.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 29, 2009 at 11:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do tend to ramble off into parts unknown at times - LOL.
Point is, nobody wants total government control of everything (well, almost nodody) - and nobody wants a total lack of government/anarchy (well, almost nobody). The question is, as always, trying to determine how much and where. Some things the government does quite well - others, its a total screwup. One could rewrite Toxic's post from the point of view of things and freedoms we enjoy daily that many others in the world don't because of too much government, but that much is obvious.

Balance, DanielSon. Balance..... ;-)

Posted by mslater (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, good news! I found something online that I think tells exactly how much government we should and shouldn't have. Check it out, its kind of interesting! (lil dry though)

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html...

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are right mslater, it is a little dry, but then it's supposed to be, huh?

Check out the news forum and give me your thoughts on the 2 discussions I am trying to get going.
Let's argue!

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes:
My patronizing gesture was not aimed in your direction...........I learn a lot from the things you post and I get your conversation path. No topic is isolated because the whole world is interconnected.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey people, I move that we just completely do away with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc., shoot, just do away with government entirely and I will become " King of< Blitherieria>, ( the former U.S.) and form a " Jestering Council ", couldn' t be much worse than the government we now have !
After-all, our current elected government are nothing but a bunch of " Court Jesters " anyway !
What do you think !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For those who doubt that corruption is the rule and general course in D.C., take a look at the following site, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33546194/ns/....

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think anyone doubts corruption rules in DC, methusla. The comedy is those that think its the exclusive domain of only one party or the other, or that the "Party Of No" label never applies also to those with a majority who don't have to say "Yes" to anything but their own agenda. ;-)

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Toxic Pink
How much cheaper would the electricity we use be if the gov. didn't regulate it?
Yet Barry wants a cap and trade bill that he said in his campaign speeches would raise the average per house hold bill $3000/yr and break the coal companies. Then he wants us to drive electric cars when we don't have enough electricity already.
The satellites you talked about were more than likely built by private industry not the gov.
The legal tender I use isn't worth as much today as it was 2/3 years ago because the gov. broke and they just keep printing more.
The fuel you bought would be cheaper if the EPA would let people drill where we have oil instead of importing so much.
DOE was created when 1973 and the purpose was to get us self reliant of our own fuel? What was their budget then with how many employees and what are those figures today? And if they achieved their goal wake me up please.
The postal service is run in the red more often than not and we've already had the public school discussion.
There are probably some I missed but you get my drift. I do think some rules and regs. are necessary but not all the ones we have and certainly not the stupid ones.
The local government for the most part does a fine job but because of the federal gov. it costs them more to operate.
And I could have swore that Al Gore said he invented the internet or some such lol

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma

If it were not for the government creating the grid from the ground up, there wouldn't be electricity to purchase here in the flyover places. Rural Electric was a government project that brought electric lines to your house out here in nowhere land. Uncle Sugar financed the first hydro-electric dams and nuclear power plants then they sold the electric to private brokers who sell it to the people who sell it to us. They have only reinvested their profit into new plants and grid upgrades because they have to because the government says so. If not for the national government, there would be little or no services available to us hayseeds living in hicksville USA because it is not profitable to do business out here where a mile of wire serves ten households. They would stay inside the big cities where that same mile of wire serves ten thousand households if not for the welfare checks they get for selling us electric, cable, water, gas, phone, internet etc.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The first communication satellites were bought and paid for by the tax payers. When the military upgraded, they sold the old ones to the private sector for little to nothing and the private sector sold the use of those things to us idiots who paid for it on the first place. After a sort time, the private sector earned enough from the military surplus junk to purchase state of the art equipment. Of course that state of the art stuff came out of research funded by the government.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's why I love America. Land of endless opportunities for us capitalists.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U
I realize that the first electricity, the first satellites etc were part of the gov. But the gov. didn't build any of them!
Yes tax payers paid for it but the gov. put out bids and the private sector built it. Sometimes at a much higher cost than it was really worth ( ie the good ole days when the militaty was paying for $500 toilet seats)
The whole deal is if the gov. can do it for $5M for example then I believe the private sector could do it for less.
So, would you have Barry do it for it for $5, when someone else can do it for $4 and give somebody a job who would then have to pay barry's taxes and not be on welfare or unemployment?
My whole point is that the government never created SH####t some one in the private sector thought it up and a politician took credit for it
Well the gov.did create taxes,welfare,irs,medicare,medicaid,etc,etc
and I thought the reason we left England was freedom of religion and taxes.
But hell we can even pray before a sporting event at school, have Christmas events at school or spank our kids anymore.
So what the hell why don't we just turn it over to barry,polosi,reid and who ever? Pay the frigging taxes go broke like the gov. and bend over grab our ankles and see what happens?

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U
Now that I got that off my chest I'll tell you one more thing.
I lived in hicksville as you called it and when my family finally got electricity, rural water, and a telephone the gov. didn't have snot to do with it!!!!!
We had electricity before I was born but I guarntee you that REA didn't run it to the house because uncle sam paid for it.
Uncle might have made it possible but my Grandparents paid for it.
We didn't have rural water until 1971 or there abouts and there sure as hell wasn't any gov. that paid my dad for that.
The telephone was a party line and and the gov. didn't pay for that.
The gov DON'T PAY FOR SH11111T.
WE PAY FOR IT AND IT'S CALLED TAXES

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U
I suppose you have paid SS.
I know that asuming spells something else but what ever.
I've paid in $1000's of dollars.
If I die before I collect a dime my family gets $200 to bury me.
Where does the rest of what I paid in go?
Tell me that we get teated right by the gov. and prove it and I'll relent, give up and go home.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

treateted

Posted by creeker (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tim Bluma,

On behalf of I and other employees I would like to say please continue to carry on in your hypocritical ways. Wolf Creek was bankrolled initially by the government and because of this you have a very good job and a secure one at that. Going on about how the government has done nothing for you will only cause more of us to laugh at you. Carry on!

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma;.....and some of us laugh with you at lefties. Thanks for all of your positive comments.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Creeker
Yes my name is Tim Bluma , but don't confuse me with my brother, I don't work at Wolf Creek and I sure as hell ain't hypocritical. I happen to work for a living, incase you haven't figured it out. Not to say that my brother Jeff doesn't work for a living, but his job, mine and yours would be a whole hell of a lot easier if we had a lot less gov. intervention.
Thanks Observation

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 30, 2009 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Creeker because of your name I am going to assume you either work there, are related to some one that does, or you used to.(I never hid behind a handle I am who I am)
In any case if you are confused any more than is already apparent I am 6 yrs. older than my brother, 6 inches shorter, and very much more into politics than he is. So don't hold my beliefs against him.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 12:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way creeker prove to me and the rest of the sane people who frequent here that the gov. bankrolled Wolf Creek and that it wasn't paid for by private investors.
Last time I looked REA,KPL etc might be public utilities but private citizens own the stock.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 6:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hate to butt in but just an FYI, the Gov did gurantee the loans for Wolf Creek which is what made it happen, they have stopped doing this recently and it has led to a lot less Nuke plants because private investors are skittish to take on the massive startup costs. It is sad because I happen to agree with the right that we need to embrace Nuclear power more.

I am curious though, how is the government intervening in your job so much? Was it Obama? Bush? Earlier?

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma

If you have children under the age of eighteen they will draw on your social security until their eighteenth birthday. Dependent children with major disabilities can also draw on your account. Beyond that social security is a risk pool not a bank account. Therefore, if you should die before you were eligible to draw any benefits your money would remain part of the pool so it can cover benefits due to your wife and children should they be luckier than you.

As with much of what you say, your statement was an over-simplification that left out all relevant information that disagreed with your mind-set

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma

Without government involvement there would have been no electrification of rural America. Neither private enterprise nor private customers would have taken on the high cost of running miles of transmission lines to one customer. That's exactly why cable television never made any in-roads into rural America.....no government help.

And yes.....everything the government does is paid for with taxpayer money. But it sounds to me like you are saying your grandparents would have been better off to have paid no taxes and had no electricity. Because if you think they could have done it cheaper themselves you are living in fantasy land.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

".......social security is a risk pool not a bank account."

Exactly! I don't get any say whether I pay into this lottery or not, but it is exactly that. I will likely never receive any social security benefits because the system will have crashed by then, but I am required to pay into it anyway. I could have a retirement bank account if I had both the self-discipline and the money to do that with, but I only have one.......and it's not the money.
If there were actual reform efforts going on (fix what exists) instead of a socialization effort(scrap what's there and begin a new experiment) I might have a different outlook, but there isn't and I don't.
Now, don't get me all wrong. The government, in it's proper role, is a very good thing. I don't think all regulation is even bad, but it does start moving and then blurring some of the lines. Say, why don't we pass new regs and fix what we have and see if it works any better, given it's potential........give an opt-out option to SS, etc. I would sure say "yes" to that. I know of a LOT of Repubs and my fellow third-partiers that also would. We might have to give the GOP a different tag than, but I have dibs On "Party of 'I Told You So!'."

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Goodoleboy what does anyone do today that doesn't have rules and regulations put forth by the gov? Some are necessary, but I happen to think many are not. I'm not getting into a Obama,Bush deal here. It started long before them. The EPA comes to mind real fast.
Maybe the gov. did guarentee the loans for the Nuke but they didn't come up with the money to build it, that was still private sector.
True biscuitboy about surviving spouse and minors, however my wife's mother died several yrs ago with no minor children survivors or a spouse. The familly got $200 or $250 whatever.
It is my contention that when we and our employers pay in that money for me then it should go to me or my family just like a life insurance policy. Not the way it is just the way I feel.
As for rural electricity it wasn't free either. My mom doesn't remember what it cost but she said it cost so much a mile to run it to the house from the main line and if there were 2 people in a mile they would split it. I do remember the telephone and it was the same way. Seems like $1500/$2000. That wasn't tax money that was money out of their pocket. The gov. may have guarenteed the loans that REA or Ma Bell had but I would defer to some one who knows or remembers.
My whole point is that I get sick and tired of people thinking that the gov. is the do all end all of our existance. Whatever happened to John Q Public just going out and earning their own way? Quit standing around with our hands out, bend over and pick ourselves up by our bootstraps, sweat a little and earn our keep. We don't have to have $400000 dollar house on a $50000 salary. That's what got us in the shape we're in today. Which brings me back to the begging of this thread.
I don't mind helping the people that really need help. I just happen to think that the gov. could revamp the medicare/medicaid thing that we are already paying to much for, use that for the uninsured and don't mess with the people who do have insurance.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So what happens to SS if we provide for this opt-out....fewer people paying in doesn't mean fewer dollars going out....at least not for several years. But we would still have a legal as well as a moral obligation to continue paying not only all those people that are currently drawing benefits but also those close enough to eligibility to have no other viable options.

Since those having opted-out would no longer be helping with those cost.....they could only then be dumped back on the tax-payer (who else?). Unless of course you are suggesting that the government just renege on all those people

I also find it interesting that the effect this opt-out would have on SS would be very similar to the effect conservatives are claiming the public option would have on insurance companies. Does this mean we are more concerned about the well-being of insurance executives than we are about all the people drawing SS? :-)

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My last post was addressed to oh4theluvof's last post.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

4theluvof right on. Not to mention that if the government's reasonably good idea of SS had been left alone in it's original form it may very well be good today. But the gov. had to tinker with it, make it more than a retirement benefit, expand it to people who don't deserve it or never paid into it.
Not to mention that when it had money there the congressmen and senators couldn't leave it alone, they had to borrow against it for their pet projects or to cover their overspending.
Examle of some one who got something they didn't pay for.
My grandpa only had to pay in 5/10 yrs in one lump sum in the early sixties in order to qualifiy for full benefits for himself and his wife. This came about because of a rule change from the original order of things.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought most rural people had satellite dishes, not cable....??? ;-)

So on the one side, we've got a party that chronically goes too far in the area of not enough rules/regulations. On the other side, we've got a party that chronically goes too far in the other direction. No matter what the conditions are when they are elected, after so long in power they inevitable overreach. The real danger lies in when we don't have enough balance to keep either under control........ like now.......

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If congress grants amnesty and citiizationship to 20 Million invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to healthcare and the USA in fewer than 5 years. "From that moment on, the majority always vote for the canidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is followed by a dictatorship." How are we going to pay for this? In the Wall Street Journal I found an article on Commerical Real Estate, the 1 trillion dollars in loans are 50% under water. This morning it was reported that a new law has been passed to allow all HIV Postive people into our country. What effect will this have on Health Care and the general population?

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree completely that the original concept of social security has been perverted to the max over the years by politicians from both sides of the aisle.....and even the original concept depended on a steadily increasing population to work. It didn't plan on things like baby booms and declining birth rates. But we are saddled with a moral obligation now to millions of people at a hugh cost...and all proposals to change it must recognize that obligation and deal with it.

I also agree that we almost always suffer when one party holds all the power....of course I don't recall many conservatives belaboring that point when the repubs had total control. As I have said many times....our system was designed to work best when a balance of power forced compromise and middle ground agendas. For some reason we however seem to go back and forth from one extreme to the other as each side uses its power to push too far.

open-eyes.....people that live in the country should be damned glad that sat. dishes were developed because they weren't about to get cable service anytime soon.....:-)

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In the last election the Democrats won 19 states and the Republicans won 29 states. The Square miles won by Democrats was 580,000 and the Republicans won 2,427,000. Population won by Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million. Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by Democrats: 13.2 Republicans 2.1. The map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory encompasses those citizens living in government owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare. One of the most shocking stats of our time is that 40% of our country has reached the government dependency phase.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

reddog......where was that new law reported.....I would like more info about that.?

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

biscuitboy,
Like tbluma said, there was a rule change that messed up a system that was only supposed to see that the people who endured the depression had a savings when they became too old to work. Originally, my payments weren't supposed to pay for people who are drawing now...they were supposed to be pooled for investment and make enough return to provide for a longer time frame....much like a 401K.
An opt out would have to be eased into with gradual percentage cut-backs to those who request it. Yes, that would mean that more families would have to step up and help provide housing, utilities and groceries for their aging family members with higher benefits paid to those who don't have family to help them or NEED medically assisted housing. And don't tell me this can't be done when it occurs in much poorer countries than ours.......it should always be the first option anyway with any government benefit being a supplementation of that. Sadly, we are a country of spoiled brats....both age sets. We have an older generation who consider it weakness to accept help from their able-bodied and reasonably employed children, nieces and nephews, grandchildren, etc. We also have a younger set who is unwilling to divide their means to assist those parents who divided their own means to raise them and would rather place them in a nursing home to avoid the work and responsibility. I'm not pretending any of this would be easy as we have arranged things in a way that would make the re-transition hard, but you know the old saying, "Suck it up!!"

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excuse me reddog but of the last three presidential elections.....only one had a clear cut majority......the last one. The two before that were decided by the electoral college and the supreme court. This is another example of using selectively chosen material to jump to ridiculous conclusions.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the health-care bill passes in all it's full-blown glory, I wonder how long it will be before we're saying "it was originally only SUPPOSED to be like this....."

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof.......

It sure sounds to me like you are saying renege on them. If I can't trust you to honor one committment why should I trust you on anything else.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Check your history, biscuitboy. Bush actually won 2004 by over 3 million votes. Of course the electoral college ALWAYS decides the final outcome........ and the same people that complained abut the electoral college in 2000 hoped that if they could get ACORN to get enough votes for them in Ohio,they would gladly win despite losing by over 3 million votes........

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Renege on who? I need more info to be able to respond because right now I'm confused. I know I'm not reneging on anyone, but to clarify my statements I need to know which you read that way.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You read your history the way you see it open-eyes...I'll read mine the way I see it. The Supreme Court reference was to the hanging chads in Florida...the Acorn reference is nothing but conjecture and therefore irrelevant.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If we the people let the lawyers run this country, we as a nation are doomed. The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers' Party. Barack and Michelle Obama are lawyers, Bill and Hillary Clinton are Lawyers, John and Elizabeth Edwards are Lawyers. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school {although Gore did not graduate}. Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at the leaders of thedemocrat party in Congress: Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer. The Republican Party is a bunch of businessmen, economists, teachers and doctors. The United States has 5% of the world's population and 66% of the world's Lawyers. When you see that 97% of the political contributations from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof......I was referring to your statement that the elderly would just have to suck it up and learn to enlist more help from the families. If that doesn't sound like a renege on all the people that are already in the system then I will stand corrected. But it sure sounded like one to me.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If I want my teeth cleaned I go to a dentist.....if I want a law written I hire a lawyer. Maybe all of those republican businessmen are why the republicans write so many laws that favor themselves

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What did Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower have in common?

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They are all dead ex-presidents.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That statement was for everybody, but a little more weight on the side of the younger generation who don't want to part with their income, time or energy to honor their aging family members. In my head, the concept of caring for the older set by the younger set would need to be accepted by the generation that is about a decade away from retirement at this moment. The weaning would slowly begin now and be cut another bit for the Baby Boomers' second decade of benefits because if the system is to survive all of them, there would need to be a reduction of benefits. This would give their families time to gradually take on expenses as well and the generation who has the "independent" mind-set would not be thrown into a tailspin. We aren't so far gone that we can't do this somewhat gradually, but we will be soon if we don't act now. The only option then will absolutely be the socialist-communist approach because the system can't even sustain all of the Baby Boomers who are beginning retirement now, much less the number of their parents who are still alive and collecting SS. I, for one, would like to avoid communism AND a bankrupt social plan.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fair enough, biscuitboy, take the word "ACORN" out of my previous statement, and its still fact, no matter how you want to re-interpret history. Over 3 million votes ahead of Kerry. Call that anything you want. I never mentioned the Supreme Court/2000. I was referring to 2004 as was obvious.
I remember my history quite well, thank you.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof......I will stand partially corrected...and I do agree that it is a broken system that needs something done....as always however, the devil is in the details.

I too however am confused about something...perhaps you can help me to understand. More and more I hear you and others making statements about us becoming more and more communist (it used to be socialist so I guess we have been upgraded). I hear this with such redundancy I can't help but know that it must be one of those talking points that all you conservatives march in lockstep with.

But communism is a failed system.....there are virtually no viable communistic countries left in the world except for China which has become the biggest economic power on earth by making their communism look more like our capitalism. So what exactly is this communism we are heading for...or is this just another case of misusing a word as a scare tactic to keep people in line.....kinda like the post 9/11 threat level

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it was a fair argument on both sides in 2000 that Bush lost the overall vote by approx 500,000 but won the electoral vote. I can see the arguments on both sides have valid points. However, I also am well aware of the hypocrisy that many of the same people that wanted to do away with the electoral college in 2000 were perfectly willing to win the election in 2004 despite losing the popular vote by over 3 million if they could only swing Ohio. Suddenly they didn't breathe a word complaining about overall vote. 3 million isn't chump change, and the electoral college didn't "decide it" any more than it does every single year. EVERY election is technically decided by the electoral college.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What did Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower have in common? Here is something of great interest for you to pass around. I didn't know this until it was pointed out to me. Back during the Great Depression, President Hoover ordered the Deporation of all illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American Citizens that desperately needed work. Harry Truman deported over two million Illegal's after World War 2 to create jobs for returning veterans. And then again in 1954, President Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexican Nationals! It was done so that World War 2 and Korean Veterans would have a better chance at jobs. This may happen again. If you have doubts about the veracity of this information, enter operation wetback into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself. Reminder: Don't forget to pay your taxes and insurance, at least 12 million illegal aliens are depending on you!

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open-eyes...now we are both reading our history from the same page...and as usual how we interpret it depends primarily on our mind set going in. As usual....the beat goes on.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"..........China which has become the biggest economic power on earth by making their communism look more like our capitalism."
Their system doesn't look much like capitalism on the inside...only on the outside. They are still very much a militarily controlled country. They still tax the people beyond reason, enforce laws about how many children a family can have and illegalize Christianity because that educates the people about other forms of government, revealing the "wrong" kinds which might lead to a revolt.
I suppose my reasoning for predicting that ties into two things...first, the Biblical prophecy that implicates the land masses that are currently named Russia and China and second, the loans they have extended to the US. There is a third factor, too, I guess and that is the fact that more socialism has morphed into communism than hasn't.
If it makes you feel better, I see it as a logical prediction based on our current path rather than as a scare tactic. A warning, at best.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I too have many fears for the future of our country. Some of them might be surprisingly close to some of yours...while others are a fear of where some conservatives are trying to take us. But I fail to see where this wide-spread use of the old cold war hot button catch phrase communism accomplishes any other purpose than to conjure up baseless fears about a discredited ideology. And you still haven't explained to me what this communism we are heading for would look like except for some biblical reference to Russia and China....two countries that didn't even exist when the bible was written.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The numbers of countries that could loosely be defined as socialist have increased while the number of countries that call themselves communist have all but dropped off the charts.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A wise man once said "pure communism is perhaps the ideal way to live, but due to the nature of man, unachievable"

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Following the collapse of communism, the West's progressive elites desperately searched for a viable ideological alternative. They found it in environmentalism. "

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009...

redistribution of wealth, global style

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's a good one, goodoleboy. Probably goes for every system of government ever devised as well. If everyone had the nature of an angel, it wouldn't matter what form of government we had or whether we had one at all - everyone would get along just great....... ;-)

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

biscuitboy:
I know that Russia and China weren't in existence a the time of those prophecies. The prophecies credit the descendants of named countries or kings that inhabited those land areas....that may or may not mean that their descendants still originate from those areas, but those areas' stint as communist countries make them suspect.
In so far as the "cold war hot-button" all I can advise is that you do some research about how communism came to be and what their propaganda taught. I know the gist of it, but don't have exact quotes memorized and I doubt that I will have time to research them and get them posted here before the thread moves on. If I do, I will. Because I knew them, though, I can attest to not believing that communism was dead when we were told that the cold war was over...only that it went into partial hibernation. They have never relinquished the countries that are still bringing them profit...only the ones that were used up or small ones that profited more as a bluff than economically. They are like locusts and they may leave for a time, but they will return. If you do a search on the recent U.S. election results breakdown, you will see that there are two third parties that claim the name of communism. The reason that we have "upgraded" from our talk of socialism to our talk of communism is that socialism is all but accomplished here......I have no doubt that the health system will be socialized within a year....and with the "hidden" agenda of the Copenhagen Treaty, communism is just around the corner. If you think about the literal meaning of the word "communism" this will make more sense than if you are thinking about it as the militant picture of the Soviets that we retain from the cold war.
"communism:
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party."
......like a commune........cap and trade.
As you can see, totalitarianism isn't essential to the definition, but that's what we always think of.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on October 31, 2009 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Use your search engine to find "Fall of the Republic" Barac Obama Full Lenth Movie.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oh4theluvof.....I minored in Russian History in college and am quite familiar with the Land of Rus and its long and colorful past. I also am familiar with communist ideology and the changes it went through under the Bolsheviks...then Lenin,,,and later Stalin...up to now.

This insidious threat of communism that you describe sounds very similar to the threat of of Muslim jihadist that we keep hearing from the neo-cons. I wonder just how many total votes both those parties with communist in the names got in the last election. To be real honest, I am much more fearful of the rise in membership in the KKK and the American Nazi Party than I am about a debunked political theory from last century.

I do accept your statement about socialism having lost its threat potential thereby bringing on the change to communism being the threat. Since you and virtually every other conservative made that change at about the same time however I doubt that it was a totally spontaneous change brought on by independent thought. Instead, it looks more like more fear mongering by the right wing.

I am curious at to why I never hear the expressions of concern about the KKK and the Nazis that I hear about communism. Both the KKK and the Nazis have after all killed large numbers of Americans both hear and abroad.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is one more thing I find even more frightening than the KKK, American Nazis, communist, socialist and jihadist all put together. That is allowing the policies of the United States of America to be dictated by some body's interpretation of biblical prophecy. That scares me most of all.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Health care reform in 1 page.

1. Only verified legal citizens of the United States shall receive government funded health care.

2.All elected members of the United States Congress, The Executive, and Judicial Branches and its employees shall receive the same government health care as the general public.

3.The United States government can negotiate prices for all medical supplies and medicines used in government ran health care programs.

4.Medical mal-practice lawsuit awards will be capped and the legal costs of these lawsuits will be capped at 1% of the award.

5.All pharmaceutical and attorney advertising on television shall be prohibited.

6.A federal excise tax of 2% shall be levied on all non-healthy foods and products sold in the United States to fund public health care.

7.No government subsidy shall be paid to any entity producing unhealthy food or products regulated by the FDA.

8.Any registered lobbyist engaged in the lobbying of elected officials on health care must match the amount spent in their lobbying in taxes paid to the federal government to be used for the sole purpose of public health care.

9.Any government sponsored student loans incurred by medical doctors shall be forgiven with a stipulation of government service for public health care service.

10.End of life and Hospice care shall be included in government health care.

It's not over 1,00 pages but I think the above would be a better start at reforming health care.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve....great proposal....but you have managed to step on the toes of virtually every high powered lobbyist that ever trolled either side of the aisle....and as such then your common-sense proposal has less than a snowballs chance in a hot place.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, lets start on # 8 then, and perhaps it will get easier:)

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve,
How about adding the following to your list.

11. All lobbyists and lobbying of elected officials shall be banned and considered a criminal act!

12. All elected officials found to be accepting any sort of
gratuities, other than pay or wages, from any and all
corporation or individuals put forth in 11 shall be
considered as corrupt and racketeering and punished
to the fullest the fullest extent of the law !

13. Any and all corporations or individuals found to be
engaging in any and all attempts to buy, bribe or lobby an
elected official shall be considered as engaging in
racketeering and punished to the full extent of the law !

14. Any and all corporations, its board of directors, stock-
holders shall make available for probe, investigation and
taxation any and all Off-Shore or Foreign, Bank Accounts
, Holdings, Assets, etc., as may be deemed applicable.
.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla.....I'm shocked! You would have the eggs to suggest that the American businessman might ever have anything other than our best interest at heart. Why we all know the first order of business is business...and what is good for business is good for all of us.

I'm just kidding of course but your suggested additions would stand at odds with the way the rich and powerful in this country remain the rich and powerful.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Steve,

Omit number 8, it reeks of death panels, can't have that!

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh yea.....death panels....we can't have any death panels. I also don't see any provisions in here to insure the continued viability of the insurance business. In addition....numbers two and three sound very communist to me...and need to be removed.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Apologies Steve, meant to say omit #10.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kind of wondered about that.

But then if you are on the high end of say 90 years old, what's the problem with discussing end of life issues?

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla,

Your #'s 12 & 14 I could agree with.

#11. no, because we all lobby our elected officials one way or another.

#13; if you replaced the word lobby with coerce or force, maybe.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nothing at all in my mind but something almost identical to what you just proposed was in an earlier bill and Palin, Gingrich, and Grassley all tried to scare the crap out of people with that stupid claim.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/palin-v...

But is fairness Steve the Dems will never buy it, it is too simple and will not take enough lawyers to write or decipher it. So your screwed=)

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well Goodoleboy;
Not screwed yet. I'm already using government ran healthcare, (V.A.) for the majority of my health needs. It does the job for me. BEST OVERALL CARE I'VE GOTTEN IN A LONG TIME. Of course I never needed much care until I hit 50.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good to hear Steve, many people make the VA out to be very, very poor care. Glad to hear that you are having a good experience.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Before I respond to too much more, I'd like to get some opinions on this piece:

"Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the [middle class] developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Quoting the Communist manifesto?

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay, challenge time:
Find the Communist Manifesto (online or paper) and in the section titled "Bourgeois and Proletarians" trade the word "proletariat" with the word "uninsured" and then trade the word "bourgeois" for the word "insured." In some places, the phrase "corporate executives" will fit better than "insured, so use that.
Read it through that way and see what you get.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The communist were not the first...nor the last.... to threaten our destruction. So to resurrect all these old threats now...some hundred years after they were written...when the ideology that adopted them is in worldwide decline...to raise fears about an administration that you did not support.....seems unfair if not downright dishonest to me.

The communist manifesto was written a couple of decades prior to the threat to destroy us was made by Japan and Nazi Germany......both countries of which are now are allies. In fact Nazism is in a resurgence in the U.S. now and I don't hear a peep of concern about that coming from the right. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand why.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yea and if you play your records backwards you get satanic messages.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's interesting..... not a peep of concern from the right about Nazis? Hmmm.... I'm guessing you never listen to any conservative programs then, so you wouldn't really know. Other than Pelosi and liberals branding everyone at a tea party a Nazi, how does it compare with the peeps of concern from the left? Just curious...... exactly what is so obvious you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand?
Nazi's were against big business, and religion. I'm sure that will go over really well with conservatives ;-)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So let me get this straight, if I can find a document, change out some words, that makes it relevant now? Damn, I have good ones then!

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, biscuitboy!! I said "...socialism is all but accomplished here." I did NOT say it has, "lost its threat potential." That's putting words in my mouth.

The reason I quoted the Manifesto of the Communist Party is because I see many liberal trends posted on these forums that are in line with the execution of a communist govt.
This is why I can't believe that communism is dead or that it is a defunct ideology. I believe it is alive and well. On the contrary I know that it is alive and well as there are currently four countries with active communist governments, one of which is just a few miles off the coast of Florida. This is also why I have begun mentioning communism. My exposure to what is going on in the world comes mostly from these forums. I hear random items on radio news or on the news feed on my e-mail homepage, but it's mostly here. I have no clue what the mainstream conservatives are talking about.....I don't even know most of their names. Another reason I brought it up was from a friend's comment that was pro-communism. She is a Christian, but works in an environment with a very liberal agenda. She does not deliberately pursue political information from anyone, so I know where her one-sided information came from. I did not ask her this time if that was, in fact, the source, because in prior similar incidences, that is always where the info came from. Basically, that means that in my world, the liberal agenda brought it up before I did.
Insofar as the fear of communism being stronger than the fear of the KKK and Nazi's, it has never occurred to me to fear a form of government that has no active government and is highly shunned across the country......even the world. As you can see, there is a lot more to it than the thought that this could be the fulfillment of a prophecy.....there is a repetition of history here. Also, I admitted that I personally tend to attribute these events to that prophecy. Don't go assuming that I speak for all the conservatives that spring to your mind and don't discount conservative arguments because I have a religion you are scared of. A lot of conservatives aren't Christians either.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy,
Every historical document is relevant now. If you change out catch phrases or words from theirs to ours but the fundamental message remains intact, you should learn how it applies to today's world. There is nothing new under the sun and we are not in phase one of this experiment of government. Wisdom comes best from the experiences of others.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

#6 would be pretty hard to enforce. I like french fried potatoes and I am not going to pay 2% tax on something I can grow in my garden.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 3:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes......what you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand is the KKK and the Nazis are by definition racist. NOW I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE RACIST......but a racist is going to be much more likely to support them than he is a party that has just placed a black man in the presidency. Hence the conservatives have no motivation at the moment to pull his chain. They do however have a motivation to pull the chain of all those that have been raised to fear communism by claiming that Obama is one of them. It's not rocket science buddy!

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 5:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And I fear oh4theluvof that you are also putting words in my mouth. I never said I was scared of your religion because if your religion is Christianity, which I presume it to me, I do not fear it. I said I feared those that would have the policies of this nation dictated by some body's interpretation of biblical prophecy. There is a world of difference in those two statements.

As to inserting different words into historical text to have them fit some preconceived notion of your world view I can only say it is a dangerous game that is very apt to work as well against you as in favor of you. Persist if you must....but don't expect any amen chorus from me. Not that you probably ever did. :-)

As to your statement that it never occurred to you to to fear something that was widely shunned across this country......there is ample evidence that the KKK and the American Nazis are gaining adherents not losing them.....especially since the election of President Obama. But then you turn around and imply that there is a communist lurking behind every bush (no pun intended) just waiting to jump out and join the President in destroying us despite the evidence that organized worldwide communism collapsed some time ago.

Cuban communism is in turmoil and near collapse and to hold it out as a real threat to us is a joke. JMO

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A simple question....assuming that our identities are known, who do you think might have exposed them selves to more personal danger by what they have posted here today.....you or me?

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let me put it another way.......right here on the streets of Emporia......You have a bumper sticker that says the KKK and the American Nazis suck and should be banned....and you have another bumper sticker that says the same thing except substitutes communist for the above. Which one do you think will earn you a brick through the windshield first.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There you go "assuming" again........well you're forgetting that "some" liberals and Democrats are also racists..... who voted against Obama purely because of his race...... (remember that he didn't get 100% of the Democrat/liberal vote, just as no candidate ever does - nor did he even get 100% of the black vote).
I am also aware that Naziism has roots in and is much closer to socialism than free markets and small government proponents. And one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that ;-) Not to mention some of his "czars" openly admire people like Mao and communism. Not only if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck....... but if it openly claims to be a duck...... then trying to spin that it isn't a duck is pretty weak.....

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh4theluvof & biscuitboy

I sure enjoy the two of you and your discussions, sometimes I smile, sometimes I frown, but most of all the debate between the two of you makes me think. As I have met both of you, and listened to your thoughts, I have come to the conclusion that you should both run for the next city commission seats. while not agreeing all the time with either one of you two, i like the idea of the two of you looking at and debating both sides of an issue, something sorely lacking in politics these days.The city could use the two of you,I think you would bring a good balance to city government.
Steve

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Steve......I think :-)

buscuitboy:
I would like to make sure you and I are very clear on one important point. I have NEVER implicated President Obama or his administration as being communist. At best, my implications would be that they are unaware of the communist threat that the Copenhagen Treaty carries. No, I didn't vote for him, but then again, I didn't vote for McCain either. Awhile back we had a debate about what was and wasn't racism and I think you were there. I confessed at that point that I often falsely believe that people are being racist when they bring a person's skin color into even a description. I am over-sensitive to it because I abhor it.
Like I said, my representations of what the right and left are saying come mostly from here, so this is the first I am hearing of a revival of the KKK in America just because of our President's nationality origins/skin color. Although my knee jerk reaction is to be sensitive to it, my pondered reaction is to think that it is probably being over-hyped by those who wish to divert us from the major political maneuvering that is taking place.......after all, if the President isn't hearing from us on the treaties they want him to sign and is only hearing a bickering match on the socialization bills they want him to enact, then he might be better indoctrinated by them. There are many leaders in the UN who openly admit to having communistic ideals. Most of them were communist leaders somewhere at some point and have never hidden their agenda to get North America on board. Canada isn't a strong enough leader, so they target the USA. There are also known communist sympathizers who hold US federal government positions.
(cont)

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(cont)
When it comes to my "alterations" of those documents, I first did that by substituting the literal meanings of the original words that we don't use in today's America. After I did that, it occurred to me that our current class divide that carries the most political unrest is between the insured and the uninsured with the corporation adding one more layer than was outlined in the manifest's epoch. The story is true; the names were changed to reveal the guilty. It was completely contextual and disciplined to make sure it did not in any way compromise the meaning in any way. I was hoping more would see how we are drifting closer to the very mindset that is so susceptible to communism. I welcome more historical documents being examined to better see from where we have come and to where we are going.
Who is really behind this pitting of the uninsured against the insured and why? Is it really just one of those things that has a noble shell but an evil core? Who is it who needs the US to be at constant civil unrest or even in a political civil war? Why do they need us there? Who are they....are they even here in the US? What is their agenda? I believe the new social health care plan is cooperating with their agenda and the Green movement gives it roots. I believe that the two major parties have only been puppets for them for awhile now and we average citizens are the strings. Who is the puppet master?? Why is it that every time we have a civil dispute in the past few decades, the original criticism came from some European country and our citizens pounced on it as the next big political cause. In addition, when someone there tells us to disregard certain info or fears, we drop it immediately. We are very impressionable puppet strings!!

*my sincere apologies for the misspelling of the name...I hate when that happens and I spotted it just after I clicked the "post" button.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Times change, society evolves. So you can doctor up an old propaganda document, I am sure I can find one that would make us Nazi, or whatever. The point is that our government has had different aspects intertwined into it for a long time now, that does not make us purists in those beliefs. Health care in this country is broken, period. Applying health care reform to the communist manifesto if a joke. Of course there are going to be parallels when you are overhauling a system that is for the good of everyone, but that does not make us die hard communists.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Pelosi health bill is the worst ever. 1,990 page run-away train that will be destructive at every level--for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and it will doom American freedom and prosperity. This bill will go down in history right along side of the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act. Congress is drowning in trillions of dollars in new obligations. Remember after the Vietnam War and the Great Society Programs, interest rates went to 22% for prime borrowers. Over 100 banks have closed this year. The net result will be health care and medicine will be rationed via politics. K.B. Thomas Jr. said,"If they don't take the tics out of politics, they are going to continue to bite the taxpayer." We need to learn everything we can about this bill and the first thing we need to understand is how were going to pay for it in light of all the dishonest accounting exposed in today's Wall Street Journal.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes.......I never said anything about how any individuals voted either left or right. I said that at present the conservatives had more to gain by catering to the racist than the liberals have.....and I stand by that statement.

Posted by create (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Your ego is showing again, reddog.

Those banks have closed because they were greedy while the bubble was growing, and not flexible after it burst. Many refused to work with people who had lost their jobs and instead chose to foreclose. Then they were stuck with an ever-growing inventory of houses and no sales force. They deserved to fail!

How you got from banks closing to health care and medicine failing I'll never know. But I ain't wasting my time on it no mo'.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I just really don't know of any conservatives that are "catering to the racist" at the present. Except those wackos that have been on both sides since the beginning of time and unfortunately probably always will be. I realize those on the left have been attempting to paint many on the right with a broad brush but not everyone is fooled that easily.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Biiscuitboy, perhaps you could give me some links or articles showing me where the left has actively campaigned and/or shown concern over the growth of the Nazi party in the US lately, to compare it with how the right has responded. And no, I don't mean everyone from Pelosi on down branding everyone that attends a tea party and opposes them a Nazi, I mean against the Nazi party itself. Since you think the right is being so silent on that issue, could you show me where the left is being more vocal? (PS - I've heard plenty of denouncing of Naziism lately, by both right and left, but I'm specifically referring to the growth of the Nazi party you mention.) It was originally the National Socialist White People's party, and in 1990 some broke away to form the National Socialist Party of America. Perhaps their aims are more closely aligned with, and have more to gain from, a different party than what you and MSNBC like to pin them to.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just in case anyone wants to sign up....

https://www.safelinkwireless..com/Enroll...

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

K.B.Thomas Jr. said,"the economy is so soft right now that the health care bill will cause the folks at the Federal Reserve to become hypochondriacs and every time there is a change in the statisitics, they will run for the thernometer. Liberals want economical National Health Care and they will pay any price to get it. PRICE AND VALUE are not the same."

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When they call the roll in the Senate on the Health Care Bill, the Senators will not know whether to answer present or not guility. When Health Care is controlled by legislation, the first things to be sold and bought are the legislators. Woodrow Wilson said, the history of liberty is the history of the limitation of government power.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

reddog,

Seriously, shut up. Your getting on par with Gary Lukert. I was bored the other day and fact checked a few of your statements, perhaps you should to, else when the Gazette finally does add the option to ignore posters you will end up on the top of everyone's list. Google Sanford Wallace, because that is who you are here currently.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Open eyes,

After what happened in NY-23 with Hoffman I am very concerned with what will happen in Florida next. If the trend continues then the conservatives are swinging too far to the right, and that will only strengthen the Democrats, which don't need any help at present. The other concern is that with that shift, they end up closer to the right wing nut jobs mentioned above.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If this Health Bill is passed, within 10 years capitalism will collapse with massive government-debt defaults. Greenspan, Bernanke, Bush, Paulson, all missed the 2007-08 meltdown: It will happen again, in a bigger crisis. Wall Street controls Washington-bailouts, bankruptcies, stimulis, nationalizations and about 24 trillion new debt. Yes greed was legalized in America, with Wall Street running Washington. America's top 1% own 90% of the wealth. The average worker's income has declined in the last 3 decades, while CEO's compensation has increased 10 times. Wall Street's high frequency junkies make billions trading zombie stocks like AIG, FNMA, FMAC, that have no fundmental value beyond a treasurey guarantee. Foreign nations and sovereign funds have started dumping dollars, signaling the end of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. New financial reforms will do little to prevent the next meltdown. Downsize your lifestyle expectations, trust no one, not even the media. In short, America is a grumpy old man with hardening of the arteries. The key to American success is how high we will bonce when we hit bottom. Under these economic times Nationalized Health Care is the art of making the possible impossible. And now you know the rest of the story.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think the conservatives are swinging too far to the right as much as the rest of the party has abandoned them and swung too far to the left. I know Bush sure wasn't much of a conservative in many ways his last few years in office. What it seems we have is a bunch of people telling the Republican party "where" it needs to be to be moderate. Who's really hijacking the party? The conservatives who pretty much stand for the same things they always have, or the "new" "moderate" Republicans who now claim conservatives are hijacking it? Scozzafava is pro-choice, pro-spending, pro-tax hikes. Doesn't sound to me like she's a Republican, or even a moderate one at that. There were alot of rumors that she possibly planned to switch parties after the election if she won (she's already endorsed the Democratic candidate).
At least the GOP doesn't have a current Senator who was a former KKK member. But, I'm sure they'll need one to be more "moderate".... lol ;-)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is not as much an examination of this race as it is the trend that it could happen again in Florida, then what next? What does it say about GOP leadership that they are running people like Scozzafava in the first place? It reeks of incompetence and poor leadership, I don't want the Dems getting comfortable. Quote me on this one, if the GOP runs a candidate like Hoffman for President in 2012 they will lose. Society in general is taking a more leftward slant in regards to a lot of major issues. It is the job of the left and right to adjust according to the will of the people, not the will of their parties and their idea of what the party "should be". Parties should evolve as society does.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't necessarily think many of the trends I see in our society as "evolving" - in some ways I think we are "devolving". In the case of Republicans I think many in the leadership positions are moving the party to where alot of conservatives do not wish to go - hence the backlash we're seeing. You're right - backing a candidate such as Scozzafava as a Republican shows just how out of touch from the poeple many of the party leadership have gotten.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Expound upon devolving please, I am curious as to how you are reaching this conclusion?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 11:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the breakdown of many of our morals and family values are declining in general. Things that many of the older generation would have been "mortified" by are just taken as "well, that's just the way it is now". I was watching a movie a few weeks ago (can't remember what it was, it wasn't very memorable) - and some teenagers were blasting some rap music. My jaw dropped when I heard some lyrics - we looked at each other and said "did I just hear what I think I heard?" - we had to back it up and play it over to prove we weren't wrong, much to our disbelief. Can't imagine hearing things like that back in my day on a movie. And this is what our kids are growing up being used to hearing. Just for one example. But hey, that's where society is moving - so in that respect, I guess without changing one whit I've moved from being a moderate conservative (or maybe even a moderate liberal) to a far-right wing nut.

And proud of it.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 12:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The government health care program will end up like the post office. Ups and Fed-Ex are doing just fine, but if the government would purchase Fed-Ex and Ups, the new name of the service would end up being called Fed-UP and thats what we have to look forward to.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

K.B. Thomas Jr. said,"the democrats have some donkey ideas and the Republicans have there own trunk of tricks. It all adds up to a bad health care law and this is down right tyranny--Leftey."

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 2:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Please don't take away my Health Care, please don't take away my freedom, please don't use this as a pretext for controlling every aspect of my life. If the government takes over Health Care, do you realize that our government has taken over 48% of the private economy. For the Liberals, this is the crown jewels of socialism that Teddy Roosevelt tried to promote in the days of William Allen White. If this is such a great deal, why has it taken 100 years to pass on it?

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First of all, it has taken 100+ years to iniciate any sort of public health care or government run health care in the U.S., because the so called private enterprise sector of the health care picture doesn' t want anyone, especially the government to regulate how much money they can " STEAL " from the people ! This includes doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, etc.
Is this whole public or government run health care issue nothing more than an attempt by our government to reign in the out of control health care costs, that the private enterprise health care business community is unwilling to reign in or cap the costs and profits that they, themselves have been letting and encouraging to spiral to astronomical amounts for profits sake ?
Can anyone one logically explain why healthcare costs in the U.S. are the highest or among the highest in the world, other than the greedy hunger for more and more profits .
I have heard it mentioned many times the term " Death Panels " if government run health care becomes a reality .
What makes everyone think that there are no so called " Death Panels " that exist in the health care system that exists now ?
How many believe that current insurance companys, hospitals, clinics, etc., do not make life and death decisions on who will be treated or cared for based upon their ability to pay an insurance premium or pay for treatment or buy presciption medication, etc.
What I know is, the cost of living in the U.S. is spiraling upward, out of control and the peoples living wage is pretty much stagnate or not keeping pace and if something is not done to bring this insanity under control, which the private enterprise sector is not willing to do, then it will be up to either the government or the people themselves to do so !

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When my mother was treated for Cancer at MD Anderson in Houston, people were coming from all over the world. Bob Dole thinks this health care bill is a good deal-he is special counsel for the big drug companies and hospitals. It is very interesting how all these people hang around the beltway.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One of the ways to stop inflation is for government to reduce spending and this is true at the state and local level. The state of Kansas has over a billion dollars in unencumbered funds according to the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at noon (Suggest removal)

reddog
I agree that controlling government spending is one way, albeit, a small way to control inflation !
However controlling inflation involves more and is more complicated than just controlling gov't. spending.
As you can see by the following explaination of inflation,

In economics, the inflation rate is a measure of inflation, the rate of increase of a price index (for example, a consumer price index).It is the percentage rate of change in price level over time. [1] The rate of decrease in the purchasing power of money is approximately equal.

Inflation is usually estimated by calculating the inflation rate of a price index, usually the Consumer Price Index.[16] The Consumer Price Index measures prices of a selection of goods and services purchased by a "typical consumer".[17] The inflation rate is the percentage rate of change of a price index over time.

So if the consumer price index continues to rise, faster and higher than the consumers ability to earn a wage and buy manufactured goods, etc., especially if the greed of corporate America to make unprecedented profits is allowed to continue to spiral upward out of control, then inflation will not and cannot be brought under control and lowered to a decent and respectable level, that will allow everyone to survive without government involvement .
Also, allowing Corporate America to export jobs to foreign countries is not helping the inflation rate or the job situation in the U.S..
Foreign labor may cost less, but the low cost of foreign labor does not equate to lower prices and the lowering of the price index, therefore the exporting of jobs and labor to foreign countries does not help inflation. The only ones who benefit from exporting jobs and labor and importing cheaper to make foreign goods is the domestic and foreign Corporations, Banks, Corp. execs and stockholders, the American worker and consumer does not benefit at all !
There are numerous things that are allowed to be done in the U.S. that has, is and will cause inflation to continue to rise and be a problem if allowed to keep on keeping on !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just for instance,
A gallon of milk is now over $3.00 per gallon and heading for $4.00 per gallon, a loaf of bread is over $2.00, a dozen eggs almost $2.00 or over $2.00 and I won' t even mention the price of meat !
And how much of the food products you buy are grown and produced in the U.S..
This is what drives inflation, higher and higher consumer prices and consumers ability to pay or buy the higher priced goods stays stagnant, or wages do not keep up !

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The government consumer price index does not include food and energy so there is no inflation. Some right wing nut must have thought this up and this is down right tyranny-leftey. Anyway the government won't have to give all the old folks an increase in pay. This will hold down inflation. What will they think up next? "If you believe it's time to put principles above parties, character above campaign promises, and common sense above all---Then I ask you to read Glen Beck's Common Sense.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Abolish the Republican Party and Outlaw it as an enemy to the Constitution of the United States of America! How many times are we to allow the Republicans to steal control of our country, loot everything of value, start wars based on lies then when our systems are at the breaking point, leave it to Democrats to clean up the mess?

The title of this story, "Republicans want Constitution Amendment" is nothing new. Republicans act as if our constitution was written in pencil. Our Constitution was written with the blood of Patriots and if the Republicans don't like it, they should go somewhere else and make their own miserable country and leave freedom to the free. Hmmm, where was it that I saw a totally red country?

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

An apple a day keeps the doctor away. After I read this 2000 page Health Care Bill, I will present a paper called "Of the present ability of America with some Miscellaneous Reflections."

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U, sorry, I meant Gary Lukert, in the last 100 years, how many wars did we get into under a Democrat President? How many did we get out of ("clean up the mess") under a Republican President?
If things are written in pencil, what is your take on the Democrats in Massachusetts reversing the law they passed a few years ago after Kennedy died?

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Take a look at the following site, which is an independent inflation watchdog site and see what they are projecting the inflation rate to be for the next 6 months.
http://forecasts.org/inflation.htm
Also if the price of food and fuel is not included in the governments CPI, it should be according to the following explaination of what CPI means !
Consumer Price Index - CPI
What Does Consumer Price Index - CPI Mean?
A measure that examines the weighted average of prices of a basket of consumer goods and services, such as transportation, food and medical care. The CPI is calculated by taking price changes for each item in the predetermined basket of goods and averaging them; the goods are weighted according to their importance. Changes in CPI are used to assess price changes associated with the cost of living.

Sometimes referred to as "headline inflation".
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cons...

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps a better index of economic times in the U.S. would be the Misery Index as explained in the following !
Misery Index
What Does Misery Index Mean?
A measure of economic well-being for a specified economy, computed by taking the sum of the unemployment rate and the inflation rate for a given period. An increasing index means a worsening economic climate for the economy in question, and vice versa.

Investopedia explains Misery Index
The index was invented by Arthur Okun and used to characterize the current economic condition. The main assumption in this index is that an increasing unemployment rate and relatively high inflation have a negative impact on economic growth. At its highest, the misery index for the U.S. was at 21.98% in June 1980. At its lowest, it was 2.97% in July 1953. In March 2006, the index was at 8.1%.

In economic terms, a rise in inflation coupled with high unemployment leads to lower consumer expenditures and contributes to an economic slow-down.

What do you think the current Misery Index is ?

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh please! Gary Lukert is too conservative for me.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps if the Republican Party had been banned from ever coming into existence we would still have slavery in this country. Maybe that was your preference, since the Democrats are apparently all saints. Especially Virginia senator Byrd, former KKK member (filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 hours). And re-elected for 50 years now. Apparently he thought "all men are created equal..... endowed with certain inalienable rights....etc..... was all just written in pencil - lol ;-)

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yea, that's another thing! Republicans say they are the party who respects property owner rights. Yet they amended the constitution to take property away from the rightful owners without having to pay the owners for the loss.

Republicans didn't like slavery because they were required to provide the slaves housing and food. It is cheaper to pay the slaves then deduct rent and groceries from the wages. If not for democrats, we would own our sole to the company store. Robber Barons aka Republicans!

The party who claims to be against taxes yet they are the party who amended the constitution to allow government to collect income tax.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good grief people, I haven' t seen a political party in quite a while that wants or is capable of doing anything for anyone, other than themselves and those who throw sacks of money at them ( the partys ), their sponsered politicians and their polilticos !
The whole slogan " A government of the people, by the people and for the people ", should be changed to " The government of certain people, for certain people and by those certain people who can buy or pay for it " !
This country is no longer a "Democracy ", but a " Corruptocracy " or " Paidocracy " .

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL, YY4U ;-)

Right on, methusla. Both parties have their ups and downs, ebbs and flows, either one gets too much power they invariable overreach.

And of course 1/2 the country comes down with their predictable case of amnesia/hypocrisy.

I wonder if that's transmitted by a virus? Call it the Blinders Flu? LOL

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I claimed the democratic party because they were the party in charge when we abolished prohibition. That is an amendment I can respect. If you really want to abolish slavery then we need to abolish the H-1B Guest worker Visas.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a Republican, Democrat, etc. politican anymore, only "Corrupticrat " politicians !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, in my opinion, the allowing the lobbying of elected officials by paid professional lobbyists, that represent , special interest groups, etc., was and is the reason for the situation this country has been experiencing for more than 100 years now .
All lobbying is, is a legal form of corruption, bribery and racketeering, that should be stopped, banned and made a serious crime !

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The free market lives! Ford announces profit, government forecasts taxpayer loss on GM and Chrysler. Warren Buffett buys Northern Santa-Fe this morning. He bought more than a railroad, he bought the future of America. Emporia will benefit from this.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As for the push by Republicans for an amendment to the Constitution, I wonder which special interest lobby group is paying for the " Corrupticratic " push for such a constitutional amendment. Health care insurance companies, Health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, etc., or all of them ?
I also wonder how many " Corrupticarts " report their lobby payoffs as income and pay taxes on it as income ?

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you amend the constitution to disqualify adulterers from holding public office we would all be better off. Anyone who cheats on their spouse will cheat us too.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As I understand, Warren Buffet already owned 33.1% of Burlington Northern-Santa Fe, also he also owns shares of Union Pacific as well as shares of Norfolk Southern R.Rs.. So for him to buy the other 2/3 of BNSF, I believe it was inevitable !
As far as buying the future of America, well I just don' t know !
As for benefitting Emporia, if it brings jobs to Emporia, maybe !
Warren Buffet only does what will be of the most benefit to Warren Buffet !

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In some ways yes I can agree that morality has taken a turn for the worse. But lets look at topics such as Gay marriage for example.

Why is it persecuted? Religion

Most of the right oppose gay marriage(was surprised to see Cheney come out in support of it). Yet in the last 10-20 years the public opinion has softend quite a bit on it and its something that will become a larger issue as it becomes more acceptable.

Abortion, it's not going anywhere, again this is a gray area where it should be up to individual, the right continues to press againist it which I find quite humerous because abortion is bad but entitlement programs are bad too?

I could go on, but my point is that the right is to entrenched in religion when it shifts furthur right. I could really get behind a Republican candidate that would make it the party of personal freedom, not just the freedoms they agree with. I am not anti-religion but I do not think it fair for us to judge a country of different religions based upon one doctrine.

And before we get started on left I am not excluding them from not being guilty of any of this, just maintaining that so long a party is shifted too far in either direction that they will be unsuccessful in holding the big office and overtaking the other.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One must remember that $34 billion dollars to Warren Buffet is like $1.00 to the common ordinary working stiff !
Mr. Buffet is worth hundreds of billions of dollars !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, I was wrong, Warren Buffet already owned 22% of BNSF not 33.1%.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The free market lives! Ford announces profit, government forecasts taxpayer loss on GM and Chrysler. Warren Buffett buys Northern Santa-Fe this morning. He bought more than a railroad, he bought the future of America. Emporia will benefit from this."

Ford is saddled with so much debt still that they are unloading brands and and take away the clunkers program they would be in the red. Give GM and Chrysler a little more time, they shed so much debt during bankruptcy that their return to profitability is inevitable. How will Buffett buying BNSF affect Emporia? You think they will reopen the station here? My father was a railroader for 30 years, the BNSF will continue to automate everything as they have in the past, if you read carefully no management changes are expected to take place, so more of the same. Buffett made this move because the railroad is a sure fire money maker, and as gas prices rise again rail shipping becomes more and more attractive,

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am against abortion, but, I am more against the invasion of privacy it would take to enforce anti-abortion laws. Will we force doctors to report pregnancies to the public so we can ensure the mother doesn't kill the fetus? How much further will we go? Should we mark the forehead of the pregnant woman so she will be easily identified by people who sell coat hangers? Please don't get pregnant then kill your baby. If you do, please keep it to yourself.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FYI, Warren Buffets net worth as of 2008 was $62 billion dollars. Today holding company invested in insurance (Geico, General Re), jewelry (Borsheim's), utilities (MidAmerican Energy), food (Dairy Queen, See's Candies). Also has noncontrolling stakes in Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, Wells Fargo. Insurance operations flourished in 2007.
Warren Buffet also issued the following challange in October of 2008, ." The Oracle of Omaha issued a challenge to members of The Forbes 400 in October; said he would donate $1 million to charity if the collective group of richest Americans would admit they pay less taxes, as a percentage of income, than their secretaries.
As far as can be determined Warren Buffet never had to donate the money to charity !
Just a little insight into Warren Buffet .

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Warren Buffet is cool

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe those secretaries are in a high enough tax bracket that they are paying the same %.
If it wasn't for rich people there would sure as hell be a lot more people out of work.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla, I thought Obama was going to get rid of all lobbyists? I know alot of people that trumpeted that as one of the reasons they voted for him. I think the "change" the got was that he immediately "changed" his stance on that once elected ;-).

goodoleboy..... I did say "in some ways", as you also agreed. But I think some get an unfair rap and labeled as extremely right-wing just because they didn't shift left, or as far left, as everyone else. Palin and abortion is a good example. I read someone here worried she woud "come into the White House with both guns blazing" or something to that effect, and overturn Roe-Wade singlehandedly, as if any President had the slightest chance in Hades of pulling that off. So what was her actual stance? She believed it should be left to each individual state to decide (there's some more personal freedom for you) - not at the federal level. And that stance is so far-radical-right-wing the National Organization of Women will completely disown you......... 50 years ago that would have been a left-wing stance.....

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is no arguement that those who are wealthy enough to manage to have the means to own stock in several high end companies do on occassion create jobs, but they are the ones that also export jobs to foreign countrys in order to make even more profit, leaving even more Americans jobless !
They also just happen to be the ones that own shares of companies that benefit from taxpayer funded " Tarps " and " Bailouts ", because they are to greedy to take some of the millions or billions of dollars they were over paid and save their own companys ! Poor Babys.
However I believe that Warren Buffet was saying that the richest Americans do not pay the same proportion of taxes percentage wise, based on their income, as the average American does ! Of course I may be wrong .

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes,
With almost all of the " Corrupticrats " that sit in Congress, who are getting rich from lobbying and lobbyists pay offs, there is now way the POTUS, no matter who it is , will be able to get the " Corrupticrats " to go along with banning or outlawing lobbying and lobbyists, short of using military force to make the " Corrupticrats " vote to enforce such a ban !

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Today, when someone says they are a Republican, this is what comes to my mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1UYquKlf...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Today, when someone says they are a Democrat, this is what comes to my mind: ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v5Kjmc8...

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, the 'ole "racial stereotype"...Figures...that's the republicans for you :-)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's interesting - it was a sound clip only - no video. Yet you automatically stereotyped. Figures.... that's the democrats for you ;-)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well this "whizzing" contest has been fun, YY4U, but I would image either one of us will have no problem finding some idiot to represent either side.

One really doesn't have to be all that intelligent to realize both sides have ample supply.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What I noticed was that the people in YY4U video were all in college trying to better them selves and in the process making it possible for some liberal college professors to keep their jobs.
In open_eyes youtube therre were people standing in line to get free money from all of us working people and they had no idea where it was coming from. I guess they think goodolebarry will just keep printing for them.
That's the way I see conservatives vs liberals.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.break.com/index/screwing_the_...

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At least the elite in Detroit allowed some of the stimulus to get to the poor people at the bottom of the food chain. The elite around here take the stimulus grants and keeps it for themselves. No trickle down here, they fixed all the leaks back in the days of Regan's trickle down theory.

Those "Chicken Hawk" college kids are all for the war but ask them to enlist in the military and fight they got medical problems, college grants and other "better" things to do.

Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

".......And that stance is so far-radical-right-wing the National Organization of Women will completely disown you......... 50 years ago that would have been a left-wing stance....."

I'll give you one better, open_eyes.
In the latter 19th century, a group of doctors and feminists including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton worked very hard to illegalize abortion. They got it. That's what was liberal 150 years ago.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Voodoo economics are just that YY4U. I did a large research project for on Econ course back in school, back when I was naive enough to believe that such things were as advertised.

Posted by MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The women — State Rep. Peggy Mast of Emporia, assistant House majority leader; State Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook of Shawnee, House health and human services chairperson; and State Rep. Brenda Landwehr of Wichita — boarded an Americans for Prosperity bus early Tuesday morning to speak at rallies in Wichita, Emporia, Topeka and Overland Park."

Wow, sounds expensive. More sensible folks would have car pooled. Of course more sensible folks...well, never mind.

How long has "Americans for Prosperity" been around; and more importantly who is providing their funding?

Posted by MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 11:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Man! Ya gotta love the GoogleNet.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 12:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Warren Buffett buys BNSF and the benefit to Emporia is profound. The 1 billion dollar intermodel at Gardner,Kansas is the most traveled one in America. This project received a 50 million dollar Tiger Grant and the Emporia Regional Development Association of East Central Kansas was listed as supporting the project. This project will provide 13,000 new jobs. BNSF has purchased 1,000 acres south of Gardner. It is forecast that this deal will provide Kansas with 30 billion in new sales revenue. Hundreds of thousands of containers will pass through Gardner. Some will stop short of Gardner, be off loaded and distributed. It is estimated that 10,000 trucks per day will come by Emporia--Truck Stops, Repair Shops, Motels, Warehousing, Distribution Centers and much more. Already a lot of people live in Emporia and work for BNSF.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I tip my hat to Ford Motor Company for making 1 Billion Dollars last quarter. The Free Market Works!

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 12:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Methusia if you want to know what the real economic story is, go to shawdow government statistics by John Williams. This is an analysis behind and beyond government reporting. Let me warn you, this is very shocking. With your economic savey you might already know this. Let me know what you think.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 12:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Goodoleboy, I would like to have a cup of coffee with you, it seems we have something in common. My grandfather worked for the railroad for 20 years before being laid off. He was working in Joplin, Mo and he used to play poker and pool with Dissey Dean and he changed a tire for a guy named Dillinger during the Depression. He later started a trucking firm with my dad. There warehouse was a couple of railroad box cars and two old trucks that you could see the pavement from the floorboard. Anyway you seem like an interesting person that I want to meat and if we don't hit it off, you can tell me to shut up. Have a blessed day and God Bless.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 1:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Goodoleboy I misspelled meet, I don't want you to get the wrong idea. Eubert Hubbard said, everyone is a damn fool for at least 5 minutes everyday. Wisdom consists of not exceding the limit. Catherine The Great said, The more a man knows, the more he forgives.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MrCmonkeeDo,
Yeah, google is great and don' t you just love the special interest groups, that are controlling or trying to control every aspect of American government and Americans lives thru their lobbying, lobbyists and buying of " Corrupticarats " ( a.k.a. politicians ) !
reddog,
The site you mentioned in you post, " Shadow government statistics " , is interesting , but I believe the two sites I mentioned in my post of November 3, 2009 at 1:59 p.m., are a bit better, as they do not rely on any purported government data, shadow or otherwise. They are totally independent and free thinking !
Folks, what I know is this, if the corruption of our government and our elected officials is not stopped and brought under control, this once great Nation will continue to travel down the road it is currently on and will eventually self destruct.
I consider myself as neither Republican, Democrat or claim no certain political party affiliation . I consider myself as a U.S. American and only want and seek whats best and fair for all U.S. Americans, not just whats best or fair for certain U.S. Americans, so I guess my party affiliation would be, " The U.S. American Party ( USA Party ) .

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My father also worked for the Santa Fe railroad for 20+ years before being laid off, also my uncle worked for the Santa Fe railroad for almost 30 years before loosing a leg in a freak accident.

Posted by reddog (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Methusla, what do you think of Ron Paul? Are you active with the Tea Party Group. Do you think the One and a half million people that went to Washington had an impact?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sure anyone that was enlisted/enlisting in the military was excluded from the video by its makers, YY4U. Just as anyone that actually had a clue was excluded from my soundbite ;-)

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

reddog
I like Ron Paul, but as long as those " Corrupticrats " that are elected to and seated in congress are allowed to be corrupted by special interest groups and lobbyists, even Ron Paul would have a difficult time accomplishing anything positive !
Before anything that will be of benefit and fair for all U.S. Americans, D.C. government, local governmets and " Corruption ", " Corrupticions" (a.k.a. politicions) and those who are allowed to corrupt them, ie, special interest groups, Corps., certain individuals, etc. will have to be cleaned out of D.C. and local governments and all forms of influence peddling by these groups and their hired lobbyists will have to be banned completely, without exception and strictly enforced !
There will also have to be limits set on donations to political partys by Corporations, certain individuals, Labor groups, Foreign interest groups, etc., and strictly enforced !
There will also need to be term limits set on all elected government officials, strictly enforced !
Only after doing this, will you begin to have a " government of the people, ( all the people ) by the people ( all the people ) and for the people ( all the people ) !
I know it sounds like drastic measures, but drastic times and situations call for drastic measures !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

reddog
Sorry, for the ramble, but sometimes my frustration makes me ramble.
No I am not really active in the Tea Party Group !
Also I really don' t think the one and a half million people that went to Washington had much impact at all !
If they would have had a convoy of cash laden trucks with them, then the " Corrupticions " may have listened to them !
However, there is an old saying, " Money talks and B.S. walks " and that is more true in the government of today, all government, Federal, State and Local, than it ever has been !

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CHANGE is happening in New Jersey and Virginia for sure. The tip of the iceberg is showing this morning. The rest of it will be revealed a year from now. We are on the road of 1994 all over again. The fine line has been crossed.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh its just because ACORN got temporarily put on the back burner, Observation - LOL.

BTW....... funding has resumed for ACORN as of Nov 1. That was just a nice little bit of political grandstanding for our benefit.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you are talking about the newly elected Republican governers of New Jersey and Virginia, that is not change it is just a changing of the kind of " Corrupticions " in the State Governments top post !
As I stated in my post of November 4, 2009 at 9:45 a.m., real change and fairness in government will only come with real government and political reform ! Changing which party is in power or the top spot has proven to change nothing !
The only thing that will change is the name of the corrupt Party in power !
I am going to guess that you " Obverstion " are a Republican and are not concerned with the corruption that is rampant in all of the political partys and Federal, State and local governments and that your only concern is that your party is in power by any and all means possible !
Corruption, " Corrupticrats " , " Corrupticions " , and those who deal in corruption, ie, lobbying, lobbyists and those who pay for influence will not have changed at all or one " IOTA " . Only the partys that are in control will have changed !
The same old " Status Quo ", of corruption, influence peddling and the buying of government and national policy will continue as before !
To be quite truthful, all this speculation as to the end of the World as we now know it, comming to an end, now that will be a change !

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes, I know that Republicans serve in the Military. I might have mentioned that I spent a little time in the Army. I can tell you that liberal democrats are a minority when you start getting up in the ranks. Well, in the Army anyways. Maybe the Air Force has more liberals. I say that because the Air Force has a better educated force :-)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And I honestly and sincerely thank you for your service to our country, YY4U ;-)

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't mention it open_eyes. I had a great time, got to experience the wonders of our planet, meet some really interesting people, learn a whole lot and best of all, I get an envelope in the mail each and every month from Uncle Sugar :-)

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee Methusla you won't even give the newly elected people a chance? You think they are corrupt just becaue they are rep/dem. The next time I'm needing or looking for black helicopters I think I'll look under your bed

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla;
Research 1993/1994 a little. That is what I am talking about all over again. We may get another dose of Obama but there will be great change in the legislative ranks. I suppose there will be corruption either way. I'll not argue that fact with you. I expect that we will still be electing humans for our representatives a year from now, but I'd bet you right now that there will be far fewer LIBERALS than are in Congress currently. That ought to at least slow down the spending a bit. Not a Republican, but a Conservative. There is a difference, sometimes!
YY4U;
Thanks for your service. I spent a few years in the Army myself. Not as much as you, as I don’t get a monthly check from them, but long enough to know that there are both Conservatives and Liberals within the ranks.
tbluma; Good point!

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma
Just exactly how many of the people in the present gov' t. are or have been newly elected and how many have been entrenched in gov' t. for a number of years ?
And do you think that those who are carry overs from past administrations and congress are really going to do anything to change the Status Quo that has been going on and entrenched in government for decades now ?
All I am saying is that government and political reform is of urgent necessity in order for the government to truely become " a government of the people, by the people and for the people " and I mean " ALL OF THE PEOPLE ", not just those certain few people, etc., who can afford to and do buy congressional influence. law making and policy making decisions !
I am willing to give the present government a chance to do, whats right, fair and best for all of the people, but it is not looking very hopeful that is going to happen. Also bi-partisan ship is and has been dead in Federal, Local and State government for some time. I can' t make my position any clearer than that !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Below are definitions for Liberal and Conservative, read the definitions and the differences between the two and make up your own mind whether a Liberal government or Conservative government would be better !

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives .

Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 : preservative
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : progressive conservative
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions :
As for me I am all for " Equalitarianism ", " Fairitive " and " What is Righteral " for everyone and not just a few !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Observation
I agree spending has gotten out of hand ! But spending is not the only out of control habit in D.C. both or all political pundents and partys are guilty of spending needlessly !
And again my position is, unless drastic reforms are enacted to control the undue influence upon government, congressmen/congresswomen etc., the same old " Status Quo " will continue, no matter what congressman/congresswoman is seated in congress or who is the POTUS !

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla;
Thats pretty cut and dried for me. I think your Equalitarianism ", " Fairitive " and " What is Righteral" for everyone, are other ways to say LIBERAL.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lol Observation. how is it that change is happening in Virginia and New Jersey?

Virginia has been a Republican state since the 60's, New Jersey, meh whatever. Look at the exit polling for the POTUS

"Obama's job approval rating was higher than the national average in both states. It topped off at 57 percent in New Jersey and 52 percent in Virginia - higher than Gallup Poll's most recent 50 percent job approval rating. Only a slightly smaller number of voters in both states disapprove of the president's job."

Not change your looking for.......

More interesting to me was the NY-23, where Hoffman was trounced if you factor in the GOP candidate was very moderate and still took in a decent chunk of the vote despite suspending her caimpaign. I honestly figured he would win, many pundits did too. No Democrat has held that seat in the last century lol. Is this a message to the conservative base from independents? Time will tell.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Methusla,

We better think of new names then, because the definitions above do not reflect either party.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Observation
If wanting our government to do what is fair, equal and right for everone and not just the privilaged few, then I guess that is being " Liberal ", however being fair, equal and right is much better in my opinion than being " Conservative " and continuing with the same old " Status Quo " form of government that does only whats best for the few who can buy government, congressmen, buy the making of policy and laws! This is the type of government we do not need !
Please pay close attention to this part of the definition of " Conservative ", 3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions :
This is what true Conservatives believe and want, to go back to the old way of allowing the few who can, buy government, congressmen, government policy and laws, thru lobbying and hired lobbyists !
From your comment I assume that you do not believe in a government that will do what is " Right, Fair and Equal " for all the people. It would seem you only believe in a government that allows, the government, congress, policy making and law making to be bought by the privilaged few who can do so !
Do you believe in " Elitism " ?
Because, in my opinion that is the form of government you wish to return to and had for a number of decades now !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy
That was my whole point of posting the definitions, to make people think about whether they are truely " Liberal " or " Conservative " !
Regardless of what Observation believes, I don' consider myself as a " Liberal ", a " Conservative " , a Republican, a Democrat, etc.. I consider myself a " U.S. AMERICAN " that is fed up with the way corruption in our Federal, State and Local government is turning and has turned this country into a country of " Elitism " and not a " Democracy " !

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

The U.S. does not meet the criteria for a Democracy, especially concerning # 1, # 4 and # 5 , in the above definition of a Democracy and has not for quite some time !

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The USA is a Republic.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, as Benjamin Franklin left the hall in Philadelphia, he was asked, "What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?" He replied: "A republic, if you can keep it."

If we can keep it.......

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open-eyes;
So I guess we are all Republicans if we consider ourselves U. S. Americans. That makes it lay a little crooked in one's mind to think of goodoleboy as a Republican. ;-) What is this country comming to!

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well to be fair, I agree with the republicans on quite a few points, problem is that I agree with some liberal points too. Being far right and far left averages me out right in the middle I guess /shrug

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Methusla I think a lot of things could be changed in the government myself, I won't disagree there, but tell me what you think a conservative or a liberal is in your own words not something out of a damn dictionary printed by who knows who.My definetion of a conservative is one who believes in fiscal responsibility foremost. Next it would be someone who believes in a person earning their own keep, ie the hell with free lunches for illegal aliens for example. Next a conservative wouldn't make it possible for the new health bill to pay for abortions. Why should we pay for other people's mistakes even if we will end up paying for them later in welfare checks?
IE I'm against murder as any person should be. Next, a conservative shouldn't bail out a broke co.(Chrysler,GM,Fredy Mac, Fannie Mae, CITI' whoever) You throw the dice , you win or you lose. I could go on forever but I think you get my drift.
In my opinion a liberal does exactly the opposite of the above and that is my deffinition of the 2. I didn' have to go to a dictionary to get it defined to me in some lawyer speech.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And I still think you're chasing black helicopters

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No it doesn't make us Republicans - that party didn't even come into being until Lincoln...... but I agree with goodoleboy..... although I tend to agree with the conservatives more often than the liberals, so I'm sure I average out more to the right of center overall.... ;-)

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MrCmonkeeDo
It had to take much more time to think up that moniker than your opinion.
The last time I checked a bus would carry 45/50 people.
Why then would any one concerned about cost car pool when at best van would carry way less people?
I wouldn't even be surprised if the people on the bus paid a fare of say $40/per. Costing you or me nothing. I sure as hell would have paid $40 to get on there and raised a little hell if I didn;t have a job I needed to do first.
Of course most sensible liberals would have you car pool when a bus would be cheaper.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, tbluma,
I see some people would rather make up their own definition of what a conservative or liberal is, instead of relying on a well thought out, logical and educated definition out of some damn,
dictionary, namely " WEBSTERS " and every other dictionary or encyclopedia you would care to read and learn from, that has been around, printed and used by scholars, educators, schools, most everyone and our children for hundreds of years ! The definitions I set forth were true definitions of Conservative and Liberal and if that did not set with you or riled you, then that is your problem !
Yes, self definition of Conservative sounds like a typical self defined conservative point of view, if someone is not what you believe and define as conservative, then everyone but you is less than you and therefore wrong ! Ah yes the conservative way of thinking .
Black helicopters do not scare me, but people like you scare the hell out of me and should scare everyone !
I think a conservative is some one who prefers the same old " Status Quo " form of " Elitist " run government and a " Liberal " is some one who desires change from the same old " Status Quo " form of government and desire something better than the old way !
And let us not forget that it was the great " Compassionate Conservative " and his conservative administration, who was the first to implement any sort of " Bailout ", " Golden Tarps " or so called " Stimulus handouts " !
You say you don' t agree with bailing out failing companies, that doesn' t go along with the former " Conservative " governments point of view !
I too don' t believe that all of the failing companies should have been bailed out with taxpayer money ! So am I a Conservative or a Liberal, I don' t believe I am either one . I consider myself a " Fed up American " and am ready for meaningful positive change and that doesn' t mean returning to a " Corrupt, Elitist " form of government that has taken this nation further toward " Ruination " !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 4, 2009 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma
Since I desire to have a non-corrupt, lobby, lobbyist free, fair, form of government that will do whats right for all people and not just a priveledged few people, by your self definition exactly what would I be, a Conservative, Liberal, Liberal Conservative, Conservative Liberal, Dreamer, Wishful Thinker, Crazy, what ?

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla....I have never agreed with you and respected your opinion more than I do right now. But logic and common sense make no difference when trying to discuss things with people who have the ability to see only what they want to see.

As for me...I think I'll just use my black helicopter to get the H*** out of here.

Oh, by the way observation, the way I read it, you described yourself as someone who believes government should be unfair...unjust....and unequal. Since you claim to be a conservative...does that mean that is the way you describe conservative government?

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I always thought the initial reason for the conservative and liberal labels as applied in this country referred to respective ways of interpreting the Constitution.,,,,and had little to do with all the baggage that has been hung on them now.

Liberal referred to a Constitution that was a living document that needed to evolve with time to reflect changes in the world we live in.
Conservative interpretation viewed the Constitution as a static document that was to be constructed literally as it was written allowing little adjustment for changing situations.

But considering that the people that lived in this country were almost all farmers.....with a tiny middle class.....almost no women that worked outside the home....and blacks that were considered property.... strict construction (conservative) left many problems in a state of limbo. That however worked well for the entrenched power structure who almost all became conservatives. The ones who were not quite so well protected by this static document sought to read it differently thus becoming liberal.

From that point on it has all been a matter of baggage.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

biscuitboy
Thank you, I too respect your opinion, logic and common sense, as well as the opinions, logic and common sense of a number of posters, even if I respectfully disagree with some of the views and opinions, however the key is the " respect " shown towards one another for their/our opinions, which some do not seem to have, along with little common sense !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I just came across these sites that I believe describes " Conservative or Conservatism " and " Liberal or Liberalism " quite well .
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/cons...
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0...

Again I will let you who wish to, read, make up your own mind as to whether you are Liberal or Conservative or whether you are neither and are just a plain old fed up U.S. American !

Posted by create (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From the sounds of this "2009 Obama Agenda Survey" I have just received in the mail from Michael Steele, the Republicans seem to be flailing about. For one thing, they want money.

"As Chairman of the Republican National Committee, I am sending out this questionnaire to gauge where you and other grassroots Republicans stand on the critical issues facing our nation -- I need to hear from you right away."

Well I'll be damned. I am not now, nor have I ever been a registered Republican. In fact, I called the voter registrar this morning to see if there was some kind of error in my registration data. There wasn't.

Michael Steele's cover letter states that each survey is "registered in your name and affixed with a tracking code to ensure that it is acounted for in the tabulated results." Well I'll be damned again! Hey Michael Steele, track this!!!

The survey questions are extremely slanted. Here's one example and I'll not bore you with the rest:

"Do you agree with Barack Obama's budget plan that will lead to a $23.1 trillion deficit over the next ten years?"

Yes indeed, I'll be returning this survey; after all, it is "tracked" with my name. I'll be sure to give them a special message. Something creative of course. :)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

create - are you implying Democrats have never asked anyone for money?????? ;-) Anytime they do, is it "flailing about"???

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What I meant to say was, I've gotten stuff from both parties, even though I'm a registered Independent, and have never been registered with either party....... I think they "flail" equally....

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Speaking of flailing about, it looks like most of the Cash for Clunkers were traded for new pickups that only got between 1 and 3 mpg better...

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/2009110...

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open-eyes;
Yes that may be true, but a lot of people saved a bunch of money, a lot of jobs were created or saved, and some people got a brand new set of steak knives to boot. It's difficult for me to find fault in this POTUS program. I hope he will repeat this over and over again. It has helped a lot of people right here within our ranks. I think this program makes me a Centrist, as I like it, yet all other programs that the POTUS has pushed, I find a little over the top. It's funny how much we are all in the middle, if we look at it from the right angle.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla......Your link on what is conservatism was excellent and further clarified the point I was making in my earlier post. Ironically, many of the tea-party conservatives are just as much the victims of true conservative agenda as any liberal. The only difference is they have bought into the hype and don't realize the extent to which they are chattel in their leaders agendas. That was made very clear to me in observation's statement deriding liberals for being fair, just, and equal.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, it's hard to figure it out overall, since sales were down 41% the following month after CashForClunkers, and down 23% from the same month last year. I'm not sure I see the point if, say, 1 million vehicles (just to pick a random number) are normally sold over a 2 month period, roughly 500,000 each month, but instituting a program where 3/4 of them are sold the first month and then 1/4 of them the next. Oh well.
I also got my eyebrow raised by the claims that liberals are "fair, just, and equal" compared to conservatives. I think that's part of the problem in this country - one group seems to have a fairy tale view where they think of themselves with quite a bit more esteem than they deserve in reality. Well, actually, both groups suffer from that ;-)

Posted by create (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes, don't put words in my mouth, please. You have a tendency to search for implications. Maybe it is you who is flailing about.

Here's another couple of quotes from the letter regarding money:

"Unfortunately, one thing Obama and the Democrats have is lots of money... " What's that supposed to mean? Like the GOP has no money or never has had any? Or never was the party riding high? Crappitydoodahday!

"By returning your completed survey...along with your supporting contribution of $500 etc, YOU WILL HELP FOCUS AND REBUILD OUR PARTY."

The GOP has lost its focus? Needs to be rebuilt? Have they lost their party philosophy? What is he admitting here? That, my friend, is flailing about.

Finally, I get a lot of requests for party contributions too, but no one has ever told me that the survey was tracked and that my name was registered to that track. That pisses me off!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, I do agree that the GOP is not sure of their direction, which is why we are seeing fractioning. And, yes, the Republican party has at times been the party "riding high". However, at the current time, yes, the Democrats do have plenty of money. Obama did set records for money raised. Ebb and Flow, ebb and flow.......
I also remember it wasn't that many years ago it was the Democratic party that was in total disarray and unfocused. Doesn't take long for things to change, does it? ;-)

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

biscuitboy,
Glad you liked the " Conservative/Conservatism site, I think all those who believe that they are " Conservative " should visit the site and learn what " Conservative/Conservatism " really means and is, some may just change their mind about what " Conservative/Conservatism means and is, but I doubt it !
Have you visited the " Liberal/Liberalism " site and if so, let me know what you think of the information, this site is also quite informative !

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, I think what I'm reading here, is, adherants to party/ideology A are saying to party/ideology B, "This is what you should be. You need to be more like us, just slightly different. Actually you should really think exacty like me to be correct, fair, just, and open-minded".

Well duh.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes
Don' t you think that the government of this country should do what is in the best interests of the people of this country, all the people of this country and not just a few people, even if that means going against party lines, doctrine and beliefs and being truely bipartisan ! I believe that the two major political parties have forgotten or never knew what bipartisan/bipartisanship really meant and means !
After all doing what is in the best interests of all the countrys people is what is in best interest of the country, don' t you think !
The political party bickering, struggling for power and favoritism toward the privilaged few, must stop and equality and fairness for all must be the governments main priority or this country cannot and will not survive !

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Methusla - Absolutely!

What makes you think I don't? What makes you think either ideology truly isn't looking at for the interests of a few any more than the other?

Worth watching again.....

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes
I never meant to imply that you did not believe in what I outlined in my last post, I appologize if it sounded as if you didn' t, I was just asking a general question, and should have addressed the question to everyone on this thread instead of just you, I meant no offense, sorry !
And I believe that both political partys ideologies, absolutely cater to the privilaged few, because of the privilaged fews ability to pay for or buy each party and their candidates, whether it be presidential candidate or congressional candidate !
And I am extremely glad to see that there are some on these discussions that do agree with me and have the same basic train of thought, logic and common sense, even though we may be few in number !

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes

Let me remind you that it was your fellow conservative traveler observation that pointed out how liberals were fair, right, and equal. Just scroll back up this page to Nov.4 @ 3:55 p.m. if you want to read it for yourself. If you don't agree with that statement then you should take it up with him.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I did not take it as offensive, methusla, no need to apologize to me. Just didn't understand what and why you were asking me that.

Oh, I think Observation is about 50% right and 50% wrong. I think there are plenty of people who believe in fairness, righteousness, and equality on both sides. And plenty on both sides who don't.

And quite a few on both sides who profess to but in reality don't.

For those in the first group, the question is the best way to arrive at that or bring it about. Differences of opinion as to which is the best way to arrive at it does not automatically mean everyone with a different opinion from yours of how it is best done is not or does not believe in being fair, right, and equal.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand open_eyes. Mainly I'm just having a little fun goading observation about a statement he probably wishes he could take back. I owe him one or two.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla.......

Just got around to reading your link on liberalism and believe it also supports my earlier expressed views on what the two terms really mean. Liberals believe the world changes and we must constantly adapt ourselves and our government to those changes. Conservatives belief the world was just fine in the past and seeks to force the world to conform to those days of yesteryear no matter how much things have changed since then.

My problem with conservatism then is it almost guarantees for its self that it will eventually be left behind. It also pretty much guarantees that those that got will continue to get while those that don't won't

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to believe in fair and equal, but to be honest they don't exist. If things were fair and equal we would all be getting food stamps, free medical care, and we wouldn't have to work. What LIBERALS call fair and equal is to steal from those that have and give to those who have not. To be fair and equal would be to take from all equally and to give to all equally, or better yet take from no one, and give to no one. Sure enough though if this were to happen a few folks would exert themselves and actually earn additional things through putting forth effort and everything would get unequal again. Then we’d need the LIBERALS to get involved again to put down those nasty unscrupulous Conservatives.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I honestly don't know a single conservative who would subscribes to that philosophy or would think it applies to them. Seems to me an archaic definition that needs sorely updated. When I say I lean conservative mostly I mean I don't believe in big government. Most countries on this earth at one time or another were ruled by kings, emporers, or dictators with absolute power. So I'm glad things have changed. I also believe in personal freedoms (as stated in the definition) - and since that is usually in direct conflict with bloated, all-powerful government - I guess I've just discovered I'm a liberal ;-)

Now of course there are gray areas everywhere - places government needs to step in, places they need to stay out. Just because the world is changing does not mean that EVERYTHING in it by necessity also changes, or needs redefined. Some truths are timeless.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and biscuitboy.... I am right and you are left.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No system of government - no matter what it is - will ever be perfect until humans become perfect. You can't build a perfect government with imperfect people. If people were perfect, ANY type of government would be perfect. There would be no greed or corruption at any level. We probably wouldn't even NEED goverment.

sigh......

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open-eyes;
to whom was your last comment directed?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At nobody in particular. Its just like one of those clouds of smelly perfume instead of spraying it on yourself, you spray it into the air and then whoever walks through it gets a wiff ;-)

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 10:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How much effort to get ahead, can one put forth before you label it Greed?
Should all jobs have the same pay?
Is this the reason for government, to assure that we all get the same size loaf of bread regardless of effort or lack of effort that put out?
Me thinks you are embracing Communism. Remember that little experiment that the USSR tried during the last century? You progressive rascals just keep coming back to that experimental feeding pan!

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That was one too!!!

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you work in a company, and have have recieved 1 loaf of bread for last 25 years while the head of the company has steadily increased to 550 loafs you don't think that greedy?

(I just described loosely the gap in middle class wages to CEO wages)

Right now the wealth gap in country is very high, and has gotten much, much worse in last 10 years, it's not communism to want a little equality. All jobs should NOT pay the same, but jobs should not be skewered to astronomical proportions either.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with you both. In principle, I agree with Observation, but the reality of it is, greed has gotten completely out of hand and I agree with goodoleboy.

In the early 1980's, top CEOs made 30 to 40 times the pay of average workers. In 2007, CEO pay outpaced average worker pay by 344 times.

So 25 years ago I would have been dead-set against Obama & company trying to limit executive compensation. In light of current runaway greed, I'm all for it. I think it needs to be reigned back in to some degree of sensibility instead of just plain outrageous public legal theft. Especially for companies taking government bailouts. And I don't buy any of the crap about not being able to attract the best & brightest if they can't pay as much. Bullcrap. What's best and bright about taking companies and running them into the ground into huge losses and then absconding with 100 million? Executive compensation these days has absolutely no correlation to the performance of the company, how many jobs they lose, or eve the stock price. They simply rape the people....... because they can. And now they're crying about it - but they brought it all on themselves.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some perspective from a 2001 study and others:

Executive pay jumped 571 percent between 1990 and 2000. CEO pay rose even in 2000, a year in which the S&P 500 suffered a 10 percent loss. The explosion in CEO pay over the decade dwarfed the 37 percent growth in worker pay.

If the average annual pay for production workers had grown at the same rate since 1990 as it has for CEOs, their 2000 annual earnings would have been $120,491 instead of $24,668. Likewise, if the minimum wage, which stood at $3.80 an hour in 1990, had grown at the same rate as CEO pay over the decade, it would now be $25.50 an hour, rather than the current $5.15 an hour.

The pay gap numbers don't include the value of the many perks CEOs receive, which averaged $438,342, according to the report. Nor do they include the pension benefits CEOs receive.

But even including all that, CEO pay can look like chump change next to private equity and hedge fund managers' pay. Those managers made an average of $657.5 million in 2006 - more than 16,000 times what the average full-time worker makes, and roughly 61 times that of the average CEO

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09...

http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/28/news/eco...

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Observation
When one " gets ahead " and then wants or desires more than he/she/they actually need, this is the true sense of " Greed " or " Avarice " !
I don' t know whether that is the answer you were looking for, but there it is !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And with the amount of money some people are making, what do you suppose there amount of taxes paid were compared to the lowly average workers tax load ?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 11:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We ALL desire more than we need, methusla. I don't "need" a 60-inch plasma tv - but I sure want one. The human race survived for thousands of years without the Internet, cars, computers, cellphones, and fancy beachfront hotels. So we are ALL greedy in a sense. The question becomes where do we draw the line at just plain too much. I'm not in favor of drawing lines anywhere - unless it gets completely out of hand by the greed of a few at the expense of the many - as it has in this country lately. Time to reel it back in. Even then its hard to tell where to draw the line - but I think the CEO's & executives have clearly crossed it. The question is - will the government stop there/then? Or once they get a head of steam will anyone be able to stop them? Ah, there's the rub........

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 5, 2009 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From the articles I linked (some very interesting and blood-boiling reading, for anyone wanting to get your blood pressure up):

Between 1996 and 1998, 41 large, profitable corporations used special tax breaks and credits to reduce their corporate tax bill to less than zero. Instead of paying taxes, they received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury. As a group, the CEOs of these tax rebate firms averaged pay hikes of 69 percent, far above the typical CEO raise of 38 percent. Those pay hikes, made possible in part by tax rebates, totaled $194 million. In six cases, the CEO¹s raise entirely consumed his company¹s tax rebate for the year.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is statistics such as those that do make my blood boil especially as I listen to some on here who are constantly railing on about people not paying their full share and always wanting something for nothing. It would take a lot of food stamps to equal what these jerks beat us out of every year.

This attitude that the rich somehow deserve a free ride is exactly the protection of the aristocracy that methusla's link was speaking of.....and the hype that so many tea party type everyday working conservatives have bought into.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And as long as this so called " Republics ", " Wealthy Aristocracy " is allowed to bribe and buy the government and the so called " elected government officials " this " Master/Servant/Slave " way of government will continue to do business in the same old " Status Quo " way of governing !
Ben Franklins " Republic " started on the path to being an " Aristocracy " when the first government official took a payment of any kind, either monetary, favor or gift , from a business, group of businesses, businessman/woman, group of businessmen/businesswomen, individual or group of individuals to introduce, vote for legislation, amendment or law that would favor the special interest of that business, businessman/woman, individual or any of the aforementioned.

Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

JUST OPENED UP PROPERTY TAX BILLS!

Guess What?
They went up.
ONLY 48 SHOPPING DAYS TILL CHRISTMAS!
ONLY 42 DAYS TILL 1ST 1/2 OF TAXES ARE DUE.
YEAH!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But during this big expansion in the gap, we've had both Republican and Democrat Presidents and Congress. Doesn't look like either did much to stem the tide.

"Bribing" and buying government favors has nothing to do with the type of government. It happens in every form.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But, Steve, the City and County need " MONEY " !
So much for no tax increases ! I don' t mean to be the bearer of " bad news " , but the Citys Third Draft of 2110 General Fund Budget projects that the tax mil levy will increase every year, starting in to 2110 thru 2015 when the mil levy will be 19.037, an increase of 4.327 mils and who knows what the County mil levy will be or what the Federal, State tax or what utility rates will be !
This is a " Spend Needlessly and Tax " country and society !
Just something to look forward to ! LOL to all of us !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes
My friend, I beg to disagree, the buying and bribing of government officials has everything to do with the type of government we have and the type of government we have is exactly the reason for the " Gap " and disparity that exists today !

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In many countries outside the US, bribery is almost an accepted standard way of operating. Many NON-Republic countries. Tracking by companies doing business abroad - bribe taking and corruption among government officials:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5405438.stm

From this study, the worst countries are China, India, Russia, (hmmm..... 2 Communist or former Communist in the top 3) and the worst at paying bribes to low-income countries were France and Italy (hmmm.... Socialists....)

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/27/world/...

"the highest levels of bribe-taking officials appeared to be in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the former Soviet bloc."

The US was somewhere in the middle of the pack in both studies. As for the gap between rich/poor, the US comes in 4th, behind Mexico, Turkey, & Portugal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/o...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just some more interesting stats on weatlth - interesting FYI (Of course these vary somewhat from study to study and year to year):

US ranks 4th in average income of its citizens, behind Luxembourgh, Norway, Switzerland. Other studies have middle-eastern oil-rich countries popping in and out in various places.

US has the 2 richest people (Gates & Buffet) but only 1 more in the top 10. Some from Mexico, China, France, Spain, Canada (notice some Communist & Socialist countries in there).

Also an interesting stat:

Democrats now represent 57% of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008. In 2005, Republicans represented 55% of those affluent households.

As I said before..... doesn't take long for things to change, does it? Or should I say..... the more things change..... the more they stay the same ;-)

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

But open_eyes, don' t you think that even being on that list of bribed, bought and paid governments is not something to brag about or a list to even be on or considered for ?

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EVERYONE is on the list. Yes, I would prefer to be one of the countries at the very bottom. But nobody is immune. Again, as long as human beings are imperfect....... everyone will remain on the list. I was just trying to show that it is not necessarily an inherent part of our type of government. Remember, Franklin & Company came FROM a repressive government where the power was all concentrated in the hands of a few (King). They weren't looking to build the same thing. The fact that we have a free an open press acting as a watchdog on the government helps keep us from going to the top of the list, thankfully. (Well, notwithstanding the current administrations "war" against news outlets that don't give them all smiley faces as grades.)

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Were it not for greedy people, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The greed for gain drives the engine that invents and develops computers and the software to make them do things like this. Maybe we should all protest those greedy folks by throwing our computers in the trash.
Do you suppose that transportation just happened, or do you think it got invented and developed because of greedy people?
Currently there is a drift toward greed from the LIBERALS to have all of their needs met by the government. Unemployment is at 10.2% today and nobody is going to get greedy enough to jump in and create the jobs to curb it, because we are expecting the government to do that. The more we depend on a handout rather than getting greedy ourselves to meet our own needs, the more we behave ourselves toward the fate of the old USSR.
When we start limiting greed we start limiting gain. When we start limiting gain then we all sit back and watch and expect the government to provide for us. Just this morning unemployment benefits have been extended, in order to grow our economy. I bet those folks who are receiving these benefits won’t get greedy and try to get out and get work. They don’t need work when the government just hands money to them.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Spoken like a true, staunch " Conservative " !
God, Observation, you have a very scary logic and philosophy truely befitting a radical " Conservative " !

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand your point Observation and agree with it to a large extent. But, NO system of government is perfect, nor can it be allowed to be unchecked. Unscrupulous individuals will always find some loophole to legally do what they should rightfully be thrown in jail for. As much as I believe in capitalism I realize it cannot be allowed to be completely unchained and unfettered. Republicans tend to let it go too far in one direction, liberals tend to take it too far in the other. (Speaking in VERY general terms here). That is why we need our checks and balances. Right now, the ultra-wealthy CEO's in this country have in the last 20 years taken plundering to a whole new level, and I think they need to be reeled back in. As I said before, however, the trick is reeling them back in without it turning into a freight train running in the opposite direction off the cliff. A very fine balancing act. We did quite fine for years and years with CEO's making 30 times the average worker. We built computers, software, transportation. There was plenty of incentive for greed to drive innovation. However, I don't see where the multiple going from 30 to 300 has benefitted anyone but the few making the 300 multiple. Nor do I see where it has increased productivity and innovation any more than it did when it was back in the 30's. All it has done is outsource your job and mine so that they could drive the multiple even higher.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Observation
Necessity, not greed, is the mother of invention " and by the same token, " Greed is the father of " Conservatism" " !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes
What you say is very true and logical.
However who has the backbone and power to " reel in " the greed that has run rampant for years, other than the government, the greedy certainly are not willing to do it themselves, we the people can' t, because we do not have the power nor means to do so, since the government is corrupt and owned by the greedy, it would seem that nothing can or will be done , Sighhhhhhh !

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, methusla, I will take opposition to your idea that Greed is the father of Conservatism. Believing that one should work for and earn one's living, and that those who work harder should deserve more reward has nothing to do with greed. I think it actually has more to do with fairness and equality than you think. I see nothing fair or equal about studying my butt off all night for a test, scoring well, and getting an 'A', while someone who partied all night, came in and got all the answers wrong also gets an 'A'. And, in a strange twist, that is where I see many of today's CEO's - not only are they getting an A they don't really deserve, but they're knocking the rest of the people in the class who DO deserve the A to a C. Just so they can hog all the A's.

Seven of the 10 riches Senators are currently Democrats, for example. Greed seems to have served their political ideology quite well.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You're absolutely right, methusla - how can the corrupt police themselves? They are the only ones that can.... but how can they? Catch-22......

The best we can do, is make sure we have balance in government, so neither side gets too much power, and make sure we have a free press to act as a watchdog. And make sure we are allowed to voice our opposition (respectfully, but loudly at times if needed) without being branded Nazi's, racists, and far-right nuts. (Usually by the very same people that protested much louder and less respectfully against the war).
So our best recourse is at the election booth. We can keep trying and keep trying. If they don't live up to expectations, boot them out. Problem is we don't do that. We have too many corrupt politicians who continually get re-elected. I'm not so much for term limits as I wish the American people would just wake up and vote out those who put their interests above ours. It might take a long time but eventually they will figure out that the only way they will ever be re-elected is to change their tune. THERE is where MY "Sighhhhhhhh!" comes in....!!!!!!

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes
You and I are not that far apart in our logic and thinking, although we do respectfully disagree on some things, but are close on others. However until term limits, ie 2 year terms for both Senate and House terms and not being able to run for reelection for 4 or 6 years would be, I think, a reasonable and fair proposal and banning any and lobbying and lobbyists would be a good start. If banning lobbying and lobbyists is not feasible or acceptable, then ban any and all congressmen/congresswomen from being hired as lobbyists !

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we do this conversation a disservice when we try to tie it to Republicans and Democrats. Neither party is either truly conservative or liberal but both push an ideology they neither understand or truly believe in . What many conservatives accept is some aberration of true conservatism that leads them to believe that if we take care of the aristocracy the aristocracy will then have our best interest at heart. The truth is the aristocracy has never had any-body's best interest at heart except their own....and the true goal of conservatism is to keep themselves at the top of the page while at the same time insuring that those at the bottom stay there. That way they insure for themselves and ample supply of docile and needy underclass to do their bidding cheaply. In this regard the aristocracy can be viewed as either democrat or republican it makes no difference the real goal is the same. T he only difference is the hype plays better to the republican base than it does to the democratic one.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The checks and balances lay within capitalism. If you make a widgit and sell it, then you make a profit. If you keep making them and selling them and keep making profit, then you can do with the profit that which you choose to do. If you want to give a bonus of 500% to the CEO or the janitor, you can. It is your company, and your widgit sales are driving the profit. The pile of money generated is yours. If however your widgit doesn't sell for any reason then you should be allowed to follow the bottom line to failure. Your money pile isn't there and you are broke. That is the balance within capitalism (FAILURE), but if big government bails you out, there lays the problem. Government should allow you to fail. These days you are no longer free to fail. There is no success like failure. Failure kind of guides your hands down to your own boot laces and directs you to pull yourself back up.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I also think the true goal of liberalism is to keep themselves at the top of the page while at the same time insuring those at the bottom stay there. Keeping as many people as possible dependent on the government ensures retaining power, and also blunts incentive for those at the bottom to strive for improvement. Keep 'em dependent & docile. But, as you say, the hype plays better to one base than the other.

Observation - I agree, one should be allowed to fail. And, a company should be allowed to pay a bonus of however much they want to whomever they want. However, they shouldn't be able to give a bonus of 500% to the janitor by stealing widgets from their employees or other companies. Even if they have enough clout to pass a law saying it is legal for them to steal. As I've said, incentive & motivation has worked just fine in this country for decades and decades without the bloated gap we suddenly saw in the last 20 years.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Methusla I've been out of pocket so I just read your question of me about what you would be.
I can't answer that without more information.
I would like to know what you consider right for all and not just a privileged few.
I would like a non corrupt gov. just like you.
I just don't happen to think that they all are.
If it weren't for lobbyist we wouldn't have some of the stuff we both enjoy. There could be fewer though.
I would like to know what you call fair.
If that means I get to pay for a gov. health care plan that I don't need for instance then we won't agree. We already have medicaid/medicare. If the gov. knew how to run it that would cover what they want to screw up with a new plan.
Right and and fair for all in my mind isn't acheivable. Right and fair for all sounds communistic to me, but that's my opinion.
Lastly I think that my definitions were well thought out and logical. You didn't so in the end run I'll bet we never agree on much of anything.

Posted by create (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And how does this book about The Family relate to all this?

Open_eyes, weren't you asking for mor info about all this Family stuff at one time? Here's a book for you.

http://www.emporiagazette.com/news/2009/...

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Observation, along with my agreement that companies should be allowed to fail, to my way of thinking, at the opposite end, (success) - what you are describing is the ideal - and, as we all know, the ideal scenario does not exist because humans are not perfect. Sooner or later, someone is getting screwed so the janitor can get that 500% bonus. I've said it before and I'll say it again - capitalism can work perfectly unfettered only when human beings are perfect. But we are not, so therefore capitalism cannot work forever without some intervening checks. Wish it weren't so, but that is the reality of the world we live in.
At the other end, I think the problem is letting companies (because of greed at the other end) grow so big that they are "too big to fail". That's one reason we have anti-trust laws - so one company can't get so big that they crush and drive out all competition, so that they can control the market. Again, in a perfect world, that would be fine, because that one company would continue to give us the best service/product at the lowest price. But we all know in the real world that just doesn't happen. Once competition is gone they pretty much have us grab our ankles and stick it to us. So yes, we need government to keep an eye on things, intervene at times. But I think governments role should be more to ensure fair and open competition - NOT become the competitor or market dominator themselves.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Create - no, that wasn't me asking. However, I'm not surprised. I'm getting quite used to every aspect of Christianity being viewed as sinister and evil these days.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Open-eyes you said;" However, they shouldn't be able to give a bonus of 500% to the janitor by stealing widgets from their employees or other companies. Even if they have enough clout to pass a law saying it is legal for them to steal"
I think you hit the nail on the head there "enough clout to pass a new law". Conservatives want to live within existing proven workable laws and LIBERALS want to make a new law every time we turn around, in order for them to gain control of the proletariat. Conservatives can naturally take advantage of new laws also. Most new laws that give more control to LIBERALS also benefit Conservatives. BUT Conservatives ask for far fewer new laws than Progressive LIBERALS do.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now if the LIBERALS want to pass a permanent Cash for Clunkers law, then I am for it. Got a lot of steak knives!!!

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW, create - they forgot to mention that there are also Democrats that live at and pray with the group at C street, in answer to your question is it a Republican aristocracy.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Observation, are you referring to the law Democrats passed in Mass to prevent the governor from appointing someone to the Senate seat in case Kerry won, which they promptly overturned this year when Kennedy died, for example? ;-). I guess that's the definition of "changing and adapting"....lolololol

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, there you go.........

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know......I am starting to get a little weary of being told by some on these boards how I am just wanting to take from the rich and give to the poor. How I (who have worked and paid my own way all of my life) am just wanting to be given everything for nothing.....BULL****!

What I want is for the rich to pay the same percentage of their earned income in income tax that I pay. I want them to pay the same valuation on their property that I pay. I want them to live by the same rules that I live by......nothing more.....nothing less.

Now If that makes me out to destroy the rich then so be it. If however that seems fair and equitable then those that claim otherwise are coddling the aristocracy...I don't care what they call it.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I also get weary of being told by some on these boards how many just want to coddle the aristocracy. Quick show of hands: How many here want that?

And those of us who have worked hard and paid our own way our entire lives won't be given much if anything.

I totally agree with your second paragraph, biscuitboy. I'm not in favor of capping taxes, nor do I think they need to soar to 90% or thereabouts for the wealthy. But I do think we need to have our scale extend progressively somewhere beyond where it is now. In the last 20 years the extremely wealthy have let greed take them way beyond what is prudent, deserved, or even common sense. But I'm not talking about drawing the line at 100,000, 200,000, or even more. I'm talking about those such as CEO's who are just getting away with pure theft, whether legal or not.

I'm not out to destroy the rich or super-rich. But I do think those who are just raping the public for every dime while they run the company down the tubes need a reality check. I don't consider that fair and deserved pay for fair and deserved work. Nor am I in favor of ingoring the poor at the other end. But I think instead of just handouts, for those that are able, there needs to be a carrot on a stick - some incentive along with it. Not just free money from "Obama's stash"........

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes

I hate to do this to you but I must say you and I are very close on this subject. My problem here is with some of your conservative cohorts who frequently paint a much uglier picture of conservatism themselves than I would ever dare. I personally liked the concept several years ago that looked at a safety net minimum for welfare with incentives for those that wanted to better their lot through their own work and efforts. The idea never got very far but surely we could come up with some thing that could accomplish something like that

I also agree with your in principle with your ideas on taxing the rich....and for the life of me can't understand how that is an attempt to steal from the rich to coddle the poor.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You want everyone to pay the same tax?
That's easy' go to a flat tax.
But then people don't all pay.
The best way for everyone to pay the same is to abolish the income tax and impose a national sales tax.
Then EVERYONE PAYS the same, tourists,people on visas and heaven forbid even people who are here ileagally.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That's ok, biscuitboy, I've had worse people agree with me before - LOLOLOL (just teasing). We just differ slightly on the best way to achieve our common goals at times. :-)

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the tax for illegals should be raised to a rate that gives them incentive to leave and not come back until they do it legally ;-)

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma
No one said anything about paying the same tax, futher more the Rich and Super Rich would not stand for paying the same 20% or 30% tax load the rest of us pay !
For instance, the following,

May 1, 2008, 11:10 am
Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.
Want to see something that will really make you wonder about fairness in taxation and paying your fair share, take a look at the following site, http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008...
Now does anyone still believe the Rich and Super Rich still pay their fair share ?

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma........

Why would some people not pay a flat tax? Who would exempt them and why? Or are you saying they would exempt themselves......isn't that what we have prisons for? As far as a sales tax is concerned that might be alright if we didn't exempt it to death. But there are high priced lawyers and law makers that are all to willing to find ways to exempt luxury yachts and private jets from sales tax because such an exemption is good for some pet company of theirs. If we go to a sales tax then sales tax everything including luxury second and third homes and investment portfolios...not just basic necessities that the poor spend all of their money on.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bisquitboy the reason some people wouldn't pay a flat tax is because they would fall under the poverty leval and would be exempt. I should have worded it a flat tax with no exemptions.
I never said a thing about exempting sales tax on anything. Maybe you ought to read things twice so you understand.
As far as what the poor or anyone spends their money on a sales tax would be a mute point it would be their choice.
Methulsla bisquitboy did say "I want the rich to pay the same % of their earned income tax as I pay" so yes someone did say that.
If it was a sales tax when you buy you pay, no exemption.
As for your example of Buffett argueing that he isn't being asked to pay his share then how can you say they wouldn't?
If he ain't paying his share now he would be with a sales tax and it would be the same % as you and me.
I still don't understand why so many people have such a hard time with the rich. I certainly ain't rich. What I have is what I have. Some people are lucky and get rich, some people invent something and get rich, some people work their buts off and get rich, some people win the lottery and are rich.
What I think is that people that bitch about rich people are just down right jealous and would do exactly what the rich do if they had the chance.
As for the rich and super rich paying their share if it was the law how do would they get out of paying either a flat tax or a sales tax(sales tax is put on the bill at time of purchase)?

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way Methusla you either don't want to answer or you haven't paged up to se that I answered your question about what I would call you. So you don't have to go back (but I hope you do) I said I needed more information.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would go along with the national sales tax tbluma. I would want Warren Buffet and his staff to pay the same percent, even if he were buying luxury items and his staff were buying standard items like we all buy. Sounds fair to me. I'm not sure he wouldn't go to Africa and buy diamond watches while the rest of us couldn't afford to do that. Of course illegals could work here and send their earnings to Mexico where the spending of those earnings wouldn't be subject to our taxes. Oh wait a minute, maybe they already do that. I guess what I am saying is that there are ways to get out of paying that tax too.
What we really need is a federal government that requires very little to operate on. Then taxes could be kept low to acquire the operating funds from the people, regardless of the point of the taxing, income or sales. Enough to keep a standing armed force seems to me to be an adequate budget. What else is really of collective interest to all Americans?

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla;
Please go back to the web page that you sited and read the reader comments of Al Baran. He fills in the omitted information by the left biased web sight. Pretty typical of the LIBERALS.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have no doubt that what the ileagals send home would escape, but at least they would pay on what they buy.
I've seen more suspects driving Lincoln PU's than the average Joe. At least we would collect something.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma
First of all in your post you said the following, " Lastly I think that my definitions were well thought out and logical. You didn't so in the end run I'll bet we never agree on much of anything.
So if your whole attitude is that we will never agree on much of anything, I see not need to respond !
You also said, " Right and fair for all sounds communistic to me, but that's my opinion. "
Furthermore if your opinion of me, just because I believe in what is right and fair, make me a communist, then I know that we will definately not agree on anything ! Thank You, very much, ТОВАРИЩ, 同志 !

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You still haven't given me your opinion of what you call right and fair. I might agree with you if you told me your what your opinion of right and fair is, but I haven't a clue.
You tell me what is right and fair, then I'll decide whether I agree with you or not, that don't sound like too much to ask for and it also sounds right and fair. Go figure

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

yep tbluma you do have a point. Anything that can be collected from illegals is better than nothing.
methusla; but you don't believe in what is right. You believe in what is left. You are 180 degrees out of calibration;-)

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Observation;
Until we get back to the basics of people not standing around with their hands out wanting a free lunch and a politician wanting to fill that hand we're screwed. We will never have a gov. that requires very little to work on as long as we elect people who want to give the people who vote them in something for nothing.
I'll give Methusla the benefit of the doubt until he gives me his answers. He may just be a conservative that can't explain himself even if he does see fit to try and cuss me or whatever in Chinnese.
I didn't say you were a communist damnit, I said right and fair sounded communistic.
I for the love of GOD can't figure out how people got out of school and can't read any better than what some appear to be able to.
NOTICE I DIDN'T NAME ANY NAMES HERE

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is right and fair is not letting the richest 1% of the people pay a lower tax on income from Capitol Gains and Dividend income, income is income no matter where it comes from, what is right and fair is having a government that does what is best for all the people and not just the a few privilaged people .
Observation do you mean the Al Baran that is a Grants Specialist and Fund Raising specialist in Nashville, Tenn.?
If so what makes him an expert on income and income taxes !
Good grief the no. 2 richest man in the country, says he doesn't pay what is right and fair as far as income tax !
Take it from this so called, communist, you and tbluma need to wake up and come back down to the real world !

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again I never called you a communist. END OF THAT CONVERSATION YOU HARD HEADED SO AND SO
Secondly if Buffett thinks he isn't being asked to pay his share, why don't he just send uncle more than he's been asked for?
I may not be in your world but I'll take mine over your's any day of the week.
So what if the richest pay a lower tax than I do? 10% of 5B is a hell of a lot more than 20% of 50K.
I still think you're just jealous of the rich.
You still haven't told me what you think in your opinion what is right and fair. All you can do is rant and rave about the richest 1%, or the corrupticracts or whatever.
TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT AND FAIR IN THIS SOCIETY AND WHY.
Well forget the why that will probably take too long.
Or you could just keep ranting and raving about being called a communist when you haven't been, at least not by me, YET.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Talk about illustrating the absurd by being absurd. (as Rush says) I think I'll just read methusla from now on.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma
I too don' t understand how some people got out of school, because you knew that I believe in being right and fair and you purposfully made the remark about right and fair sounding communistic, knowing full well the inferance of right and fair sounding communistic was and is the same as calling me or anyone who believes in right and fair a communist !
Furthermore, you need to educate or school yourself on the legal definition of what Communistic is before letting your fingers and mouth outrun you small mind !
And if you do decide to futher school yourself on the meaning of Communistic, I don' t believe that you will find any reference to Right or Fair !
Good grief Observation, you make even less sense than the other " goof " tbluma !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Aha, good old " Super Conservative " Rush, no wonder you mind is a mass of blubber .
I don' t care if you read just methusla, gee you might even learn something !

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma
You asked, TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT AND FAIR IN THIS SOCIETY AND WHY.
Heres my answer if you can under stand it.
THERE IS NOTHING RIGHT AND FAIR IN THIS SOCIETY !
However that is and was my whole point that apparantly escaped you. My whole point is I believe that there needs to be more Right and Fairness in this country, government and society ! There is too much favoritism !
I am not jeoulous of the Rich nor do I desire to be Rich !
I have everything I need and really want for nothing that I don' t need or can do without !
Now if you wish to escalate this to an even higher level of nasty I can do that also, its up to you, I haven't called you any names yet, but that is also up to you !

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 12:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee Observation do you see a pattern here? I never called him any names but now I'm a goof.
Methusla
Yes I believe you believe in right and fair, I didn't call you a liar and I didn't call you a communist. I SAID that in my opnion right and fair for all sounded communistic. If that's calling you a name why don't you take your ball and go home and tell your mommy the rest of the kids weren't playing fair?
Then later I asked you to explain what your opinion of what right and fair was. You can construe what ever you want but there's a whole hell of a lot of difference between me calling you a communist and me saying that in my opinion right and fair for all sounds communistic. If the shoe fits wear it, if it don't (I'LL ASK ONE MORE TIME) tell me what your definition of right and fair is.
Clue
if you think that if 10 people make from 30K/yr up to 1M/yr
and that we should divide that by ten and that's what we all make. WRONG
If you think there shouldn't be A through F in school, just pass or fail.
WRONG
The idea here is tell me what you think is right and fair. I did say that we might agree.
And going back to where this whole thread began.
If you think that I should give up my insurance to help pay for a gov. policy. WRONG
The gov.already is taking more than their share from me for SS/ Medicare and Medicaid. The 3 of those should be more than enough to take care of the uninsured.
Oh yeah I forget they can't run anything and make it work.

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pointless. I'll say it for both of us Meth.
You refuse to answer my question and I won't relent until you do. Good thing this is all for fun.
Can't have a war of wits with an unarmed person.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 4:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma.....

I never said that you said anything about exemptions. I was merely pointing out that for me to agree with a national sales tax it would have to come without exemptions. Perhaps you to should read things twice before responding to them.

So you believe its alright to let the rich off paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes just because they have more income.....while those of us who make only enough to just get by should pay a higher percentage. And what is your rational for that.

You claim that some of us are jealous of the rich and don't like them......sounds to me like you idolize the rich and are in love with them. JMO

I do recall a previous discussion sometime back where you were quite upset that fines for crimes should be based on a flat percentage of income rather than a fixed fee. Your claim was that it was unfair to the rich. So if a flat percentage of income is unfair for fines why do you now say it is fine for taxes? Then in the next paragraph you say it is alright for the rich to pay a lower percentage because they make more money. So you really don't care how it works as long as it helps the aristocracy. Spoken like a true conservative.

I only hope that all of you tea party conservatives out there that are just working hard to get by like me read this and understand the real goal of conservatism. It's not the government that is your enemy folks.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma.....

So you tell us it is alright in your world for the rich to pay a smaller percentage of their income because they have more income...and you justify that statement by saying the world is neither right nor fair. Well your world sure is ugly...and holds out no hope for any of us bottom 95 percent (which includes you my friend). So you remain enamored with the rich and powerful as they continue to chew you up and spit you out all you want. As for me....I want them to play by the same rules they expect me to play by and I plan to continue to work to make that happen until the end. If that then makes me a communist in your eyes...well I already know how easily fooled you are.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One more question tbluma....

You rail on about the immorality of abortion and the lack of prayer in schools thereby portraying your self as a religious man.....then you turn around and support a system that favors five per cent of the population over the rest of us claiming nothing is fair and just. Sounds a little schizophrenic to me. What up?

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma
My opinion is that no matter what I tell you what I believe is fair and right, it will not matter in the least !
Can you point me to any particular statement, where I said you had to give up your insurance to pay for government policy, I believe you will find I made no such inference anywhere in this thread.
You also say, " The gov.already is taking more than their share from me for SS/ Medicare and Medicaid. The 3 of those should be more than enough to take care of the uninsured. "
I am assuming that from this particular statement, that to you this is not " RIGHT OR FAIR " ! So exactly what do you think " Fair and Right " is !
Also, why do you think the gov' t is taking more than their share from you ? Could it possibly be that the " Rich " are not paying their " FAIR OR RIGHT " share of the bill ?
No I will not tell you my idea of " Fair and Right " because it will not matter at all , because you can' t see nor comprehend what is " Right and Fair " even when it is staring you in the face !

Posted by tbluma (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Meth & Bisquit
I can see that we might as well just agree to disagree because we're all just as hard headed as each other. (Me included)

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Folks the one constant about the " Rich and Super Rich " is the fact that they will constantly want and try to take more and more, pay less and less, and care not, whom they trample and ruin, doing it, as long as they are allowed to do so.
The really sad thing is there are those people who just can' t see that this is and has been going on for far too long or their are those who see it happening but don' t seem to care !
Then there are those who know its happening and let it happen as long as they get a piece of the pie !

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

tbluma....I'm sorry but your last post made no sense to me whatsoever. I am not however trying to convince you of anything. The only reason I am wasting my time here at all is the hope that I can make sure others also recognize the error of your thinking.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

biscutboy;
That is real generous of you as a known LIBERAL to make sure that others know the errors of tblumas thinking through a LIBERAL filter. You are so fair and right that I bet folks are falling all over themselves to get to tbluma to say to him that he is more conservative than biccutboy. Of course there aren't many in these parts that are left of the biscutboy, so tbluma don't expect a big crowd.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

biscuitboy, I'll stand to your left. I have to disagree with those on the the far right because they are really too simplistic in their thoughts and beliefs. Take abortion for instance. The far right want it to be prohibited and use simple phrases to justify the why, but, when asked about how prohibition could be enforced without violating the privacy rights of all Americans they insult us with name calling and refuse to discuss the issue further. No matter what the issue is, whenever the enlightened ask for the details or point out serious problems in their theory, the right wingers quit talking about the issue and just throw insults.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now that's funny, YY4U, since I see alot of "enlightened" people on the right. But they usually have enough sense to not try to point out to everyone how "enlightened" they are......... must be a self-esteem or insecurity thing........ ;-)

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

open_eyes, I specifically stated "FAR" right. We all know there are no "enlightened ones" on the far right. The term "enlightened ones" is a derogatory term coined by the far right to describe people like me.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the enlightened left are truely "enlightened" what possible details could the simple minded right offer up that the complex enlightened ones to the left would stoop to listen to.

Posted by YY4U (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

None. The right are incapable of offering up details.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How far left does one have to be to be "enlightened"? Must one sit under the Buddha tree? ;-)

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4u What detail is it that makes the right incapable of offering up details? Who determines if the details are the appropriate details pursuant to the question at hand? Who determines if the details are complicated enough to contain the necessary volume to rise to the level to address of the issue at hand?

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 4:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As long as the far right exercises their right to spew forth their drivel....I will continue to exercise my right to counter them. If you are tired of hearing from me...try shutting up and I might eventually go away.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 4:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Observation...what is it about you that compels you to misspell a username every time you are mad at someone? That reminds me of something we used to do when we were kids.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Oh Baby... You're so good ...and they're so stupid." Everything I said a year ago is coming to pass. I am glad I bought more S7P while I was at it. Others on this forum have been wrong ore often than any I have ever seen in 50 + years. The Lame Duck arrives in 12 months.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bboy; Well now. There are some details! Sorry about messing with your sleep. I really don't like to see someone so sensitive making themselves look so bad. I don’t aim to contribute to force remembering anything like someone’s semi desperate childhood. When the extreme left shuts up, I am sure those in the center and right will follow suit. I think that is something we will all learn when we reach old age. In the mean time I regret to inform you that you woke up a LIBERAL again today.

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Observation
Your recent post to biscuitboy is interesting ! However you could and should re-read it yourself, after you subtitute the words " extreme right, in place of " extreme left, then substitute the word " CONSERVATIVE " in the place of " LIBERAL " while standing in front of a mirror and take a good, long, hard look and determine what you see staring back at you. But do this only after you have learned the true meaning of " Conservative/Conservatism" and " LIBERAL/LIBERALISM, it just might help you to determine exactly what you see in that mirror !
As for myself I have learned the true meaning of Conservative/Conservativeism, Liberal/Liberalism, Independent, Libertarian, etc., and have self determined that I am an " INDEPENDENT AMERICAN ", and, apparantly always have been and base this conclusion on the following !
An independent may be variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates and issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship;[1] a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party;[2][3] a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election;[4][5] or a voter who self-describes as an independent.[6]

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I just love it when the people that are trying to convince me how they have everything so well together write a post that makes my case. Good job Observation.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

methusla;
At least biscuitboy did wake up a LIBERAL! He has a set of standards that guide him. He is loyal to a political philosophy. Yesterday he was a LIBERAL. Today he is a LIBERAL and tomorrow he will likely wake up a LIBERAL. Independents wake up without a set of values. They await the passing of the day to boot up their value system, rather than the crowing of the rooster. One has to feel extra sorry for them, because they have no built in set of standards.
.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Incidentally Observation (and no, I won't stoop to your childish level)......in your world I suppose calling someone a LIBERAL is some sort of an ultimate insult, but in my world I would much prefer to be called a LIBERAL than to be thought of as a conservative wing-nut. And you didn't disturb my sleep at all.....I always get up early. That productive early bird gets the worm you know.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For the past several decades the far right has put a lot of effort into demonizing the word LIBERAL...right down to and including always writing it in all caps. And I have to admit they did a damned good job. I have actually heard people that were quite liberal say...."Now I'm no LIBERAL but.......' as they would then go on to say something that was liberal.

Well....I have chosen this time to draw a line in the sand......and say that on a continuum between conservative and liberal....yes I am LIBERAL AND PROUD OF IT.

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Independents wake up with a clear mind. They await the passing of the day's information to make informed decisions, rather than the crowing of the partisian idiots. One has to feel extra jealous them, because they do not have to OK everything they do with Limbaugh or Olberman."

Fixed that for you Observation, I used to think that it was just too hard for you to quantify a world where people are not bound by foolish notions that there are only two sides to choose from and you must pick one and be bound to it. Then I caught Forrest Gump the other day and it dawned on me.

"Stupid is as stupid does"

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy,
I am glad that your life is so much like a box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get. Careful there you might just bite on anything with that CLEAR MIND of yours guiding you. You know EXLAX is chocolates too.

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In my world a liberal is not somebody that sits around with their hand out waiting to be given everything.....that is a conservative spin that was put on the word as part of the far right's demonetization.

In my world a liberal is one who sees the constitution as a living growing document that must at time be rethought to deal with modern problems. Our much vaunted right to bear arms was written at a time before AK-47"s were ever dreamed of and that development must now be considered when defining that right. The same can be said of a freedom of religion written at a time when there was only one viable religion present here.....things have changed and those changes need to be addressed in matters of religion.

A liberal in my book is one that recognizes that some times the government is the best institution to accomplish some things and accepts that taxes to accomplish a common good are not a sin. A liberal will not make the young child of an illegal immigrant suffer for lack of food or access to health care as punishment for the sins of his parents.

Now if these things make me some type of evil ideologue so be it.....but it is what I am and I stand by it now and forever.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I, too am an Independent and proud of it. But it is not because value system changes every time the wind blows. It is because no political party has a lock on what I believe is right, and even when they do in certain areas, they invariably get corrupt and abandon it or screw it up.

Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, my values more often than not lean in a particular direction, but I'm not in lockstep with everything they say.

I would also ask how is today's current demonization of "conservative" any different than previous demonizations of "liberal"?

Whichever party holds the upper hand demonizes the other. That's the way it's always been. And, predictable, those doing the demonization can only remember back so far as they were the ones being demonized. They have total amnesia when it comes to remembering that even before that they were once again the demonizers. And it goes on and on, as far back as one cares to go....

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Observation
Your problem is, you do not have a full understanding of the true meaning of what exactly a staunch, non-wavering " Conservative, Liberal , etc. is " . I can give you sites to visit that will give you the true meaning of what each is, if you like. I have already listed two independent sites for the meanings of " Conservative and Liberal " and have posted the meaning of " Independent ". But apparantely you either cannot comprehend the meanings or are so closed minded and brainwashed by your ideal " Conservative " ideology, that you don't want to truely know and comprehend the meanings of each !
Being " Independent " means you are openminded to all ideals and ideologys, but owe allegiance to none.
" Independents " may just have the best values of any, because an " Independent " lets noone e;ses particular values dictate what is best, right, wrong, etc. , they/we make up our own minds, which, in my opinion is the best value or virtue of all ! Non-Conforming to anyones particular, singular ideal or ideology but open-minded enough to consider all ideals and ideologies and making an open minded, logical, intelligent, informed decision and not comforming to any one ideal, ideology in particular !
Waking up and labeling someone as a " Conservative ", " Liberal ", etc., and living a conformative life would be a very dull existance indeed .

Posted by methusla (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow I just noticed a finger, tangle error in my last post, e;ses
should read " elses " ! Sorry !

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand where you are coming from open_eyes as per the ebbs and flows of political fortune...but I believe the conscious demonetization of the word liberal goes much further than than that. It started back around the turn of the last century feeding off the likes of some particularly fertile liberal politicians like Neville Chamberlain. It has continued through this day with things like the crown princess of jerk-offs Ann Coulter's books.

The counter demonetization of conservatives however has only begun in earnest in the last few years...so I guess in a fair and balanced world we still have a lot of catching up to do. You might prepare for a long ride.

I might have been more sympathetic to your position had I ever heard one word of protest when all the demonetization was all headed my way. But alas.....maybe you are now just suffering the hell that is known as paybacks. :-)

Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a few issues and how I stand:

Abortion- let people make their own choices regarding their bodies, keep religion and government out of it.

Immigration- Snipers on the border, enough said

Gay Marriage- I don't care who you screw, bringing kids into that equation does make me a tad uneasy though.

Gun Control- law abiding citizens should be able to carry and own whatever they want within reason.

I could go on and on, but the point is it is impossible for me align with either party, conformity to the principles of a party for the sake of unity is throwing away your freedom to choose, I think a lot of people forget that.....

Posted by glarson (Gwen Larson) on November 8, 2009 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Moved to a forum:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/ope...

Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

On a day to day basis I too generally pick and chose without deferring to any specific ideology...and my identification of myself as a liberal is a liberal as I defined above....not somebody else's definition

As per your list:

Abortion.......I agree

Immigration....only so long as the snipers also pick off the people standing there waiting to hire them as cheap labor.

Gay marriage......I agree on both counts

Gun control....depends on how you define within reason...I have a problem with military assault weapons being within reason.

I would like to add one other:

Taxes......as I stated earlier....the rich should pay the same percentage and the same type taxes I pay and they should live by the same rules that I do.

Posted by Observation (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

goodoleboy;
I believe in your few issues, mostly anyway. Now I don't know if I would go along with the next few issues that you would expose your beliefs on.
I do have a little trouble with people killing their own off spring, but I think it is something that is going to happen. I'd rather see it done with some controls than have it done in back alleys, if it has to be done.
The hot button issues today are health care, cap and trade, the economy, cash for clunkers and bailouts. Probably the issues that you remarked on will be the next tier of targets that the LIBERALS bite off to influence.
Cash for clunkers was a definite home run for the current POTUS the way I look at it. Does that make me an independent?