Admit it Dems: Ryan scares the shit out of you

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Certainly, dumbass.

dumbass....i directed that question to howey. i know you are psychoblues.....so can you shut up now?

 

[gui1tars]

dumbass....i directed that question to howey. i know you are psychoblues.....so can you shut up now?

You would like that, wouldn't you? I know you for what you are and I don't care about any screen names that you might use. You're still the same piece of shit you've always been. Now quit crying and whining. You make your bed, now you sleep in it.

 

[blackascoal]

You seem to want me to address a point of yours before you even attempt to actually understand a point of mine. This is give and take. Tell me again how your measure isn't government programs, use examples that don't mention them because that is the only way you can make your point. At this point your original assertion that it wasn't the measure of "care" that you use hasn't borne out at all in this thread. Your only example of how "the right" doesn't care is the government programs you said weren't the measure you were using.

If I may .. I'm surprised that you'd make such a disingenuos argument .. which you want to begin with let's take THE most telling and demonstrative action of a political agenda off the fucking table. Let's not talk about how conservatives or liberals demonstrate their political beliefs in government.

How is that an honest argument?

If you've interpreted from my comments that I agree with taking that ACTION out of the discussion then you are wrong.

Here is what's obvious good brother. You already know that you have no logical response to the point I'm making .. so you rush to take it off the table.

You already know that your first point about "there's no money" is also bullshit as I've easily demonstrated where there is lots of money. It's a question of priorities. An over-bloated MIC that profits from war .. trillions of dollars to already rich people ..and please hit me with that "Rich people make jobs crap" .. or money to American seniors who've help to build this country and whose lives are dependant SS and Medicare?

I can see why you wouldn't want to talk about that.

 

[Damocles]

Good Lord Damo, you well know that the economy was in tatters when Obama took over. The failure was that of eight years of neo-con pipe dreams. Get serious. Bush was handed a booming economy and destroyed it, despite the stimulus effect of two wars.

Wow, way to attempt to pass the buck.

Obama had massive majorities in both houses for two years, with them he passed the Stimulus, son of stimulus, and predicted his own demise if his jobs policy didn't work. Then when it was obvious that his "stimulus" was never going to produce the shovel-ready jobs he promised he met with his "Jobs Council", that he created, to apparently sit and joke about how he failed in his promise. You can try to blame Bush for that, but that was all him, smiling and joking about the demise of the American workers, caused by his own policy, because his own policy didn't do what he promised it would.

Obama predicted that if his policy didn't fix this thing in 3 years he would be a one-termer. I simply agree with him.

The idea that passing the buck will continue to work forever is childish, and is the reason why many call the man President Crybaby. Obama tried to tell us that jobs were suddenly priority one when the election cycle started, but he has yet to meet with the aforementioned Jobs Council... His own job is the only jobs priority he has.

 

[Damocles]

If I may .. I'm surprised that you'd make such a disingenuos argument .. which you want to begin with let's take THE most telling and demonstrative action of a political agenda off the fucking table. Let's not talk about how conservatives or liberals demonstrate their political beliefs in government.

How is that an honest argument?

Because you insisted that it wasn't what you used as a measure. It was the argument that you began.

If you've interpreted from my comments that I agree with taking that ACTION out of the discussion then you are wrong.

Then why bother trying to say that it isn't your measure of compassion?

Here is what's obvious good brother. You already know that you have no logical response to the point I'm making .. so you rush to take it off the table.

No, what is obvious is that you rushed to a knee-jerk defense you couldn't back up with anything rational so you tried to change the subject, to distract.

You already know that your first point about "there's no money" is also bullshit as I've easily demonstrated where there is lots of money. It's a question of priorities. An over-bloated MIC that profits from war .. trillions of dollars to already rich people ..and please hit me with that "Rich people make jobs crap" .. or money to American seniors who've help to build this country and whose lives are dependant SS and Medicare?

I can see why you wouldn't want to talk about that.

I never said that there "was no money" you are talking about somebody else's argument at the very least. And doing it poorly.

I have simply redirected you to the topic, that I brought up that you began a discussion on, then you proceeded to prove that it was indeed the measure you use to measure whether people "care"...

I will reiterate. The number of people on government programs is not the measure of compassion, it is a sign of failure not one of compassion.

 

[blackascoal]

First off, thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me....

Thank you brother.

Most definitely...When the people exercised their voice to congress twice during last summer 'We the People' were able to alter the vote in congress. Also, about corporations, the well worn attack against them is well known, as I am sure it is no surprise to you that a corporation legally is a "person" in the eyes of the law. Therefore, since corporations are made up of people, (shareholders) that invest in an idea or product, they like everyone else has a right to redress of grievance with the government. I am interested though, would you dismantle corporations, or corporate structure in the US? And what do you see as a ramification of that in terms of jobs, and innovation in the US if that is your view of a more suitable society?

Frankly, we can bounce back and forth all day, but if you believe that the Founders intended corporations as people .. that says everything that need be said about our differences .. and it also says that you don't know the Founders as well as you think you do.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; <not institutions> and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." Bold added. -- Thomas Jefferson

"But charters and corporations have a more extensive evil effect than what relates merely to elections. They are sources of endless contentions in places where they exist, and they lessen the common rights of national society” --Thomas Paine The Rights of Man

"The growing wealth aquired by them [corporations] never fails to be a source of abuses."
--President James Madison

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson

Additionally ..

"Just as the special interest of cotton and slavery had threaten the nations integrity before the civil war, so now the great special business interest who often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit."

"The Constitution does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty Commercial forces which they have called into being."......

"Laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes. Corporate expenditures for political purposes have supplied one of the principle sources of corruptions in our political affairs." --Teddy Roosevelt

You're right, corporations have been declared a person .. but if you agree with corporate ownership of this government, please don't talk to me about "freedom." That makes no sense.

I wouldn't measure the drapes just yet...

And what do you see as economic representation? Total Unionization?

A decentralized, less monopolized economy. Small business is the engine that makes this economy grow.

Yeah, but what does that mean "removing corporate control"? These are nice tag lines, but they really explain little about what to expect.

It's real easy. SERIOUS campaign finance reform that comes with STRICT penalities for corruption .. that includes immediate loss of office upon conviction.

No, Absolutely NOT! I think that the bailouts sent entirely the wrong message to business, and people in general, and was furious when the bailed out companies continued to take bonuses while average people suffered. Business should absolutely be allowed to fail. When that happens the beauty of capitalism is that another will take its place and the product often turns out better.

We agree.

Sorry, I'd still prefer a doctor trained and licensed in the United States. Volume of doctors doesn't equal quality.

You can prefer whomever you want .. but Cuban doctors are world-reknowned AND have paved the way in many medical advances.

What? You didn't know that?

Yet the society in Lybia is crumbling under direct democracy...How would you explain that?

Libya was NOT crumbling under Quadaffi. It was a very prosperous society that had the best quality of life measure, not only in all of Africa, but better than Russians and Brazilians .. AND, it had cradle-to-grave healthcare and education for all of its citizens. The benefits Libya provided to its citizens would be an Americans wet dream. ALL of its citizens shared in its wealth .. even getting a check deposited in their bank accounts as their share of Libya's oil wealth.

Libya had NO national debt and NO Rothchilds Bank. ZERO .. Now they have both.

Since the US and NATO invaded the country, it has descended into total chaos .. which is also what has happened to Iraq.

Which in effect if you ask me, unchecked this would be just as destructive as if the inverse were in place.

SEE: the Robber Barons. It's history.

No, free is free. right are inalienable, not granted by man.

Uhh .. you do know that I'm black, right? Need I give you the history that disputes what you claim?

I don't believe that is the case, and the proof will come in November.

Why you would need to wait until Novenmebr I have no idea. Are you not aware right now of how unpopular our wars are?

I am not in prison, nor do I plan to be.

Were you are has nothing to do with the point. The US is the greatest prison nation in human history .. where prisoner/slaves work for about 25 cents an hour for some of the biggest corporations in America .. often putting "free" Americans out of work.

Are you of the belief that only some Americans should be allowed access to their government?

No, that would be YOUR side that not only believes it .. they excercise it.

People who work for corporations have always and still do have the right to vote and contribute. Corporations are not people.

That check is already in place...Don't like what your rep is doing, vote against them.

Wrong and wrong again.

Are you aware that ONLY corporations count the vote in America? No?

Thanks for that...And accept my apology for past, ugly confrontations.

Thank you brother, but apologies are unnecessary. We both had a hand in the doodoo. :0)

Glad we figured that out.

 

[blackascoal]

Because you insisted that it wasn't what you used as a measure. It was the argument that you began.

No it isn't. Why would you insist that a discussion about government programs isn't valid? Of course it is.

Then why bother trying to say that it isn't your measure of compassion?

It isn't my only measure of compassion ..but it is THE most glaring example of compassion by a political agenda. Do you disagree?

No, what is obvious is that you rushed to a knee-jerk defense you couldn't back up with anything rational so you tried to change the subject, to distract.

That's bullshit ..

Your first post to me ..

What is laughable is that the only measure of "care" for you is how much of somebody else's money they are willing to force others to spend on it. The number of people on Government programs is not a measure of compassion, it is a measure of failure.

in other words, let's not talk about government programs because government programs are not a measure of compassion .. which is bullsht.

My response .. Post where I've even slightly intimated that large numbers of people on government programs is a success?

Government programs are a safety net .. and the fact that we have them demonstrates a compassionate society.

Then you went off talking about pushing grandma over a cliff .. ignoring that your side did the exact same thing and ignoring your sides "daeth panels."

I will reiterate. The number of people on government programs is not the measure of compassion, it is a sign of failure not one of compassion.

I will reiterate .. that's bullshit. Your claim that how many people don't need government programs is a measure of compassion .. no it isn't. That's a measure of your economy and job market. Compassion is helping people when they need it, not when they don't.

AND, if you really believed that was true, you'd have no problem addressing my point .. but still you run.

You don't even believe that bullshit yourself.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

It's real simple .. if the first place you look to make cuts is to the safety-nets that are keeping millions of people alive .. then you don't care about the human condition .. especially when there are lots of other places to make cuts, starting with our over-bloated defense budget .. and including the trillions we give to already rich people.

so many misrepresentations.....first of all, nothing has ever been cut.....the best we can hope for is slowing growth......nobody is giving trillions to rich people......safety nets aren't keeping millions of people alive......

 

[blackascoal]

so many misrepresentations.....first of all, nothing has ever been cut.....the best we can hope for is slowing growth......nobody is giving trillions to rich people......safety nets aren't keeping millions of people alive......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

so, you have nothing to back you up so you fall on your back?....

you can start by showing me where we've given trillions to rich people.....

 

[Damocles]

No it isn't. Why would you insist that a discussion about government programs isn't valid? Of course it is.

Look, my first post in this thread stated that it wasn't a good measure, to which you replied that you didn't use it as a measure. You began that conversation, don't be trying to avoid it now. If it isn't the measure of compassion that you use you can easily make an argument without mentioning government programs as a measure...

It isn't my only measure of compassion ..but it is THE most glaring example of compassion by a political agenda. Do you disagree?

It is the only one you used, if it isn't your "only measure" then enlighten me by using one that doesn't mention government programs.

That's bullshit ..

No, it is reality, and I provided a perfect example in this thread.

Your first post to me ..



in other words, let's not talk about government programs because government programs are not a measure of compassion .. which is bullsht.

Your answer was that you didn't use it as a measure then proceeded to argue using it as the measure.

My response .. Post where I've even slightly intimated that large numbers of people on government programs is a success?

When you use the fact that others do not support larger numbers on programs as the measure of "not caring" it is clear you think that others care more when more are on the programs.

Government programs are a safety net .. and the fact that we have them demonstrates a compassionate society.

No, the fact that we work to get people back off of them demonstrates a compassionate society.

Then you went off talking about pushing grandma over a cliff .. ignoring that your side did the exact same thing and ignoring your sides "daeth panels."

Again, the argument isn't about the use of hyperbole, the one ad was about how they tried to say "the right" didn't care because they came up with a change that would save a program while the other was about where government programs can go, what the result of the program can be and not about the number of people on them... it literally did not make your argument, and isn't salient to the discussion.

Come up with an ad with "the right" saying that "the left" doesn't care because there will be "less" of a government program and you'd have something, but the ad you came up with didn't say that. They both used hyperbole, but only one of them made a point salient to the discussion about care being measured by the number of people on a government program.

I will reiterate .. that's bullshit. Your claim that how many people don't need government programs is a measure of compassion .. no it isn't. That's a measure of your economy and job market. Compassion is helping people when they need it, not when they don't.

Utter nonsense, compassion is helping people to regain their dignity not trying to replace it with a government program.

AND, if you really believed that was true, you'd have no problem addressing my point .. but still you run.

You don't even believe that bullshit yourself.

Actually I addressed it twice, while it was while speaking to Rune/Dune it doesn't change that.

And once again, you have simply underlined the fact that you have no measure for what you call compassion except for government programs. I'm good with that, you apparently thought it was embarrassing enough to knee-jerk your way into a discussion you are either unwilling or incapable of taking part in...

If government programs aren't what you use to measure compassion then provide an argument that makes sense without using them. Put your argument where your pride said it was rather than continue to argue that government is the only measure that matters.

 

[apple0154]

That doesn't sound like coercion to me. You said people were coerced into investing in Enron, now you say it was part of their benefit package. Which, incidentally, is what I said too.

As another poster noted employees were lied to when the company was going under. If you don't like the word "coerced" how about "bullshitted"? Then they were denied removing their money for a two week period while they watched their stock nosedive. Imagine opening the daily paper and seeing your retirement evaporating and being denied the right to divest the stock. There were also rumors employees were "encouraged" by the company to invest.

The funds didn't exist because the books had been cooked, therefore, there was nothing for the Enron employees to withdraw. This was a fairly public incident, and most people are aware that what Enron did was illegal and unethical, and the perpetrators were tried and sent off to prison for the crimes they committed. Enron is a poor example of capitalist free markets at work, because it is the exceptional rare instance where greedy people exploit the system and break the law for personal gain. While things like this are unfortunate, the system we have still works, the people who did the wrongdoing were sent to jail.

Let's ask ourselves a poignant question here.... What if Enron were a government-owned entity? What if the same scandal took place, the same people lost their retirements, and the same people were responsible for breaking the law, but the company was owned by the government? Would the government have benevolently tried their own entity in court? Would they have sent their own cronies off to prison? DOUBTFUL! In fact, you would have never even heard of Enron, had that been the case, because there would have been no one to go to, and no one to prosecute the case.

Yes, let's ask another poignant question. Could Enron have passed a law to raise taxes so the people would receive their retirement? If the government owes money it can chop other programs or raise taxes or do whatever is necessary to meet it's financial obligations. If one day the government says, "No money left for SS", do you know how quick people will contact their Congress rep and demand the money. Cut the military. Auction off the planes and boats (or is it politically correct to say 'ships'?) and anything else but send those checks! Do you think the people will be worried about Iran when they are hungry? When they can't pay their hydro bill? Do you think they'll be worried about national parks when they can't afford their medicine?

This whole thing is bullshit! Utter bullshit! Cutting taxes for the wealthy while saying there's no retirement money for people who worked 30 or 40 years. They are owed their retirement and considering there's plenty of farm land for food and materials to build homes if you want to see a quick change of government piss off the baby boomers. They have the numbers to kick asses out of Congress. And this is what's going to happen to ObamaCare later on. Once established the people won't give a damn where the money comes from. Their health is going to come first, before any other government projects. Raise taxes, cut the military, auction off public land, open a lemonade stand....just do it just like the dozens of other civilized, industrial countries do. Stay at the drawing board until the financial pie chart shows pensions and medical care is financed or go home and find another job.

Your Enron example is an embarrassingly great example of how stupid you are. You are deriding a system that held people accountable and sent them to prison for breaking the law --- In favor of a system that would have never acknowledged your complaint in the first place, or held their own accountable in any way.

And just like Madoff I'm sure all the investors who lost money are quite content eating Mac Dinner and hot dogs knowing he's in jail.

Who gives a damn who is in jail? They lost their money! A system run and guaranteed by the government is better than any private system. No exception. The government can get the money and honor their commitments. That's why banks are backed by the government (FDIC) and not the other way around. Talk about dumb. You sound like a lunatic.

They are called CAPITALISTS.

Yes, they certainly are. I think the term is venture vulture capitalists.

GOOD! It's where we need to be! Where capitalism does a better job than government... as is the case with virtually everything.

Absolutely! It's difficult to compete with a system that results in 45,000 people dying every year due to being unable to afford medical insurance. When it comes to culling the population nobody does it better than the capitalists. Which reminds me.....

The rich always get richer because they are motivated to make money, that's why they are rich in the first place. And the poor are less motivated to earn money, that is why they are poor.

Of course. Poor people don't work as hard and poor people aren't as bright and poor people are, well, just different. That's why they're poor ad probably enjoy being poor, as well. You're a wise man, Dix.

If this were true, it would be apparent after spending trillions of dollars over the years, and we would see some results. For 70+ years, this nation has doled out government assistance to the poor and needy, we've taken care of the sick and elderly with Medicaid and Medicare, we've instituted programs to help people in need, left and right, both republicans and democrats. TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars have been spent, to "solve the problem" here... and what have we to show for it? The poverty level remains the same, the poor still exist, people still get sick. It appears to me, government hasn't solved a problem, and it doesn't look as if they've even helped that much. We've not developed a culture where people honestly think the government is supposed to provide everything they need from cradle to grave. Meanwhile, you continue to try and destroy capitalism, to make it virtually impossible for people to gain wealth, which in turn, makes it impossible for the poor to escape poverty.

But we do see results. Do we see people suffering like they did in the 30s before the New Deal? Do we see pictures like this, today, of children starving?

The term "poverty" changes with the times. When the general population is struggling to put food on the table, like during the depression, poverty means something different than it does today. That is what you are unable to understand. Poverty is relative, relative to the milieu in which one lives. A person living in a 3rd world, tropical country who has plenty to eat and a home to keep dry probably considers themselves fortunate. Of course they could probably afford to see the medicine man and the tooth puller (dentist), as well. Government programs here have helped, a lot. It's just nonsense what you posted.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As another poster noted employees were lied to when the company was going under. If you don't like the word "coerced" how about "bullshitted"?

"Bullshitted about" and "coerced into" are two completely different things. And again, Enron culprits were tried, convicted, and sent to jail... unlike the politicians who "bullshitted about" our Social Security money being there when we retire. Can we send to jail the former politicians who pilfered the trust fund? I think not! Who's system is better... the one where the bad guys can be punished, or the one where they can't?

Yes, let's ask another poignant question.

No. Let's answer the one presented first, and stop trying to dodge it.

Of course. Poor people don't work as hard and poor people aren't as bright and poor people are, well, just different. That's why they're poor ad probably enjoy being poor, as well. You're a wise man, Dix.

I didn't say anything about "bright" or "different" in my comments. I didn't say a thing about "hard work." People who are wealthy, tend to be more motivated to earn wealth... that is why they became wealthy. People who are poor, are lacking in that same motivation... it doesn't mean they don;t work hard, aren't smart or can't achieve things, it just means they generally lack the same motivation to acquire more wealth... not always... in some cases, poor people do possess that motivation, and generally speaking, most of them who do, eventually stop being poor people and become wealthy people.

The term "poverty" changes with the times. When the general population is struggling to put food on the table, like during the depression, poverty means something different than it does today. That is what you are unable to understand. Poverty is relative, relative to the milieu in which one lives. A person living in a 3rd world, tropical country who has plenty to eat and a home to keep dry probably considers themselves fortunate. Of course they could probably afford to see the medicine man and the tooth puller (dentist), as well. Government programs here have helped, a lot. It's just nonsense what you posted.

You're free to believe whatever, but a recent study shows poverty levels in America have not significantly changed since LBJ's Great Society programs were implemented. Those programs represent a large chunk of what is now about $100 trillion in unfunded liability. That's money we have committed to pay to help the elderly needy and poor, with nothing else added. (You want to add even more.) If the programs were working, if people were climbing out of poverty as a result, and we could see this in the numbers, an argument could be made that it might be worth the cost. But we are spending all of this money to keep things the same. As such, we perpetually have you whining and complaining, moaning and writhing, over the sad injustices and poor sick needy people, who seem to constantly need more!

The average poverty-level family in America, has a roof over their head, color tv, air conditioning, a car and cell phone. They receive on average $1050 per month in either direct payments or assorted governmental benefits. We provide full medical care through Medicaid. We feed their children at school for free. We supplement their grocery budget with food stamps. We pay for them to further their education. In spite of all this, we still have relatively the same number in poverty. The solution is not MORE handouts. Clearly MORE handouts is not motivating anyone to escape poverty.

 

[apple0154]

What is different is that I'm talking about a truly representative democracy .. which is absent from corporate ownership. That is not what we have today. Do you disagree?

I already know who is going to win this election .. the one who be the best puppet for America's corporate masters. Obama.

What is different is that socialists are talking about representation not only politically, but also economically.



A more just society entails many things .. most of which is about removing corporate control from our political system .. which has a hand the wars we fight, the "crimes" that we prosecute, and the quality of life measures for American citizens.

You may think it just to give trillions of dollars to rich people as a bailout for their failures .. but I do not.



No problem .. but you are wrong to believe that "people first" implies that people won't still be striving for success and inovation. Capitalists believe that money is the only motivating factor .. it isn't. There are more doctors in Cuba per capita than there are in the US. In fact, there are many med students who go to Cuba to study.

There are more college graduates in Libya per capita than there are in the US.

We do not seek an end to capitalism, but an end to unfettered capitalism that only benefits the rich.



"Free" is relative. How are you free when corporations own your government and manipulate your elections? How are you free when Americans have no voice in the wars we fight and the economic direction of their own country?

How are you free when the US is the greatest prison nation in human history .. most for non-violent crimes that only enrich the prison/industrial complex?



Not sure what that means .. but I want representative government free of corporate control.

Are you of the belief that corporate-free is not a representative government?



I don't do meme .. that's for partisans .. which I am not.



Corporate "freedom" to control the US government SHOULD be taken away. Ask the Founders who you like to refer to.



We both are smart .. no reason why we can't continue to discuss any and everything of importance.

We do not seek an end to capitalism, but an end to unfettered capitalism that only benefits the rich.

Hear! Hear! If there's only one thing the screamers of "Socialism!" can grasp that is it.

 

[Rune]

Wow, way to attempt to pass the buck.

Obama had massive majorities in both houses for two years, with them he passed the Stimulus, son of stimulus, and predicted his own demise if his jobs policy didn't work. Then when it was obvious that his "stimulus" was never going to produce the shovel-ready jobs he promised he met with his "Jobs Council", that he created, to apparently sit and joke about how he failed in his promise. You can try to blame Bush for that, but that was all him, smiling and joking about the demise of the American workers, caused by his own policy, because his own policy didn't do what he promised it would.

Obama predicted that if his policy didn't fix this thing in 3 years he would be a one-termer. I simply agree with him.

The idea that passing the buck will continue to work forever is childish, and is the reason why many call the man President Crybaby. Obama tried to tell us that jobs were suddenly priority one when the election cycle started, but he has yet to meet with the aforementioned Jobs Council... His own job is the only jobs priority he has.

He could have had all the king's horses and all the kings's men in Congress, it wouldn't have been enough to overcome the crushing destruction left by the neo-cons. Keep telling yourself whatever it takes to get you through the night.

 

[j-mac]

We do not seek an end to capitalism, but an end to unfettered capitalism that only benefits the rich.

Hear! Hear! If there's only one thing the screamers of "Socialism!" can grasp that is it.

Nonsense. The mistake that liberals make about conservatives often, is that they are somehow smarter then their political opponents based solely on ideology alone. Regardless of what you may think, people are smarter than you give them credit for, and in the end instead of compromise with attitudes like this, the only thing you get is the middle finger.

 

[j-mac]

Frankly, we can bounce back and forth all day, but if you believe that the Founders intended corporations as people .. that says everything that need be said about our differences .. and it also says that you don't know the Founders as well as you think you do.

So, if Jefferson, and Paine, et al, were all so against corporations then why move the goal post to Banks. Hell, I'll agree that banking should not be centralized, even if that is a central tenant of Socialism, but you are not going to change that by destroying business on a large scale in favor of pushing america back in time.

You're right, corporations have been declared a person .. but if you agree with corporate ownership of this government, please don't talk to me about "freedom." That makes no sense.

Are you not free to form your own corporation? Are you not free to do what ever you want in this country to prosper? I don't understand how someone else's success hinders your ability, or freedom to create your own?

A decentralized, less monopolized economy. Small business is the engine that makes this economy grow.

Yet, the burden of high taxation, and onerous top down control through over regulation is exactly the path that you would choose. And that would kill the small business you say you want.

It's real easy. SERIOUS campaign finance reform that comes with STRICT penalities for corruption .. that includes immediate loss of office upon conviction.

You mean an effective tool to do away with your political foes....

You can prefer whomever you want .. but Cuban doctors are world-reknowned AND have paved the way in many medical advances.

What? You didn't know that?

Nah, that is not true...I don't buy Michael Moore propaganda.

 

[Rune]

So, if Jefferson, and Paine, et al, were all so against corporations then why move the goal post to Banks. Hell, I'll agree that banking should not be centralized, even if that is a central tenant of Socialism, but you are not going to change that by destroying business on a large scale in favor of pushing america back in time.

So banks are not corps? Who said anything about destroying corps?






Are you not free to form your own corporation? Are you not free to do what ever you want in this country to prosper? I don't understand how someone else's success hinders your ability, or freedom to create your own?

Strawman bullshit.



Yet, the burden of high taxation, and onerous top down control through over regulation is exactly the path that you would choose. And that would kill the small business you say you want.

How do you know that is the path he would choose? Where did he say that?



You mean an effective tool to do away with your political foes....

Again, how is it that you know what he really means? Perhaps the words he used are what he really means.





Nah, that is not true...I don't buy Michael Moore propaganda.

Sounds like a personal problem.

 

[j-mac]

Libya was NOT crumbling under Quadaffi. It was a very prosperous society that had the best quality of life measure, not only in all of Africa, but better than Russians and Brazilians .. AND, it had cradle-to-grave healthcare and education for all of its citizens. The benefits Libya provided to its citizens would be an Americans wet dream. ALL of its citizens shared in its wealth .. even getting a check deposited in their bank accounts as their share of Libya's oil wealth.

Libya had NO national debt and NO Rothchilds Bank. ZERO .. Now they have both.

Since the US and NATO invaded the country, it has descended into total chaos .. which is also what has happened to Iraq.

So, a strong man society is your vision of freedom? Is Syria equally free right now?

Uhh .. you do know that I'm black, right? Need I give you the history that disputes what you claim?

Aw, come on...pulling the "I'm black" card? So what? You have as much opportunity as I do, and in many cases today...MORE. So, spare me the pity party.

Why you would need to wait until Novenmebr I have no idea. Are you not aware right now of how unpopular our wars are?

Really? Where is Cindy Sheehan? Where are the marches against Obama? Nah, I don't buy it....Libs are only against war when it is republicans that are involved.

Were you are has nothing to do with the point. The US is the greatest prison nation in human history .. where prisoner/slaves work for about 25 cents an hour for some of the biggest corporations in America .. often putting "free" Americans out of work.

If people break the law, should there be consequences? We have the highest population in prison, but why are they there? and our incarceration level is in large part due to the fact that we just don't shoot petty criminals.

No, that would be YOUR side that not only believes it .. they excercise it.

People who work for corporations have always and still do have the right to vote and contribute. Corporations are not people.

Can you explain to me what a corporation is?

Wrong and wrong again.

Are you aware that ONLY corporations count the vote in America? No?

You'll have to elaborate on that one...I don't know where you are headed with that.

 

[j-mac]

Sounds like a personal problem.

Look Rune, BAC and I are having a pretty good conversation. Unless you can contribute to it, instead of making ME the issue, then I am asking nicely that you kindly bug out and let BAC and I discuss this.