Let's face reality folks............Mr. O's hidden agenda is to weaken this country to the point of vulnerability to the oil rich countries and possibly China. Name an action he has taken that hasn't matched that agenda. jrc
- A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%


I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare" comparable to England or Canada .


Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."

SHIP HIM TO CANADA OR ENGLAND !

He is "elderly" himself but be sure to remember his health insurance is different from yours as Congress has their own high-end coverage! He will never have to learn to accept "inconveniences"!!!


AND THE WINNER IS VERY INTERESTING--the percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is... a real life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.


T. Roosevelt........ 38%

Taft.....................40%

Wilson .................. 52%

Harding..................49%

Coolidge.............. 48%

Hoover................. 42%

F. Roosevelt......... 50%

Truman..................50%

Eisenhower........... 57%

Kennedy.............. 30%

Johnson.................47%

Nixon................... 53%

Ford..................... 42%

Carter.................. 32%

Reagan...................56%

GH Bush................. 51%

Clinton ................. 39%

GW Bush................ 55% & nbsp;

And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is:
Obama................ 8% !
Is this because he wants to be the smartest one in the room?

Yep! That's right! Only Eight Percent!!!..the least by far of the last 19 presidents!! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM...Chrysler... Wall Street... and you and me?


GOD HELP US!

"the percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector"

You mean lobbyist/conflict of interest types? The last pres was notorious for that. Thank god he's gone.

"They know what's best for GM...Chrysler... Wall Street... and you and me?"

Versus the corps running the govt which led us to this mess. Thank god he's gone.

Wow RK, you copy/paste with such style!

I especially like the header where you think the President of the US has a hidden agenda to try to weaken the country. I think you finally cracked the code! He's not an American citizen (birther), he's a Muslim, his a minority, so of course he's out to destroy the country. It's all so clear now, thanks!!!

Thanks Irish. Glad to help you finally it figured out!!

RK, I think your beginning statement may be a bit over the top. No one man is all powerful to weaken an entire country while we still live in a psuedo consitutional republic, especially the United States. I personally don't believe it's Obama's agenda to weaken the US, there is a possibility that he may just believe the steps he is taking will be helping the country, although that is also doubtful.

That said it is perfectly feasible to me that those who actually run the show may be intent on driving this country into the ground for their own monetary benefit. For those of you that beleive that POTUS is anything more than a figure head I truly feel sorry for you. In the real world, the world is run by money and influence and it's my opinion that a changing of the guard is taking place. Our economy will be secondary to China's and others, it is only a matter of time.

Don't pay attention to those who would rather discredit you as a "birther" or tea bagger or whatever. They know nothing more than what they watch on MSNBC every night because they are too lazy to find information anywhere else. Strong convictions then lead them to make stupid comments because they are easily misled, gullible.

I challenge any of you Obamatrons to address the statistics this man posted as opposed to your childish responses. They're pretty frightening if you ask me. Or do you have the nads for it?

They simply want to keep the people reliant on the government while they sell the country out. A high reliance on government is job security for these folks and foreign policy is good for busine$$.

The US citizens are just as much to blame for this though...

When they say the boogie man is coming to get you we dont confront it and demand proof, we now cower in the corner throwing money at it hoping it will go away or yell for the government to come chase it away.

When a US industry lies dying coughing up blood we are too busy basking in the warm glow of a screen to even notice let alone do anything about it. When it is gone we as ourselves "how did this happen" over a cart full of cheap Chinese goods bought at reasonable prices. Although the price of those goods is not always measured in dollars, we seldom care untill we are out of work... then... once again we look to the government to fix it for us.

With Liberty comes personal responsibility and we have an ever increasing tendency to shrug off those responsibilities and turn the wheel over to the gov. as long as we have fast food and TV who needs to uphold the fundamentals of a Republic?

And true to form, we still blame the government instead of blaming ourselves... just like a 15 year old blaming the parents for the restriction, not blaming themselves for the failing grades that got them there.

"Don't pay attention to those who would rather discredit you as a "birther" or tea bagger or whatever. They know nothing more than what they watch on MSNBC every night because they are too lazy to find information anywhere else. Strong convictions then lead them to make stupid comments because they are easily misled, gullible."

That last sentence leads us back to the birthers and teabaggers.

"I challenge any of you Obamatrons to address the statistics "

Here goes:
1) The statistics are selective reasoning at it's finest.
2) We aren't going to a system anything similar to England Or Canada.
3) It's an exact cut and paste traveling around the right wing blogs.
4) There is no United Nations International Health Organization.
5) Statistics like these are NOT kept. Prove me wrong.

There. Now I challenge you to find this statistic:

The percentage of people in each of those three countries who have health care.

All of these extraneous bullsh!t wingnut copy/pastes can be boiled down to one basic question... and that is WHY?

WHY would Obama want to weaken the nation?

And up to this point... NONE of the wingnut, teabagger, birther supposed 'evidence' of Obama's "hidden agenda" passes the laugh test or is grounded in ANY kind of logic or rationality.

I'd be embarrassed if I were you RK.

Stink - I would be happy to do a statistical analysis of RK's c&p if I thought it would do any good.

For a self-professed non-wingnut... you're pretty wingnutty sometimes...

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

I see,......selective reasoning. Statistics like this are NOT kept,.......gee, perhaps I should have done my research before posting. Why would anyone want to keep statistics on cancer survival rates? How silly of me to jump to conclusions without knowing where the information came from,.............wait a minute.

On March 24th, 2009 the National Center for Policy Analysis published a study labeled "10 Suprising Facts About American Healthcare". In it you will find many of the healthcare statistics in the copy/paste job above, all sourced and referenced. Read away to your heart's desire.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

Now, why does the above post reference the fictitious "United Nations International Health Organization"? You got me. My best guess is it was some neoconservative dimbulb who posted information somewhere thinking it was correct information so they could compare with liberal dimbulbs just how big of dimbulbs they are to each other. I would tell you that you could have found this out yourself if you looked past the second Google entry you found but I suspect your research skills are lacking anyway, what's the use.

To answer your brain buster challenge question: my guess would be 100% since no one is denied healthcare if they need help. Health insurance, as you must know, is something all together different and I don't have those statistics for you off hand.

What I find fascinating is that the RWNJs continue to publish a seemingly endless tirade of Internet crap. I get one or more almost every day. The vast majority of this nonsense can be easily debunked by a quick visit to Snopes. Do the promulgators of this incessant flow of missinformation not care what the truth is?
I get roughly one piece of left wing nonsense for every 20 from the right.

Why does the right have such a strong desire to spread misinformation? Why do they continue to believe this pure propaganda a when almost every one is proven wrong? i.e. Obama is a Muslim, Obama won’t swear on the bible, Obama wasn’t born in the USA, and Obama is trying to wipe out sportfishing, etc.etc.etc.
Please try to check the accuracy of your endlessly forwarded junk before continuing to recirculate it. Here s a good starting point. http://www.snopes.com

The post that started this thread is quite old and is as irrelevant now as when it first floated to the top of the RWWJ cesspool.

Same reason the other side does. To further propagate the false left/right paradigm that exists in our political realm.

I've said before, both sides of the aisle despise the Constitution in one way or another. It's much easier to rule when there are no restrictions on the rule makers.

When people are fighting each other they are too busy doing just that to turn their attention to the real issues at hand.

SW: I pretty mnuch agree with your take, but even my very right wing buddy admits that in the past five or so years the right is shoveling much more Internet [censored] than the left. Not that they are more full of [censored]. The fringes of both parties are very much full of crap. But the right sure seems hell bent on making sure every one in their address book gets their daily minimum requirement of crap.

I would say the stuff I receive is from very much the mainstream of both sides. Fringe is such a loose term these days it depends on who you talk to. Talk to Aunty and I am the "right wing fringe dude". I am very inclined to agree with her even though I despise most republicans. Although the more I talk to folks I realize many people share my point of view. Or, perhaps they are inclined to agree with me in order to avoid confrontation, who knows.

Either way at some point the L/R bull$hit gets old after a while and one begins to wonder just who is sneaking out the back door with all of our valuables while we are busy arguing at the front counter.

That curve has been phucked up since KayKay ain't postin' as much.....

Classic. If you're going to quote a source, why not use the WHO, which is a well-known and widely respected organization that actually exists?

The weakness of our political system is the electorate. Plain and simple. We constantly defend half the people who have us bent over a barrel, and continue to vote for them because they tell us what we want to hear. Then we act surprised when the party in power changes, but the screwing continues.

We have to break the chains of the two major parties if this country is going to thrive.

If the extremers on each end of the politicial spectrum keep the common citizens snipping at each other by floating the internet crap such as was in the first post, then we can't figure out that the majority of the citizens have more in common than not. The divide is exploited by the extremers to benefit the people that can gain by keeping us at odds with each other.

+ 100

Dan, even though I know I bug the $hit out of you we agree here 1000%.

Problem is good luck trying to get a 3rd or 4th party candidate on any ballot. Any idea how much it costs to get a Pres. contender on all 50 state ballots? Completely not feasible unless you are Ross Perot.

Figure that one out and I'll line up right behind you.

We don't need another political party, IMO.

What we need is for the rational, reasonably intelligent folks in both parties to take their respective parties back from the corrupt people in charge of them.

A 2 party system is really the ONLY way to insure a true majority wins out.

If you have 3 or more parties... no one of them would receive more than the 50% +1 it takes to have majority rule... which is the most basic tenet of democracy.

Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton etc... agonized over this fact back in the day but came to this conclusion.

Ah yes, mob rule. Forget about princibles and adding legitimate concepts to the debate. We'd much rather have people loyal to one corrupt side or the other determining the fate of the nation. Forget about the fact that many other countries function with much more than 2 political parties.

It's like demanding you have Coke or Pepsi when you don't really care for either.

Anybody serve Fresca around here?

I have always liked the Parliamentary system. I note that’s what we jammed down the Iraqi’s throats.

I especially like having the leader appear before the legislative body to answer questions.

Publicly funded elections would be a good start.

Elections costing what they do assures that the candidate will have plenty of favors to pay back upon being elected.

But Stink... I thought the American system was the BEST in the world?

That's what you conservatives are constantly preachin'?

We don't want no multi-party European Social-democracy... remember?

You GET all of the different viewpoints represented by having rational people having rational debates. It wouldn't be a choice between 2 things you don't like this way.

Before we can accomplish ANY of this though... we need to get the special interest money OUT of politics and return the American system of government back to the way that the founding fathers envisioned it. Read the Federalist Papers and you'll see why they thought a 2 party system was the way to go.

Agree wholeheartedly. Right now there's great incentive to send stupid chain letters around, and to make outlandishly false claims--because they help you raise money. Which you need to get elected. So we are reaping what we sow. Plus any donors have elevated access, which presents further problems.

And perhaps more subtly, but equally important is that in our current election/campaign finance situation -- politicians find it easiest to fund-raise when they are NOT solving problems. It was easier for both sides to solicit donations before health care reforms passed, as opposed to now. The incentive for the pols is to keep issues tied up as long as possible--which clearly is not the incentive structure we want in place.

Alas, while the idea of publicly funded elections is simple, I'd be curious how to tackle it legislatively. What's an "issue ad?". Is a Michael Moore theatrically released movie permitted in election season? Can you pay people to knock on doors?

Well thats about as far as our agreement may go for now

My first inclination about PFE's tells me that there would be more corruption than what we have now, if that's even possible. Several possible hurdles and many possible complications as IR pointed out. I would also be inclined to say that it would shut many people out of the process. Who decides who gets to run and access the public election funds?

I will have to look more into this option before I get back to you on this. Not counting it out though.

No where in the Constitution does it say anything about political parties,.....maybe you can refresh my memory. A constitutional republic can function just fine with multiple parties and has in the past. If you want European socialism than move there. I'm sure you'd fit right in with the French.

You're all over the place here, I can't even follow you. Is it 2 parties that is the "ONLY" way to go or "multi-party social democracy". Make up your melon.

Read my post again Stink. YOU are the one who is all over the place. I spelled it out pretty clearly. You just need to be able to comprehend what you read... that's all.

NOWHERE did I say that the Constitution demands a 2 party system. What I said was that founding fathers and and Federalist Paper authors James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay thought that a 2 party system would be the best way to insure majority rule. They understood all of the inherent problems associated with this idea and agonized over advocating it. In the end though, they decided it would be best and actually discouraged the founding of other political parties.

It's all right there in the history books. Ya just gotta wipe the film of conservatism outta yer eyes to see it.

TanteM,

Très drôle!

Escroc d'Irlandais

Hankster:

I agree with you that we need to have at least two parties on the ballot. I would hate to see either party have absolute power. The good news is the pendulum always shifts. I'm old enough to remember times when both parties appeared to be on the rocks, but they always bounce back. I'm sure the Rs will pick up a lot of seats in the next election and that’s probably a good thing.

It does seem to me that the American people are quicker to become unhappy than in the past. Look at Bush's popularity numbers. Now look at polls that find Obama steadily losing popularity and congress even more so.

We are a people who are not happy with where we were going. We didn’t like where Bush was going, and we don’t like where Obama is headed. I don’t know what it will take to make us happy. It may not be possible. I very much doubt McCain would have fared better. Of course we will never know. I just hope we don’t get so disenchanted we elect some complete whack job.

I fear that as world and domestic problems grow our unhappiness will as well. I believe whoever is in power for the foreseeable future will face an ever more divided electorate. Someone will have to tackle our deficit and the solution is sure to cause pain, maybe enormous pain.

Not very long ago there was talk of the collapse of the Republican Party. That won’t happen, nor will the Democrats go away. But with the enormous scope of problems both domestic and global no one is going to make us feel all warm and fuzzy anytime soon.

Alright, now we're getting somewhere. It looks like a lot of us can agree that a two-party system, comprised of bedfellows pretending to represent separate platforms, is running us into the ground. My question is why, once we decide to start questioning a two-party system, we assume that any reasonable alternative would involve additional parties. Screw this party garbage! What we need is leaders that will represent people instead of special interests. Unfortunately, as long as lobbying is allowed to occur, there will never be any integrity in our Legislative process. The winner will always be the one with the deepest pockets, no matter how bad their interest may be for the vast majority of the nation's populus (sp?).

The fallacy of the two-party system bears a striking resemblance (for me, anyway) to the petty disagreements between CCA, WSC, etc. with regard to fish conservation that we see all too often on the fishing boards. In the end we all want the same thing, but we let our different means to the same end become arguing points, and therefore none of us accomplish anything. Those of us who fish need to realize that, regardless of how we think we should get there, we all want the same thing. Beating up each other's efforts to make progress is destructive to everyone's cause, and it needs to stop. Each organization should support the other's efforts. We are stronger as a unified force than as multiple entities fighting amongst ourselves. That principle applies absolutely to politics as well. The only way we, as citizens, are going to get out of this pattern of getting screwed over time and time again is to stand together against the common enemy (our bought and sold legislators and the interests who own them). We need to vote ALL the incumbents out next election, to send a clear message to their successors that more of the same will not be rewarded with re-election. The first Congress that makes positive, effective change for the majority will be the first to be rewarded with a second term if I have my way.

It should be clear at this point that I do not buy into either of our two parties - I hate them both equally, because I realize that they are both motivated by the almighty dollar, and nothing else. That said, I am something of an Obama fan - not because I think he will rescue us from the mess we've gotten into, but because as long as the United States are going to be represented world-wide by a single figurehead, it might as well be one who speaks with intelligence and doesn't make us look like fools (the last guy was a major embarrassment in that regard). Those who fear him and speak out against "his" programs don't seem to offer viable alternatives to what are real problems and need to be addressed, and I think they are making a shining example of how people in this country are too hung up on personal agendas to support any positive change for the majority unless there are no short-term pains. Like most of you, I will personally be negatively impacted by this administration's plans in the short run. Because I don't have any better ideas, however, I am willing to ride this out and see what happens.

Washington has that. It sucks.

It's because some places are so one sided it doesn't offer any choice. Would a conservative stand a chance in Seattle, San Francisco, new york city etc? How about a liberals chances in Wyoming, Fly over states or most of the bible belt? Imagine the look on your face if your ballot said your two choices are Sarah Palin or Dr.Laura? You'd [censored] yourself KK.

Then why would it really matter if a conservative in SF... or a liberal in Texas were on the general ballot at all bd... when like you say, they don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of ever winning?

Is it just so conservatives in SF and liberals in Texas can feel like they have a choice... when they really don't?

The idea of an open primary is to allow more people to participate... and to find the best 2 candidates, or at least the most popular, no matter their party affiliation.

Scott brown is a classic example of why you don't want open primaries.

+100 Hankster



i only pasted the first post to stir the pot.......Looks like it worked.

[quote=RK43]+100 Hankster

+1000

Same whiny BS we get from Eastern Wa. "why aren't we more represented?" "Why does majority rule?" "it's unfair" "all those entitlements" yet when you do the math Eastern Wa swallows up more of our tax money than it puts in. Western WA supports Eastern Wa.

See Krugman's latest on the GOP:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/opinion/26krugman.html

Well, time to lock up the thread... We've hit the "I only wanted to stir the pot" moment.

It seems to me to be an excellent system that lets the voters choose between the top candidates. If they are both Rs, so be it. If they are both Ds, so be it. Aren’t we supposed to get the candidates supported by the majority of voters?

Hankster, would you have a problem with Orange County having only two Rs at the top of local election tickets? Or is your concern more partisan politics than philosophical?

This is really a question for a game theory person (not me)... We can sit and invent scenarios all day against Top Two (Scott Brown) or in favor (running a democrat against Jacobsen is far more reasonable way to unseat him, than a republican in his district)...

My sense matches with Dave -- that Top 2 (regardless of party affiliation) gets the best person elected.

Not sure it gets the best person elected. But it does reflect the will of the voters.

And your is that socialist democrats couldn't make it in many parts of America. You just want to wipe out competition. Lefties hate competition, it's just not fair!

I would take Ron Paul over Jerry Brown any day.

What do you know about Gerry Brown Marz... besides what you've heard on FOX News?

He's so worked up he forgot his lines.

I think he meant to say "Socialist, bleeding heart liberal, Nancy Polosi/terrorist/Muslim loving, America hating, Democrats".

Where isn't there more competition than in the big population centers...which happen to vote "liberal".

I was referring to Jerry Brown, State attouney Gen for CA, Mayor of Oakland, presidential candidate... I am not sure who Gerry Brown is.

Well I was born and raised in Oakland where my family still lives. I was a victim of Prop 13 as a kid, school and public pools drained and covered, music programs in school tanked among other stuff that was important to a kid. His run Mayor have had poor results to turn that city around as he has consistently pandered to the very things that keep Oakland a [censored] hole.

I suggest you don't assume to much about me, I don't watch Fox news and I have actually had quite a direct experience with Mr. Brown.

What do you call screwing a 9 year old out of school music and civic swimming programs? Progressive?

+100 on RP BTW.

Viva la R3volution

What do you call screwing a 9 year old out of school music and civic swimming programs? Progressive? [/quote]

A drowning wingnut, that can't carry a beat?

Sorry Marz, I guess misspelled his name. His middle name is Gerald, so I thought he spelled Jerry with a G. Same guy though.

That's great that at 9 years old you were already politically aware. I was in high school and college when he was the governor of CA. I even vaguely remember his dad Pat as gov, or at least my parents talking about him. I was born in Frisco, raised in Fairfield and moved to Sac in 1980 to go to school.

I remember Prop 13 too... and if I'm not mistaken, it was a citizen tax revolt. In fact, it was kinda right up Ron Paul's ideological alley. So, if you were a victim of it... why do you support a candidate who, as president would most likely work to have the same result at the Federal level?

Remember, Brown didn't pass Prop 13... the voters did.

What do you call screwing a 9 year old out of school music and civic swimming programs? Progressive?


I would say that's a RWWJ's dream. Ending all that socialist stuff like free pools and music programs. Now if we could get rid of that other socialist stuff like public schools, fire depts, police, state mental hospitals, homes for the disabled and the rest of gubmint we would be in a paradise.

Had JB done his job and reduced taxes, a massive outrage would have never happened. So the initiative was a direct reaction to his actions (or lack thereof) as Governor... well at least this is the general theory of most who lived through it and my history teachers, but I am sure you are probably right, since you did call me a wingnut and all.

My point was not prop 13 anyway, it was my experience with JB and that being the first among many things that has soured me on him. His unyielding support of CARB who almost killed the company I work for about a month before Christmas 2000 was another. His reaction to a devastating crime rate to put up cameras and enforce a curfew is another... (I had a dear friend shot in the head and killed during this time, after curfew and the cameras didn't do a thing)... talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight... it was a rubber butter knife to a war, but hey... if you like him, more power to ya... I heard he likes Jefferson Airplane and the Doors, so he must be pretty cool right?

I am a limited government type, but that doesn't mean that I am pigeon holed by some sort of blind party faith... I am just gonna call [censored], [censored].

Having two of either party is like your choices being chocolate or dark chocolate. Population centers don't have true competition because your dealing with a captive audience. With a starbucks on every corner, sure it's popular, but where's the room for Dutch Bros, Aalan Bros etc.? There's a few here and there but unless you want to go out of your way, starbucks is your only/convienent choice. Obviously the "kid" part of your name is pretty accurate.

Marz... If he would have "done his job" and reduced taxes before Prop 13... you would STILL have lost your swimming pool and music program. How many ways do you want to have it?

Hey, Brown dated Linda Ronstadt back when she was hot... so that's gotta give him at least some cred right there.

So of all the time that name was on the TV screen in Ca you still spelled it wrong? Whatever, I just dont dig your smug attitude in your original post.

Yes, the liberal state of CA passed Prop 13 as a result of Browns lack of action to regulate taxes... You should know this as it was discussed throughout the years and was even a topic in civics when I was a kid.

No, at 9 years old I was bummed there was no pools in the summer and I couldn't play Sax without buying or renting an instrument. I wasn't politically aware, but I didn't forget it. Through the years I tacked that POS move on to JB list along with the beautiful new section 8 housing apartments and CARB. .

Oh so my distaste for Jerry Brown is based in [censored]?



None of that ever happened?

Is that how you defend yourself? First you try to call me BS names like wingnut then just call [censored] and say I am playing the "victim"?

CARB seized a shipment of 2 stroke engines at the port of Oakland in Oct. 2000, call em and ask them about it.

The kid that got shot was named Mark Sorensen, he was an artist.

You asked why I dont like him I told you... go ahead and call [censored] on things that you disagree with, is that the same as wishing them away?

No band camp either?

Bet they wouldn't mind having that surplus now.

If Marz wants free music and swimming lessons, why doesn't he just move to a socialist country?

Is that the best you got KayKay?.......... Speaking of easy today. You must be slippin' these days.

He's never once voted for a bill with an earmark, not once.

Has he inserted earmarks into bills to ensure that his district receives federal dollars they put into the system to begin with when the bill inevitably passes? Absolutely. They pay federal taxes, they should get that money back.

He simply believes that the money never should have transfered hands in the first place. If it must, then they should get that money back.

What are you doing posting right now anyway,.....isn't Chris Matthews on?

Lets go Reading Rainbow on this since it is appearant that you only focus on what you can exploit.



No, that was just one of several reasons why I dont like JB... my opinion, nothing more, I was answering the question asked. I never said I blame him for everything nor am I saying anything more than that was the first thing that sparked my dislike for him...

got it?



No you were just so absolutly convinced that JB had nothing to do with prop 13 that was just for reference, you said it was bull$hit, didnt you? well, there are more articles out there about it and maybe I can get my grandmother on the line and you can tell her how wrong she is too.



Yes, I do know that, I also know it was a huge exploit of a JB's incompetence but the question wasn't about Harold Jarvis now was it... please take a ridlin and concentrate on the topic.



No, I just don't like a politician that can be run over. Once again, stay on topic... I did give other examples of what I dont like about JB but you seem to think this one goes with your eyes or something because you are WEARING IT OUT.



Yes, when I was 9 it sucked, I also thought girls were gross and bell bottom cords were cool... people change, get used to it.


Yes, see above.



No, I blame the Mayor for that... (he was mayor of Oakland at the time) and I am not blaming him for the killing, I blame him for not addressing devastating crime with more than a curfew and some cameras. If expecting a mayor to address the #1 problem in his city is ludicrous I guess you expect the rotary club to take the helm on that one?



ROFL is right... you are basically arguing that I should like Jerry Brown... I dont.... NEXT.

That's called anarchy dimbulb. Something even your most die hard RW'er wouldn't advocate.

But you already knew that didn't you? I could use an extreme example to paint a picture for your paradise too. How about Cuba? Government ownership of everything. Hospitals, business, schools, radio, tv, and print media. A paradise so wonderful it's inhabitants are willing to float 80 miles across shark infested waters using inflated rain jackets just to get to the good ole US of A.

Amazing a leftoid like you thinks that more government regulation is the answer when we could just simply enforce the laws we currently have on the books. It's called respecting the rule of law. Something that has been completely lost in this country.

Absolutely. Should he let his district pay into the system without ever seeing a dime in return?

Sometimes you have to play within the set parameters and work to change those parameters the best you can.

Really KayKay, if all you've got on him is the earmark thing you need to go back to the playhouse and start over.

KK don't you have a job? Seems like your on the net all day, maybe your just getting caught up on the real news on the Onion online

What exactly is it that gives you the impression that "I want mine"?

I wanted to go swimming and play sax when I was 9?

You can say I play the victim card all you want, it dont make it so. You also said my posts were BS, none of what I said happened and that I was wrong in my distaste for JB....

You say a lot of things.

and yes, JB will most likley win this election, I hope he fairs better this time around.

Didn't say that you did,........or perhaps that what you wanted to see out of what I posted.

I was simply pointing out that if we respected our current regulations and laws concerning fraud there wouldn't be much need for more regulations drafted by those they are intended to regulate. That game has been played long enough and hasn't been successful to date.

Well I'm no fan of Reagan's. Like a true actor, he was long on the sound bites and well short of any limited government substance. Even your most died in the wool capital "L" Libertarian, take Rothbard for example, routinely stated that government was a necessary entity for a civilized society.

Individuals are granted rights in the Constitution, not groups. The government doesn't grant those rights, the creator does. When the governemt grants rights to a collective they simutaneously take rights away from others, thereby infringing the rights of the indivual the gov't is there to protect.

Good for you, really. Starting a business and making it grow isn't easy.


Yes, it hurts so bad being stupid. If I could only rely on the government for everything including wiping my ass I'd be so much better off. Maybe if I just smoked some pot, quit paying my mortgage and health insurance, sent all my money to the undeserving underachiever members of society I'd feel better.

BS

What exactly did you mean by I "Matter of fact, I call bullsh!t on your entire post"? Usually when I state a fact and someone says its BS, I take it as assuming I am not being truthful...

Basing my evaluation and opinion on personal experience is far from blaming him for "personal issues", I didnt say the guy gave me herpes, I said I dont like him as a politician.

My holding a grudge is dwarfed by your need for self affirmation. I'm Scottish and Irish, we DO grudges.

I also will admit being wrong, and I dont think you do, it is much easier to just say its BS...

I did just fine, trust me.

Well if the gov't wasn't doing the job it was created to do in protecting the rights of individuals than that government is ineffective and the people have the right to start over.

You and I seem to have a different definition of just exactly what a "right" is.

Unfortunately, it's not against the law to be a bigot. Unless such bigotry infringed upon the life, liberty, or pursuit of hapiness of another individual.

A home loan is also something that is not a right. Though our governments attempts to make this so have resulted in the total collapse of the US housing and mortgage market.

In terms of marriage I would argue this the other way around. Marriage "rights" or benefits granted to heterosexual couples were never the governments to grant in the first place. Marriage is a religious ceremony, not something that the state has an exclusive monopoly over. By the state granting marriage "rights" to heterosexual couples they immediately alienated homosexual couples creating a serious conflict and unintended consequence. I personally have no problem with gay marriage. I just don't feel that the state has any place in deciding whether or not it's valid. That's up to the couple themselves.

I'd be happy to see those chicken-hawk cowards hang anyday and twice on Sunday. Too bad it'll never happen.

Bullsh!t

Oh calm down... dont disappoint me now.

That was a good response.

Oh, is the first term considered warm up? C'mon... it isnt like I am singling him out, just giving him his fair share.

Whatever makes you feel better I guess.

I do. Although discrimination in this sense is not something that is easily identified. Especially considering all the moving pieces and non-tangible factors that go into the acceptance of a credit arrangement. I would argue that no ones general pursuit of hapiness is infringed when they are denied a home loan. It may not be pleasant, but life does go on and they are free to rent.

Do store owners have the right to refuse service? I think so. Should be a basic tenant of property rights. Is someone's general pursuit of hapiness infringed if they are refused service based on the color of their skin? I don't think so. Doesn't mean I think it's right either. They then have the right to picket the bigot's business to ensure he suffers for being an a$$hole.

I didn't say I felt the creator endowed rights to individuals, read again. I simply stated that because that was the view of the founders. Personally I am not a religous man. I feel an individual has rights through existence. Governments were created to protect those rights. Not sure about "enforce".

Do you really think that's it Stink?

Minority folks defaultin' on loans that the gubmint MADE the banks give 'em caused the whole house of cards to fall... really?

Unregulated trading in exotic, mortgage-backed financial derivatives had nothin' to do with it?

Just checkin'...

Well I guess "enforce" implies to me that the government is the grantor of said rights. Which can take us down a slippery slope.

"Protect" on the other hand implies that the government is there to do just that. Protect the rights that are due every living human within it's borders.

I spent close to the last ten years securitizing mortgage debt until about 2yrs ago. I've spelled out all my opinions based on my working knowledge of the industry in previous threads. Feel free to go back and read away.

But yes,.....that was a piece of the puzzle in no uncertain terms, although crudely put.

I should add that those loans extended to them were also designed to fail from the get go. It's not my opinion that because minorities couldn't pay their bills that the mortgage and housing industries crumbled.

Classical liberal,.........big difference

Exact agreement, the reason for government existence. Otherwise we'd all still be serfs.

Don't get me started on the UN KK

It's most definately gotten out of control but I don't think we are quite to the point of a failed state. Do stay tuned though

Assurance rests in the governments hands but we seem to be at odds about just how far that government should be from the people it governs. Most issues brought before the Feds today could be and should be handled at the state level.

Maybe it's a little late in the day for me but I'm not following your banter on the UN.

Gotcha. We're all sold out of fools here. Maybe try back later

Although, I do have a few issues with sovereignty. Especially considering it's now practice to pass resolutions taking us to war to enforce UN resolutions.

Agreed?

So rights are "granted" KayKay? I know that in your case the right to be an ignorant old fool has been bestowed upon you by your familial lineage. Those lines, no matter how shallow or imbred seem to express themselves nicely...

Is that what gubmint does?.....they grant us "rights".

Keep up your line of BS...it's always worth a laugh.

I'm at the shop and you ain't a "big boy" even though your mom probably told ya so.......

Happy Easter.