The President has failed us

This week, I decided to list the reasons I would not vote for Barack Obama in the next election. Read more

“Socks, socks, everywhere socks”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#143073 May 24, 2013
positronium wrote:
<quoted text>Very well stated, Jackson, for those who want to open their eyes and mind enough to see.
So, POS, what exactly is it that you agree with that Jackson stated? What do you think that people can't see?

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Coldwater, Mi

#143074 May 24, 2013
jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
So I guess there are no perverse, angry or deviant liberals.
There are all types in all shapes, sizes, colors and ideologies.
Hypocrite.
The entertainment industry is full of them and so are the "all types" that support them who buy the media to entertain themselves......with.
Could it be?

“Socks, socks, everywhere socks”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#143075 May 24, 2013
jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone has to speak up for the conservatives and their generosity. So it's wrong for me to do that?
Yes, government has purpose - groups like FEMA, etc., have their place. But when the government decides to control education, or health care, etc., it gets way too big to be effective and efficient. This state might need something different than another state. Some government programs are so overbroad they can't achieve good results for everyone under that umbrella.
It's when the oversight becomes a bargaining chip, a political tool for those in power. Throwing more money at it is not the way to solve problems, yet the government continues to want more and more. The history of government programs tells us they are overstaffed, overbroad and overpaid. And the broad strokes painted by the government brush do not help in all instances.
So, Jackson, do you think our educational systems should have federal standards, so that the person graduating from a schoolin Arizona has achieved the same level of education as one in Maine? Should all those in the individual educational system have to meet certain criteria before receiving a diploma? Should poor communities just not have the same education as more wealthy ones? Do you think it's right that a working man pays his taxes which goes to help provide health care for those less fortunate, but he cannot afford health care for himself or his family? Why is it the federal government's job to respond to natural disasters, but not their job to standardize education in this country or provide a system in which working people can receive affordable health care?

“Socks, socks, everywhere socks”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#143076 May 24, 2013
"school in"
jackson

Lexington, KY

#143077 May 24, 2013
just a sista wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong about my going to see Brad Pitt movies or seeing professional sports players, I won't waste my money with either, but just as those who donate to the Red Cross, it's all voluntary, whether someone does so or not. I choose not to. As you have a problem with actors' and athletes' pay, I take issue with a CEO of a charity who makes the same kind of money that a CEO of a business for profit would make. It doesn't sit right with me and I won't donate to it. I notice how you qualify your statement regarding local giving "when they can" and that was my point, sometimes, especially in hard economic times, people cannot give, and the need is greater. The government is about the only entity, during such times, that can provide such services to the needy, and their services are constant, not restrained by the economic situation at hand, because unlike individuals and companies, nations can borrow tremendous amounts to get their people through a crisis. But, of course, eventually the borrowed money must be paid back, through taxes. As it was pointed out earlier, freedom isn't free, but for some reason, conservatives seem to think it should be only bought with blood, not taxes.
So you don't go to movies or sports. That's your choice. Millions of others do. Yet I hear no one complaining about the liberals in hollywood or athletes making too much money. They have little responsibility and make millions more than CEOs of businesses or the heads of charitable organizations. Yet those evil CEOs make too much money!!! YOU do their job and see if you think they are overpaid. YOU have the responsibility over thousands of employees and their families for their livelihood. I wouldn't want that responsibility, even if I had the intelligence and wherewithal to do it.

I bet you would use the services of the Red Cross if your home was destroyed. Would you say no to water, blankets, shelter for your family simply because you believe the CEO makes too much money?

So if there are hard times for everyone and no one can help their neighbor, then let the government control a safety net to be used in those circumstances, like unemployment for the individual. Much smaller tax burden to the American people and the local groups can afford to do more. Money can be better, more appropriately supervised and used at the state/community level. FEMA steps in when disaster strikes and the states don't have enough to cover damages, or enough personnel to assure safety and security. Why couldn't other programs be grouped together to aid when there is need over and above the local group.

And your last statement is way out of line. Conservatives are not anti-government or anti-taxes. They are against too much government which leads to too much government control and too little oversight, which leads to more and more corruption and waste. You think what's going on now isn't the result of too much government and the desire for more? That's for another argument.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Coldwater, Mi

#143078 May 24, 2013
just a sista wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong about my going to see Brad Pitt movies or seeing professional sports players, I won't waste my money with either, but just as those who donate to the Red Cross, it's all voluntary, whether someone does so or not. I choose not to. As you have a problem with actors' and athletes' pay, I take issue with a CEO of a charity who makes the same kind of money that a CEO of a business for profit would make. It doesn't sit right with me and I won't donate to it. I notice how you qualify your statement regarding local giving "when they can" and that was my point, sometimes, especially in hard economic times, people cannot give, and the need is greater. The government is about the only entity, during such times, that can provide such services to the needy, and their services are constant, not restrained by the economic situation at hand, because unlike individuals and companies, nations can borrow tremendous amounts to get their people through a crisis. But, of course, eventually the borrowed money must be paid back, through taxes. As it was pointed out earlier, freedom isn't free, but for some reason, conservatives seem to think it should be only bought with blood, not taxes.
Conservatives think OUR principles, these which you speak of in your post, should be defended with "blood"

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Coldwater, Mi

#143079 May 24, 2013
Dropkick Murphy wrote:
An interesting Yahoo! news article. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-law-070000598.htm...
" with its plans for our improvement"
WHOA!
What kind of "improvement?
I would like to know precisely.
jackson

Lexington, KY

#143080 May 24, 2013
just a sista wrote:
<quoted text>
So, Jackson, do you think our educational systems should have federal standards, so that the person graduating from a schoolin Arizona has achieved the same level of education as one in Maine? Should all those in the individual educational system have to meet certain criteria before receiving a diploma? Should poor communities just not have the same education as more wealthy ones? Do you think it's right that a working man pays his taxes which goes to help provide health care for those less fortunate, but he cannot afford health care for himself or his family? Why is it the federal government's job to respond to natural disasters, but not their job to standardize education in this country or provide a system in which working people can receive affordable health care?
I never said any of what you just wrote.
Government has a place, national standards have a place in many areas, not just education.
However, just because I believe in national standards, does not mean I believe the federal government should run those programs.
If a business wants to build widgets, they must build widgets to a certain standard. If they do not, the widgets won't sell and the business is gone. It is up to their CEO to assure that the widgets are made to that standard in order for the company to be successful. The law of supply and demand -- if your supply is unfit, there will be no demand.
If the government controls all the widgets, who do they sell them to? The companies who donated the most to their campaign? The business your salesman's brother-in-law owns but not his competitor? What happens to the businesses who need widgets but they supported "the other guy" or who doesn't have someone on the inside? We're seeing this prejudice in play now with the IRS.
There are such things as too much government and too much government control.
Government is necessary and good. Too much government is corrupt, inefficient and ineffective.
More taxes from the rich will only go to more government -- you don't think those taxes will go to the little guy, do you? It will only succeed in making the rich less rich and the government more powerful. How does that help the little guy working as a sales clerk, or a customer service rep, in a multimillion dollar corporation? Not at all. Especially if the rich are less rich and stop buying/building those big homes (how many contractors out of work?); traveling all over the world (how many airlines and travel businesses would suffer); employing all the chauffeurs, cooks, maids, nannies, etc. Those ARE the little guys, like me, who would suffer in the long run.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Coldwater, Mi

#143081 May 24, 2013
jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
Someone has to speak up for the conservatives and their generosity. So it's wrong for me to do that?
Yes, government has purpose - groups like FEMA, etc., have their place. But when the government decides to control education, or health care, etc., it gets way too big to be effective and efficient. This state might need something different than another state. Some government programs are so overbroad they can't achieve good results for everyone under that umbrella.
It's when the oversight becomes a bargaining chip, a political tool for those in power. Throwing more money at it is not the way to solve problems, yet the government continues to want more and more. The history of government programs tells us they are overstaffed, overbroad and overpaid. And the broad strokes painted by the government brush do not help in all instances.
Many more are willing to.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Coldwater, Mi

#143082 May 24, 2013
just a sista wrote:
<quoted text>
So, POS, what exactly is it that you agree with that Jackson stated? What do you think that people can't see?
The principles that he speaks of.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Coldwater, Mi

#143083 May 24, 2013
jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said any of what you just wrote.
Government has a place, national standards have a place in many areas, not just education.
However, just because I believe in national standards, does not mean I believe the federal government should run those programs.
If a business wants to build widgets, they must build widgets to a certain standard. If they do not, the widgets won't sell and the business is gone. It is up to their CEO to assure that the widgets are made to that standard in order for the company to be successful. The law of supply and demand -- if your supply is unfit, there will be no demand.
If the government controls all the widgets, who do they sell them to? The companies who donated the most to their campaign? The business your salesman's brother-in-law owns but not his competitor? What happens to the businesses who need widgets but they supported "the other guy" or who doesn't have someone on the inside? We're seeing this prejudice in play now with the IRS.
There are such things as too much government and too much government control.
Government is necessary and good. Too much government is corrupt, inefficient and ineffective.
More taxes from the rich will only go to more government -- you don't think those taxes will go to the little guy, do you? It will only succeed in making the rich less rich and the government more powerful. How does that help the little guy working as a sales clerk, or a customer service rep, in a multimillion dollar corporation? Not at all. Especially if the rich are less rich and stop buying/building those big homes (how many contractors out of work?); traveling all over the world (how many airlines and travel businesses would suffer); employing all the chauffeurs, cooks, maids, nannies, etc. Those ARE the little guys, like me, who would suffer in the long run.
Bingo.
jackson

Lexington, KY

#143084 May 24, 2013
positronium wrote:
<quoted text>The principles that he speaks of.
Thanks, posi. We keep trying, don't we? Sometimes I wonder why we bother, but I just can't let some people get away with their lack of understanding of who we are and what we believe. I do speak for myself, but you and I seem to be of a very similar mind.
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#143085 May 24, 2013
Republicans seeking a rebirth.
Feuding within the republican clan’s is heating up. Thursday {May 23 2013], across the bow shouts could be heard, between the forces of the traditionalist republicans and the Tea Party.
John McCain {R} accuses the Tea Party of overplaying their hand and tempting the democrats to change the minority rule in favor of up and down votes. Eliminating the 60% needed to pass a bill. All that would be required is simple majority.{51%”} Similar to the six times the republicans evoked during the Bush administration.
Established conservatives of 76, opposing the 40 remaining Tea Party newcomers, lead by John McCain disagree on establishing a budget as the Tea Party opposes any budget conferences on the issue.
Eric Cantor {R} leads the gang of four; Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul {R} of Kentucky, Mike Lee {R} of Utah and Marco Rubio {R} of Florida. They won their seats in opposition to the traditionalist republicans. Infamous for their roles in the Hostage/Ransom,“Our way or the Highway” scenarios for governing our USA.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Coldwater, Mi

#143086 May 24, 2013
WARNING -

With the announcement of Microsoft's next generation gaming console, the Xbox One, it has emerged that the new system carries a device that will be constantly listening' to gamer's conversations.

http://intellihub.com/2013/05/24/xbox-one-con ...

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Coldwater, Mi

#143087 May 24, 2013
jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, posi. We keep trying, don't we? Sometimes I wonder why we bother, but I just can't let some people get away with their lack of understanding of who we are and what we believe. I do speak for myself, but you and I seem to be of a very similar mind.
You are welcome. Yes we do but they just don't see. I wonder as well and feel the same. Similar minds, I could agree.
There seems to be, imo, a pervasive contempt for our nation's most precious and (perhaps most unique) laws.

“Try Reuters.”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#143089 May 24, 2013
Senate Republicans Oppose Budget Blockade By Tea Party In Growing GOP Feud

Posted: 05/23/2013

WASHINGTON -- A tea party rebellion by several U.S. senators blocking progress on the federal budget may be working for them, but not for their fellow Republican lawmakers -- even ones who mostly agree with them.

Tension has occasionally been evident in the simmering, behind-the-scenes struggle between the Senate's tea party contingent and old-guard party members. But it erupted in public view on the Senate floor this week as Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) revealed their displeasure with their junior colleagues.

The tea partiers -- primarily Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas), Rand Paul (Ky.), Mike Lee (Utah) and Marco Rubio (Fla.)-- are blocking the Senate from appointing conferees to a conference committee with the House to work out the radical differences between the two budgets each side has passed.

That is often done in the Senate by unanimous consent. Other times, there are votes instructing conferees on how to try to shape the final bill. But the conservative cohorts want more. They are demanding that the Senate bar the conference members from doing anything that would raise the federal debt limit -- a demand that McCain lambasted for much of the week as unprecedented.
(cont.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/sena...

(((>>>>>> >>>KA-BOOM!>> >>>>>>> >))))

“Try Reuters.”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#143090 May 24, 2013
positronium wrote:
<quoted text>Conservatives think OUR principles, these which you speak of in your post, should be defended with "blood"
Whose blood? Who are the guilty and who are the innocent? Are you talking Muir Federal Building stuff? Somehow, whatever you mean, it always comes across as a threat to innocent Americans that you presume to be guilty of not being conservative enough to be good Americans.
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#143091 May 24, 2013
jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't go to movies or sports. That's your choice. Millions of others do. Yet I hear no one complaining about the liberals in hollywood or athletes making too much money. They have little responsibility and make millions more than CEOs of businesses or the heads of charitable organizations. Yet those evil CEOs make too much money!!! YOU do their job and see if you think they are overpaid. YOU have the responsibility over thousands of employees and their families for their livelihood. I wouldn't want that responsibility, even if I had the intelligence and wherewithal to do it.
I bet you would use the services of the Red Cross if your home was destroyed. Would you say no to water, blankets, shelter for your family simply because you believe the CEO makes too much money?
So if there are hard times for everyone and no one can help their neighbor, then let the government control a safety net to be used in those circumstances, like unemployment for the individual. Much smaller tax burden to the American people and the local groups can afford to do more. Money can be better, more appropriately supervised and used at the state/community level. FEMA steps in when disaster strikes and the states don't have enough to cover damages, or enough personnel to assure safety and security. Why couldn't other programs be grouped together to aid when there is need over and above the local group.
And your last statement is way out of line. Conservatives are not anti-government or anti-taxes. They are against too much government which leads to too much government control and too little oversight, which leads to more and more corruption and waste. You think what's going on now isn't the result of too much government and the desire for more? That's for another argument.
Jackson your evaluation of our laborers productivity distribution has been addressed b y various political theorist. They to take into account the “Talents” of individuals and the potential corruption of abuse through lax regulated capitalism. One book that you would find interesting; “Justice” what’s the right thing to do, by Michael J. Sandel.
Various nations have drifted away from the American poorly regulated capitalist systems that are inconsistent. Producing an inequality to its finical and consumers sectors. Promoting cycles of increasing recessions.
Sweden as one example, regulates its democracy’s capitalism, providing for their constituents a more stable secured market, for the distribution of their laborers productivity. Benefiting all from birth to cradle. From the elitist to the impoverished.
One example of their regulation on say C.E.O.’s is that their pay and benefits, can not exceed a fixed ratio on the earnings of their corporations. Golden Parachutes outlawed. Unless the voters deem it. NOT the voters of the corporate board but by the entire populace of the consumers.
Have additional facts that proves it is the conservative republican that has steadily increased our inequality in fiancées and size of the government. But that’s another kettle of fish..
jackson

Lexington, KY

#143092 May 24, 2013
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>Whose blood? Who are the guilty and who are the innocent? Are you talking Muir Federal Building stuff? Somehow, whatever you mean, it always comes across as a threat to innocent Americans that you presume to be guilty of not being conservative enough to be good Americans.
You really don't have a clue, do you? Nor do you even have any desire to try understand a different point of view. Always accusations when you don't understand. No reason to try to explain to you, you won't listen with an open mind or an open heart.
I try to understand, but all I see in return is deflection and accusation (not just you or even just liberals). Very few actually add to a discourse without blame, accusation and the ever-present "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. Unfortunately, frustration sometimes gets the better of me, too.
Bernard Forand

Cape Coral, FL

#143093 May 24, 2013

Chasm widens. Will this give birth to the Progressive Grand Old Party?
Senator Ted Cruz {R Tea Party} from Texas has launched his desires for the 2016 presidenticy as has Marco Rubio {R Tea Party} of Florida.
Cruz has revealed as he says “ A dirty little secret, republicans {traditionalist} would like very much to cast a symbolic vote against raising the debt ceiling and nonetheless to allow our democrat friends on the left side of the aisle to raise the debt ceiling.”
Mike Lee {R Tea Party} and Ted Cruz prefer the hostage/ransom method to block any progress of the Congress. John McCain {R Traditional} disagrees as this will inflame the scenario of an up and down vote by the democrats. Who will then expand that to all Key issues.
Democrats begin to set the stage. Complaining of how the republicans are blocking or delaying confirmation of top White House nominees. Including Federal Judges. Accusing a small group are abusing their powers to block actions for our Congress to proceed with the governing of our Nation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Indiana lawmakers try to quiet firestorm surrou... 3 min serfs up 53
News The 2 states Obama hasn't visited 4 min Go Blue Forever 4
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Teaman 1,207,386
News Poll: Hillary Clinton most admired woman 4 min scirocco 306
News Questions remain in officer-involved shooting a... 7 min Go Blue Forever 1
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 8 min Batch 37 Pain Is ... 309,296
News Confessions of a black atheist 9 min Savant 21
News Cheney: Obama Is 'Worst President in My Lifetime' 53 min Electra41 495
News Ted Cruz Announces White House Bid 5 hr barefoot2626 391
News Apple's Tim Cook: Anti-gay laws are 'dangerous' 5 hr OId Sailor 41
News Ted Cruz defends presidential credentials 7 hr Mothra 49
More from around the web