US Politics Question (This is okay though)

625 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
I think.

I was just reading about Romney winning and almost certainly being the Republican candidate to stand against Obama.

I was just wondering, do you only have two political parties in the US?

When it is election time, could you (if you are in the US) not stand if you wanted to?

I know you wouldn't necessarily win but you must have more than 2 choices surely.

Okay, that is all. Not contentious in my opinion, just a simple question.

Dan
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    While we technically have two major parties, there are actually many more ,but they are never large enough to create a real force to be reckoned with or,as in the case last election and this one,both the other two parties and the media decide to ignore the most viable candidate,Ron Paul.
    I hope that answers your question without getting too political.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975048].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    We have two major parties in the US, that's it.

    We do not have a parliamentary system here.

    The 2 make it hard or others to compete and many folks are somewhat reluctant to vote for a ( what we call ) a third party candidate for president.

    The last serious 3rd party candidate garnered almost 20% of the vote in 1992 -

    - H. Ross Perot and IMHO helped Bill Clinton win the White House with only about 43% of the popular vote.

    I'm not sure what you mean by stand.

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975071].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jimbo13
      Okay thanks for that.

      In UK anyone can stand for election in their constituency if they have £600. Obviously you would just be 1 MP out of 650 odd so wouldn't get much done but if I started the WF Party someone in every constituency in the UK could stand for that party and if they won in each then WF Party would be the government.

      Dan
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975091].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      We have two major parties in the US, that's it.

      We do not have a parliamentary system here.

      The 2 make it hard or others to compete and many folks are somewhat reluctant to vote for a ( what we call ) a third party candidate for president.

      The last serious 3rd party candidate garnered almost 20% of the vote in 1992 -

      - H. Ross Perot and IMHO helped Bill Clinton win the White House with only about 43% of the popular vote.

      I'm not sure what you mean by stand.

      TL
      Are you saying that only because Paul is technically a republican? Because he is certainly a force to be reckoned with this election,one way or another.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975188].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by KimW View Post

        Are you saying that only because Paul is technically a republican? Because he is certainly a force to be reckoned with this election,one way or another.

        He's been on national TV in 20 debates.

        If he was such a force he'd be doing better than 10% in the GOP primaries.

        The dude has run for president 15 times. (OK only 3 or 4 times )

        If he was such a force he should be doing better than he's doing.

        He's had his chance to make a big impression on the American public and it appears he has a small following.

        He'll never go anywhere in the GOP pres race because he's not a war hawk.


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975318].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          He's been on national TV in 20 debates.

          If he was such a force he'd be doing better than 10% in the GOP primaries.

          The dude has run for president 15 times. (OK only 3 or 4 times )

          If he was such a force he should be doing better than he's doing.

          He's had his chance to make a big impression on the American public and it appears he has a small following.

          He'll never go anywhere in the GOP pres race because he's not a war hawk.


          TL
          Again don't believe what you hear on the news.
          At Romeny's rallies he pulls a couple hundred.
          At Pauls rallies he pulls in thousands. In fact he just had one with over 5,000 supporters.
          Also Pauls supporters are really supporters in his ideas more so then the man himself. We all have the same core believes and our numbers are growing every day, especially with the youth.
          What people don't hear is he really has around 300 delegates locked, and many of the delegates for the other candidates are Paul supporters.
          If Romeny doesn't get the number on the first vote, then they have a brokered convention. Then those Paul supporters who are delegates can vote for the candidate of their choice.
          The thing with Ron Paul is that it is a movement that will live after he is gone and it is growing larger every day.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975487].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            Again don't believe what you hear on the news.
            At Romeny's rallies he pulls a couple hundred.
            At Pauls rallies he pulls in thousands. In fact he just had one with over 5,000 supporters.
            Also Pauls supporters are really supporters in his ideas more so then the man himself. We all have the same core believes and our numbers are growing every day, especially with the youth.
            What people don't hear is he really has around 300 delegates locked, and many of the delegates for the other candidates are Paul supporters.
            If Romeny doesn't get the number on the first vote, then they have a brokered convention. Then those Paul supporters who are delegates can vote for the candidate of their choice.

            The thing with Ron Paul is that it is a movement that will live after he is gone and it is growing larger every day.

            Mr. Paul has 51 delegates and Romney has 658.


            But you say he really has 300 delegates locked?

            My point is ...

            If Ron is all that, then why are his actual numbers hovering at only 10% in the GOP primaries??


            What's up with that?


            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975531].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author KimW
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Mr. Paul has 51 delegates and Romney has 658.


              But you say he really has 300 delegates locked?

              My point is ...

              If Ron is all that, then why are his actual numbers hovering at only 10% in the GOP primaries??


              What's up with that?


              TL
              So, you now believe everything you read in the press?

              Thom is right,but then we have been following him a while.
              There is also proof that there have been illegal election rigging,if you want I can give you a youtube link where Charles County Missouri Republicans denied access to ANY Ron Paul supporters to vote in the local caucus so only their chosen one can win. Don't believe me? Ask WF member Chris Ramsey, he directed me to the video and started a petition to get those official removed from office.
              Signature

              Read A Post.
              Subscribe to a Newsletter
              KimWinfrey.Com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975591].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Mr. Paul has 51 delegates and Romney has 658.


              But you say he really has 300 delegates locked?

              My point is ...

              If Ron is all that, then why are his actual numbers hovering at only 10% in the GOP primaries??


              What's up with that?


              TL
              What actual numbers?
              It's almost impossible to get "actual" numbers unless it's from his campaign. He's been concentrating more on caucus states where he goes after delegates.
              Don't forget, it isn't important who wins a primary, it's about getting delegates. So all he needs is to have enough delegates that combine with Santuriom and Gingrich delegates to keep Romeny from having a first round win.
              Remember in the first round a delegate has to vote for the candidate they where assigned to.
              Now what you don't hear in the news is that in the majority of the states so far, Ron Paul supporters have been positioning themselves as delegates for the party in their state.
              Again Romeny doesn't take the nomination in the first round, in becomes a brokered convention and the delegates are now free to vote for their candidate.
              Does that explain it a little better?
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975618].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                What actual numbers?
                It's almost impossible to get "actual" numbers unless it's from his campaign. He's been concentrating more on caucus states where he goes after delegates.
                Don't forget, it isn't important who wins a primary, it's about getting delegates. So all he needs is to have enough delegates that combine with Santuriom and Gingrich delegates to keep Romeny from having a first round win.
                Remember in the first round a delegate has to vote for the candidate they where assigned to.
                Now what you don't hear in the news is that in the majority of the states so far, Ron Paul supporters have been positioning themselves as delegates for the party in their state.
                Again Romeny doesn't take the nomination in the first round, in becomes a brokered convention and the delegates are now free to vote for their candidate.
                Does that explain it a little better?

                I can't wait until the convention to see how all this plays out.


                All The Best!!


                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975678].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  I can't wait until the convention to see how all this plays out.


                  All The Best!!


                  TL
                  Me too
                  It should be interesting.
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975729].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  I can't wait until the convention to see how all this plays out.


                  All The Best!!


                  TL
                  Prepare for an awakening...
                  Signature
                  Professional Googler
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975814].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Mr. Paul has 51 delegates and Romney has 658.


              But you say he really has 300 delegates locked?

              My point is ...

              If Ron is all that, then why are his actual numbers hovering at only 10% in the GOP primaries??


              What's up with that?


              TL
              US elections are lke plea bargans and confessions. A PB or C may be given ONLY because otherwise they risk a WORSE ordeal! People like ron paul often get votes ONLY from DIE HARD fans that want to see him succeed. a 10% poll might indicate 25% support. A friend of mine is planning on voting for paul, and asked me to. I asked him to reconsider, as paul has little chance nationally.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5976126].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                US elections are lke plea bargans and confessions. A PB or C may be given ONLY because otherwise they risk a WORSE ordeal! People like ron paul often get votes ONLY from DIE HARD fans that want to see him succeed. a 10% poll might indicate 25% support. A friend of mine is planning on voting for paul, and asked me to. I asked him to reconsider, as paul has little chance nationally.

                Steve
                I voted for him last election and will do so this election. Unless he asks his supporters to vote for someone else. I don't really see that happening though.
                He very well may carry enough weight as Thom mentioned to swing it away from one candidate or another so he very well still has a LOT of potential of being a major force in this election.
                Signature

                Read A Post.
                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                KimWinfrey.Com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5976166].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                  I voted for him last election and will do so this election. Unless he asks his supporters to vote for someone else. I don't really see that happening though.
                  He very well may carry enough weight as Thom mentioned to swing it away from one candidate or another so he very well still has a LOT of potential of being a major force in this election.
                  THAT is what I am afraid of! BTW it is unlikely he would take ANYTHING away from obama.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5976393].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    I won't comment on Congressman Paul because his followers are fanatical about him and I don't want to upset anyone here. I already have Mark Joyner pissed off at me on facebook. Lol. Plus, well, it is politics.
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5977242].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author KimW
                      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                      I won't comment on Congressman Paul because his followers are fanatical about him and I don't want to upset anyone here. I already have Mark Joyner pissed off at me on facebook. Lol. Plus, well, it is politics.
                      Well,that's not entirely accurate or fair,but ok.

                      I'm actually more interested in how you got Mark Joyner pissed at you.
                      Signature

                      Read A Post.
                      Subscribe to a Newsletter
                      KimWinfrey.Com

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5979594].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
                        Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                        Well,that's not entirely accurate or fair,but ok.

                        I'm actually more interested in how you got Mark Joyner pissed at you.
                        Yeah....you've got my imagination running wild here....details please?
                        Signature
                        Professional Googler
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5979733].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                    THAT is what I am afraid of! BTW it is unlikely he would take ANYTHING away from obama.

                    Ooooh, I so want to say a thing or two about that comment, but I don't want to get this thread nuked.

                    Terra
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5977279].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                      Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                      Ooooh, I so want to say a thing or two about that comment, but I don't want to get this thread nuked.

                      Terra
                      It's only a matter of time. :rolleyes:
                      Signature

                      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5977502].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

              You are uninformed and do not understand how delegates to the convention are selected.

              I may not know all the ins and outs of how the repubs are going to finally allocate their delegates...

              ... but I know Mr. Paul is still getting his clock cleaned after all this national exposure.


              Plenty of people show up at his rallies but he remains fighting with Gringrich for a distant 3rd place out of 4 candidates in delegates from the actual primary voting.


              But Ron Paul fans here say to stay tuned for fireworks at the convention right?


              We'll see how this plays out at the convention.


              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5977928].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                I may not know all the ins and outs of how the repubs are going to finally allocate their delegates...

                ... but I know Mr. Paul is still getting his clock cleaned after all this national exposure.


                Plenty of people show up at his rallies but he remains fighting with Gringrich for a distant 3rd place out of 4 candidates in delegates from the actual primary voting.


                But Ron Paul fans here say to stay tuned for fireworks at the convention right?


                We'll see how this plays out at the convention.


                TL
                Again, it appears you are actually believing the media.
                I even told you how to see how the republican party is lying and cheating and committing voter fraud to stop Ron Paul, and told you to contact the Warrior who told me about it and sent me to the video that proved it.
                Signature

                Read A Post.
                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                KimWinfrey.Com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5979770].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                  Again, it appears you are actually believing the media.
                  I even told you how to see how the republican party is lying and cheating and committing voter fraud to stop Ron Paul, and told you to contact the Warrior who told me about it and sent me to the video that proved it.
                  Is it the entire republican party or that branch or state you mentioned that was caught cheating??


                  Are you saying Mr. P. has a lot more actual delegates than the media is telling us about???


                  TL
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5979793].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    Is it the entire republican party or that branch or state you mentioned that was caught cheating??


                    Are you saying Mr. P. has a lot more actual delegates than the media is telling us about???


                    TL
                    Tl we already crossed that bridge.
                    Plus like Sal said.
                    There are only two republican candidates who are on the primary ballot in all 50 states. Romney and Dr. Paul.

                    There has been a few states so far that have been caught cheating.
                    Iowa and Maine come to mind off the top of my head.
                    In Maine they had whole towns where the Dr. won and the state chair listed them as having 0 votes, as in nobody voted at all.
                    The thing is many of the states where the fraud happened just have straw polls. Which are pretty meaningless. Again it's all about delegates.
                    The only states where the voting matters much are the "winner takes all" states. In those states Dr. Paul isn't wasting time campaigning, instead his organization is focusing on having those delegates be Paul supporters.
                    It's kind of like Dr. Paul is playing chess while the others are playing checkers.

                    What makes all this confusing is most people don't understand how these primaries actually work. Plus you have a biased media feeding false information to 'pimp' their favorite candidate.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5979949].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                      Tl we already crossed that bridge.
                      Plus like Sal said.
                      There are only two republican candidates who are on the primary ballot in all 50 states. Romney and Dr. Paul.

                      There has been a few states so far that have been caught cheating.
                      Iowa and Maine come to mind off the top of my head.
                      In Maine they had whole towns where the Dr. won and the state chair listed them as having 0 votes, as in nobody voted at all.
                      The thing is many of the states where the fraud happened just have straw polls. Which are pretty meaningless. Again it's all about delegates.
                      The only states where the voting matters much are the "winner takes all" states. In those states Dr. Paul isn't wasting time campaigning, instead his organization is focusing on having those delegates be Paul supporters.
                      It's kind of like Dr. Paul is playing chess while the others are playing checkers.

                      What makes all this confusing is most people don't understand how these primaries actually work. Plus you have a biased media feeding false information to 'pimp' their favorite candidate.

                      OK, I'm done with the questions about the delegates and will wait for the convention.


                      BTW,


                      The dem establishment didn't want FDR to be their nominee either but he worked around them and the rest is history.


                      Let's see how Mr. Paul handles his situation.

                      All The Best!!

                      TL
                      Signature

                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5979997].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                        OK, I'm done with the questions about the delegates and will wait for the convention.


                        BTW,


                        The dem establishment didn't want FDR to be their nominee either but he worked around them and the rest is history.


                        Let's see how Mr. Paul handles his situation.

                        All The Best!!

                        TL
                        I didn't know that, thanks.
                        It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
                        As a side note there is only one candidate whos followers claim their campaign is a 'revolution'.
                        And there is only one candidate ever who had a group of over 1,000 military personal and vets march on the white house.
                        I won't post the video, but you can find it on YouTube
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5980060].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author KimW
                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    Is it the entire republican party or that branch or state you mentioned that was caught cheating??


                    Are you saying Mr. P. has a lot more actual delegates than the media is telling us about???


                    TL
                    All I am saying is at least that one country was actually caught and I find it hard to believe that they acted on their own.The video has the 'chairman" even admitting his whole intent was to keep Paul supports from being able to have a voice in the election.

                    As far as does Ron Paul have more delegates than being reported? I honestly don't know how many he has because you can't believe what they are reporting. I do agree with Thom that there are many supporters that are positioning themselves as mainstream supporters to become delegates and one in and in a position to,they will vote their beliefs and not necessarily the main stream candidate.

                    Hell, even here in VA this was the first election I can remember where it wasn't widely publisized,and guess who was on the ballot? Romney and Paul.


                    Edit: Thom, I had forgotten about this,but I did see it reported the night it happened. The person that was suppose to report the results of every precint refused to write down the actual vote count.
                    "In Maine they had whole towns where the Dr. won and the state chair listed them as having 0 votes, as in nobody voted at all."
                    Signature

                    Read A Post.
                    Subscribe to a Newsletter
                    KimWinfrey.Com

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5980048].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          He's been on national TV in 20 debates.

          If he was such a force he'd be doing better than 10% in the GOP primaries.

          The dude has run for president 15 times. (OK only 3 or 4 times )

          If he was such a force he should be doing better than he's doing.

          He's had his chance to make a big impression on the American public and it appears he has a small following.

          He'll never go anywhere in the GOP pres race because he's not a war hawk.


          TL
          Insist on "equal coverage" in the Press and you will find out about that one. While the press is allowed to black out a candidate - ANY candidate, you do not get a fair representation. Period.

          And if he is not so valid - why has he made the ballot in ALL 50 states?

          I know he is not YOUR candidate, but just these questions should make people sit up and take notice that something is rotten - and it's not in Denmark.

          Jim -- it would be absolutely awesome if anyone could run with that little cash in the US. We got rulers instead of politicians basically because it takes millions - tens of millions to run a political campaign in the US.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5978003].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Domonkoz
          It's more likely that he will never go anywhere in the presidential races because hes not a moron.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087855].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Not a fan but here's...


    my fav Ron Paul moment.


    Thanks for a great laugh Mr. Paul.



    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975113].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jenniejohn
      Banned
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5980175].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Ron Paul: Romney 'getting pretty close to' nomination - The Hill's Video

        By the way, Paul seems to be good friends with Romney, so if he ever gives his delegates to another candidate, it's likely to be Romney.

        If Paul had ever won one primary he would have had plenty of media coverage just like Santorum and Newt all of a sudden did once they won one. There isn't a conspiracy against him by the media in my opinion. Win a primary or two and they will be camping out on your front lawn practically.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981028].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Ron Paul: Romney 'getting pretty close to' nomination - The Hill's Video

          By the way, Paul seems to be good friends with Romney, so if he ever gives his delegates to another candidate, it's likely to be Romney.

          If Paul had ever won one primary he would have had plenty of media coverage just like Santorum and Newt all of a sudden did once they won one.


          There isn't a conspiracy against him by the media in my opinion.

          Win a primary or two and they will be camping out on your front lawn practically.

          Yea Tim, rumors are Paul has some secret deal with Romney and hasn't criticized him anywhere nearly as much as the other candidates.


          I heard that Romney will select Paul's son Rand for VP as part of their deal.

          But we'll see.

          All The Best!!


          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981343].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Ron Paul: Romney 'getting pretty close to' nomination - The Hill's Video

          By the way, Paul seems to be good friends with Romney, so if he ever gives his delegates to another candidate, it's likely to be Romney.

          If Paul had ever won one primary he would have had plenty of media coverage just like Santorum and Newt all of a sudden did once they won one. There isn't a conspiracy against him by the media in my opinion. Win a primary or two and they will be camping out on your front lawn practically.
          Couldn't get that video to play.
          But let me ask you this. If the media isn't biased why is it they haven't reported on the 10,000 that showed up at his rally at UCLA?
          Why haven't they reported on the the vets. and active servicemen who marched on the white house? Which is something that never happened for another candidate.
          Also what you don't hear about is the commitment and dedication that Paul supporters have. You never hear a Paul supporter say they will vote for another candidate if he isn't on the ballot, you hear them say they will write him in. I'd be willing to bet you that you won't see Paul throwing his support to any of the other republican candidates unless they change their platform to his. I say that because he has said the same.
          The others are there to get rid of Obama, that's not Pauls goal, His is to restore liberty.
          What you and others don't get is this is a movement that has been gaining momentum for the past 4 years or longer.
          Again winning a state in a primary isn't nearly as important as positioning your supporters as delegates, something else you don't hear in the media.

          You all can think and believe what you want.
          Time will tell the outcome.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981377].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
    Originally Posted by jimbo13 View Post

    I think.

    I was just reading about Romney winning and almost certainly being the Republican candidate to stand against Obama.

    I was just wondering, do you only have two political parties in the US?

    When it is election time, could you (if you are in the US) not stand if you wanted to?

    I know you wouldn't necessarily win but you must have more than 2 choices surely.

    Okay, that is all. Not contentious in my opinion, just a simple question.

    Dan
    Dan don't believe what you read or hear in the news.
    They only report what they want you to hear and not the truth.
    The others answered the rest of your questions, so to keep this thread from being deleted I'll shut up
    Signature

    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
    Getting old ain't for sissy's
    As you are I was, as I am you will be
    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975132].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jimbo13
      I hear you Thom.

      Anyone else

      My Question Has Been Answered Thankyou

      Dan
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975162].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Of course I disagree with you,many candidates have run numerous times before being taken seriously.
    Have you even followed this election at all this year? He was the ONLY candidate that got enough votes in all 50 states to be put on the ballot.
    And yes, I believe he has run 3 times,the point being?
    He is doing much better than you apparently believe.
    Again, you don't seem to know the facts,his following is anything but small.
    Is he going to win? Probably not, but that doesn't mean he is not going to play an integral part in this upcoming election.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975350].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Of course I disagree with you,many candidates have run numerous times before being taken seriously.

      Have you even followed this election at all this year?

      He was the ONLY candidate that got enough votes in all 50 states to be put on the ballot.

      And yes, I believe he has run 3 times,the point being?

      He is doing much better than you apparently believe.

      Again, you don't seem to know the facts,his following is anything but small.

      Is he going to win?

      Probably not, but that doesn't mean he is not going to play an integral part in this upcoming election.
      He had his chance this time around since plenty of people have seen and heard him via TV.

      If he's doing so great why does he only doing about 10% tops in GOP primaries?


      He has a small & loyal following - that's it.


      He may play a bigger role in the GOP pres race by handing his delegates over to someone else - that's about it.



      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975445].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Indeed my man, indeed!
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5975828].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Originally Posted by jimbo13 View Post

    I think.

    I was just reading about Romney winning and almost certainly being the Republican candidate to stand against Obama.

    I was just wondering, do you only have two political parties in the US?

    When it is election time, could you (if you are in the US) not stand if you wanted to?

    I know you wouldn't necessarily win but you must have more than 2 choices surely.

    Okay, that is all. Not contentious in my opinion, just a simple question.

    Dan
    I don't know if ANYONE knows all the parties! There s the green, libertarian, independent, etc... But most have VERY little money and support, and NO ability to get public sector support. They MAY win local elections. Some may EVEN get an offce as high as federal senator. But it is HIGHLY unlkely that they will become president of the US.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5976026].message }}
  • Thanks for your question. The easy answer is, you certainly would think so, the way things work.
    (or don't work as the case may be)

    The fact is, whether you may sometimes not believe it, you electoral process in the UK is so much more streamlined and gets done with a lot less hoopla...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5976092].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hardraysnight
    in my country, romney is a sheep so the rest follow......
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5977269].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Yeah, all I said here anyone could agree with, so I figured it was safe. For once tl, tim, and I agree EVEN if we DO hope for different outcomes.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5977382].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    The problem with 'party animals' is they will fight to the death just to support their party - whether their candidate sucks or not - right or wrong.

    I think that is one of the many strengths of an 'independent' - some people are actually waking up and see both left and right have created the mess we are in and they hope that somebody can fix it. If they could just possibly step off of their little games competing with each other and holding the country and progress back to prove their point....

    ...but speaking of sheep the majority will just follow that fuzzy party line all the way off the edge of a cliff rather than to see the light and do what is right. It's a game like baseball to far too many but there are real consequences.

    I am not crazy about any of them, left, right, or center - but I will say that center might work for a lot of reasons - one being maybe the whole country, 'one nation under God' - not just special interest groups particularly 'the 1%'. Center might encompass a greater majority 'of the people, by the people and for the people'.

    That's people not party.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5978050].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      The problem with 'party animals' is they will fight to the death just to support their party - whether their candidate sucks or not - right or wrong.

      I think that is one of the many strengths of an 'independent' - some people are actually waking up and see both left and right have created the mess we are in and they hope that somebody can fix it. If they could just possibly step off of their little games competing with each other and holding the country and progress back to prove their point....

      ...but speaking of sheep the majority will just follow that fuzzy party line all the way off the edge of a cliff rather than to see the light and do what is right. It's a game like baseball to far too many but there are real consequences.

      I am not crazy about any of them, left, right, or center - but I will say that center might work for a lot of reasons - one being maybe the whole country, 'one nation under God' - not just special interest groups particularly 'the 1%'. Center might encompass a greater majority 'of the people, by the people and for the people'.

      That's people not party.
      I sooooo agree. We actually have one party. It has a left hand and a right hand. Neither hand stands for much of anything any more except to continue to take power from the people. I say the red team is the party of phony compassion and the blue team is the party of phony virtue.

      When congress gets behind closed doors most of them literally laugh at how feebly misinformed the voters are and how they can do any damned thing they want. We see all the fake posturing over what one team does that tilts power their way. But when the other side gets in they do absolutely nothing to undo what the other guys did because now it's their turn to plunder using the tactics they all criticized when the other guys had the throne. And all the while our freedom and liberty slips away. It's a joke.

      Ron Paul is a good man who believes in the constitution. The problem is he's not at all charismatic and doesn't come across as a leader. And since the media is owned mainly by the red and blue teams, he never has a real chance anyway.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6059073].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

        I sooooo agree. We actually have one party. It has a left hand and a right hand. Neither hand stands for much of anything any more except to continue to take power from the people. I say the red team is the party of phony compassion and the blue team is the party of phony virtue.

        When congress gets behind closed doors most of them literally laugh at how feebly misinformed the voters are and how they can do any damned thing they want. We see all the fake posturing over what one team does that tilts power their way. But when the other side gets in they do absolutely nothing to undo what the other guys did because now it's their turn to plunder using the tactics they all criticized when the other guys had the throne. And all the while our freedom and liberty slips away. It's a joke.

        Ron Paul is a good man who believes in the constitution. The problem is he's not at all charismatic and doesn't come across as a leader. And since the media is owned mainly by the red and blue teams, he never has a real chance anyway.
        I agree with all you said except that. I still believe he has much more of a chance than most are giving him credit for.
        He created a ripple last election, this year he is creating a tsunami,whether mainstream media is reporting it or not.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6059120].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Actually the straw polls in Iowa were so strongly in favor of Paul that they actually REFUSED to count the vote publicly. WTF? Fair election when we are not allowed to participate in the count because THEY don't like the popular candidate?

    THOM: I've seen reports that say Paul isn't getting many delegates and other reports that he's cleaning up. I also saw 2 reports that Paul is the ONLY repub. on the ballot in ALL 50 states. The only thing we can tell for sure is that he is on the ballot in all 50 states. Nevada was also caught playing Voter's fraud. I would think Idaho is in it as well since they did the same thing to Nader. And god knows who's got the controls of the electronic voting machines this time.


    I'd say it's time to just say "NO" electronics in the vote - paper only. There's too much crap going on. I would say that we should have anyone who refuses a public count arrested on the spot. People are aware that our votes aren't getting past their jive now and are starting to really watch what goes on in their own precincts. Ron Paul voters actually get together and count how many votes for him there are in some places and those towns better report the right number, because the voters in many places actually KNOW how many votes in the precinct are going to a certain candidate. There are also a LOT of people checking to make sure their deceased loved ones have been taken off the voting registers. With as many dead voters as we had last time, we have no clue who the live ones actually elected.

    Thom - Ron Paul followers have been gaining strength for 8 years now. He's even getting through media blackout this time.

    But the media blackout bitch I have isn't just about RP - it's for EVERY candidate who doesn't at least initially get fair time on air. We should get a chance to really listen to EVERY candidate. They should not lose equal time until they drop from the race. The media is so corrupt it's my contention that everyone should just turn OFF EVERY news channel period - and go see the candidates speak live. We do NOT have a free press and people HAVE to get that through their heads - news centers are CORPORATE owned and as such have no legal responsibility to fair, just, and open reporting. Considering WHO OWNS the news centers -- why are people still throwing up what the "news" tells us as some sort of indication of validity for an argument? Come on folks - be logical - at least enough to realize that "news" is now officially in the category of "entertainment". You get political info from sit-coms, too?
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981469].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Actually the straw polls in Iowa were so strongly in favor of Paul that they actually REFUSED to count the vote publicly. WTF? Fair election when we are not allowed to participate in the count because THEY don't like the candidate?

      THOM: I've seen reports that say Paul isn't getting many delegates and other reports that he's cleaning up. I also saw 2 reports that Paul is the ONLY repub. on the ballot in ALL 50 states. The only thing we can tell for sure is that he is on the ballot in all 50 states. Nevada was also caught playing Voter's fraud. I would think Idaho is in it as well since they did the same thing to Nader. And god knows who's got the controls of the electronic voting machines this time.


      I'd say it's time to just say "NO" electronics in the vote - paper only. There's too much crap going on. I would say that we should have anyone who refuses a public count arrested on the spot. People are aware that our votes aren't getting past their jive now and are starting to really watch what goes on in their own precincts. Ron Paul voters actually get together and count how many votes for him there are in some places and those towns better report the right number, because the voters in many places actually KNOW how many votes in the precinct are going to a certain candidate. There are also a LOT of people checking to make sure their deceased loved ones have been taken off the voting registers. With as many dead voters as we had last time, we have no clue who the live ones actually elected.

      You're actually for the election process???????????????????

      I thought you were for...



      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981494].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        THOM: I've seen reports that say Paul isn't getting many delegates and other reports that he's cleaning up. I also saw 2 reports that Paul is the ONLY repub. on the ballot in ALL 50 states. The only thing we can tell for sure is that he is on the ballot in all 50 states. Nevada was also caught playing Voter's fraud. I would think Idaho is in it as well since they did the same thing to Nader. And god knows who's got the controls of the electronic voting machines this time.
        I couldn't remember the other states earlier, but you're right Nevada and Idaho also had issues with fraud.
        This may be over the line, but name one other candidate that has this kind of support of active and veteran military personal.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981633].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          I couldn't remember the other states earlier, but you're right Nevada and Idaho also had issues with fraud.
          This may be over the line, but name one other candidate that has this kind of support of active and veteran military personal.
          CHILLING VIDEO - Veterans for Ron Paul 2012!! - YouTube

          Cool!


          I want the wars ended also.


          I thought that active military are not supposed to get involved with politics.


          Is that against the constitution???


          All The Best!!


          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981690].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            Cool!


            I want the wars ended also.


            I thought that active military are not supposed to get involved with politics.


            Is that against the constitution???


            All The Best!!


            TL
            They can't in uniform.
            It's not against the constitution, in fact they swear an oath to protect the constitution which is why so many of them support Dr. Paul.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981759].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            Cool!


            I want the wars ended also.


            I thought that active military are not supposed to get involved with politics.


            Is that against the constitution???


            All The Best!!


            TL
            How OR why would it be against the constitution?

            PM me your address and I will happily send you a free copy!
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981789].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

              How OR why would it be against the constitution?

              PM me your address and I will happily send you a free copy!

              Because once a active military person is involved in politics they may also decide it's time to change govs - via force.


              We don't do that here.


              So a law was passed prohibiting active military people from participating in politics.


              Thom mentioned that if they are out of uniform then it's OK but I don't think so.


              All The Best!!

              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981850].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                Because once a active military person is involved in politics they may also decide it's time to change govs - via force.


                We don't do that here.


                So a law was passed prohibiting active military people from participating in politics.


                Thom mentioned that if they are out of uniform then it's OK but I don't think so.




                All The Best!!

                TL
                Voting is participating in politics. Did you think active military members aren't allowed to vote?

                Here's some reading for you...http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_eth...n/1344-10.html
                Signature
                Professional Googler
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981962].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by Dave Patterson View Post

                  Voting is participating in politics. Did you think active military members aren't allowed to vote?

                  OK, my language was wrong.

                  Of course they can vote but there are a lot of other political stuff they can not do while active.

                  See my link above or below this post.


                  All The Best!!

                  TL
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981989].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981676].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Thom:
      "Couldn't get that video to play."

      I did, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Paul and Romney.It was Paul talking about medical and health care.

      I can't fathom why it was posted at all.
      Kim did you watch the whole thing?

      Part way through, the gears shift towards the election.

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981692].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Ron Paul: Romney 'getting pretty close to' nomination - The Hill's Video

        By the way, Paul seems to be good friends with Romney, so if he ever gives his delegates to another candidate, it's likely to be Romney.

        If Paul had ever won one primary he would have had plenty of media coverage just like Santorum and Newt all of a sudden did once they won one. There isn't a conspiracy against him by the media in my opinion. Win a primary or two and they will be camping out on your front lawn practically.
        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

        Kim did you watch the whole thing?

        Part way through, the gears shift towards the election.

        Terra
        Terra, I did which is why I deleted the post you so unfortunately for me quoted and made a different one.....lol

        But it still didn't say what was implied, The interviewer asked Paul if he thought Romney had a lock on the nomination and Paul said "it appears so,BUT" and then explained not really.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981780].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Terra, I did which is why I deleted the post you so unfortunately for me quoted and made a different one.....lol

          But it still didn't say what was implied, The interviewer asked Paul if he thought Romney had a lock on the nomination and Paul said "it appears so,BUT" and then explained not really.
          Sorry, LOL!

          But that is correct, there is no implication whatsoever that Paul and Romney have a deal in the making and that "But" is a big one.

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981808].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Thom, the video Tim referenced starts off about medical and health care,but about 1/2 way through the interviewer asked if Paul thought Romney had a lock on the nomination and Paul did say it looked like he was close BUT...and then added the real answer. So it is not saying what the post implied.

    I've not seen one thing that even hints at Paul and Romney being good friends.How do you make that assumption,Tim?

    TL,
    "Yea Tim, rumors are Paul has some secret deal with Romney and hasn't criticized him anywhere nearly as much as the other candidates.


    I heard that Romney will select Paul's son Rand for VP as part of their deal."

    I'd love to get the source of your "rumours".

    I DO see Rand running in 2016,but I don't see him being offered or accepting the VP.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981763].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      The story has been out quite a while Kim. Here's just one article about it.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/us...pagewanted=all

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post


      I've not seen one thing that even hints at Paul and Romney being good friends.How do you make that assumption,Tim?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981940].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        The story has been out quite a while Kim. Here's just one article about it.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/us...pagewanted=all
        It isn't quite the story that was represented. While it does say they have a friendship,which according to the article was initiated and pursued by Romney,
        It says that Paul will still speak when he disagrees with Romney and in fact Paul says in his opinion the 3 other candidates are basically the same.
        It also states that Paul can separate his personal feelings from his political feelings,which I personally applaud and also try to do the same with my friends.

        "Mr. Paul, a 76-year-old congressman from Texas, sees his three Republican rivals as more or less the same politically. He can be tough on Mr. Romney, whom he describes as a flip-flopper with a dubious political core.

        "He's been all over the place on some of this stuff," Mr. Paul said in a recent interview near his Texas home. But he seems to segregate those views from his personal feelings for Mr. Romney, whom he sees as a steady, dignified personality whose devotion to wife and family reflect his own values."
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5982011].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I think Ron Paul wants to stop the fed and recall our military home from all over the world but...

    ( if I'm wrong with the above assumptions, please correct me )



    I don't know much about his domestic economic policies.


    Can a RP fan help me out???


    Questions??



    Does he believe the fed gov should be involved in helping the nation go in a new/green energy direction??



    Does he believe the fed gov should help as many people as possible achieve higher education??



    Does he believe in social security?




    Does he believe in Medicare??





    Would he repeal the new health care law if he could???






    What's his plan to deal with our national debt???



    All The Best!!


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981818].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      First Kim I did get the video to play finally, and you're right.


      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      I think Ron Paul wants to stop the fed and recall our military home from all over the world but...

      ( if I'm wrong with the above assumptions, please correct me )

      You're correct.

      I don't know much about his domestic economic policies??


      Can a RP fan help me out???


      Questions??



      Does he believe the fed gov should be involved in helping the nation go in a new/green energy direction??



      Does he believe the fed gov should help as many people as possible achieve higher education??



      Does he believe in social security?




      Does he believe in Medicare??





      Would he repeal the new health care law if he could???






      What's his plan to deal with our national debt???



      All The Best!!


      TL
      TL I'll give this a go, hopefully I'll be able to explain it clearly.

      As far as social security and medicare, he doesn't believe the feds. should be involved with either and said he would try to repeal the S.S. amendment to the constitution, but.
      He does not want to end them now, he understands that many Americans depend on those programs. What he wants to do now is shure them up so they are solvent again.

      As for 'helping the nation go in a greener direction' keep in mind there is a difference between throwing money at something and writing laws, to steering a nation in the right direction. Does he want more legislation and money put into green energy by the govt? No. Does he want to make it easier for companies and individuals to go green by removing restrictions and regulations that hinder that? yes.

      It's almost the same with education.
      One thing he understands that most don't get is everybody doesn't need a college education. What everybody needs is a solid primary education like we got before the dept. of education was created in 79.
      He also understands that when you just give somebody money to go to college because they are "entitled" that they won't get the same quality of education as they would if they actually planned for and prepared for college on their own. Keep in mind one of the reasons a college education is so expensive is because of the government funding it.

      Yes I believe he would repeal the health care law.
      It's more involved then just repealing a law though.
      But the man is a licensed doctor and has been for something like 40 years, so I think he has a better understanding of our health care system and how to fix it then a lawyer or politician.

      As for the national debt.
      By bringing or troops home, ending foreign aid and various other methods he claims to be able to cut the budget by a trillion dollars.
      Ending the fed. reserve or at the least holding them accountable and auditable will play into it as will taking back the ownership of our money.
      Also re-establishing a free market system with us owning our currency backed by a real source such as precious metals will help with the budget.

      The man is a lot smarter then people give him credit for.
      You can find videos of him in congress predicting our current situation going back over the last few years, years before they started.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5982154].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        EXCELLENT answers Thom.
        I am out of thanks but you deserve one for that post.
        ( Actually I think they aren't working right because one minute I have it the next I don't,then it comes back again!)
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5982466].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        This is one reason why Paul won't get elected to anything beyond a congressman imo. Social Security and Medicare are very popular among all Americans, even Republicans. 80% of Americans oppose any cuts to SS. They also don't want to see it repealed. By the way, SS is not an amendment to the constitution, it's a legislative act.
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post


        As far as social security and medicare, he doesn't believe the feds. should be involved with either and said he would try to repeal the S.S. amendment to the constitution, but.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5982592].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          This is one reason why Paul won't get elected to anything beyond a congressman imo. Social Security and Medicare are very popular among all Americans, even Republicans. 80% of Americans oppose any cuts to SS. They also don't want to see it repealed. By the way, SS is not an amendment to the constitution, it's a legislative act.
          You're right I was wrong.
          The rest I won't comment on.
          I'm not in this thread to debate politics with anyone.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5982626].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      I think Ron Paul wants to stop the fed and recall our military home from all over the world but...

      ( if I'm wrong with the above assumptions, please correct me )
      I don't know much about his domestic economic policies.
      Can a RP fan help me out???
      Questions??

      Does he believe the fed gov should be involved in helping the nation go in a new/green energy direction??
      No.

      Does he believe the fed gov should help as many people as possible achieve higher education??
      No.

      Does he believe in social security?
      No.

      Does he believe in Medicare??
      No.

      Would he repeal the new health care law if he could???
      Yes.

      What's his plan to deal with our national debt???
      Dunno, but if it reflects his belief in the government acting within its constitutional boundaries, it would probably be pretty 'radical', at least in the eyes those who believe the Constitution is a 'living document'.
      Signature

      The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

      Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6060627].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        [QUOTE=SteveJohnson;6060627]No.


        No.


        No.


        No.


        Yes.


        Dunno, but if it reflects his belief in the government acting within its constitutional boundaries, it would probably be pretty 'radical', at least in the eyes those who believe the Constitution is a 'living document'.

        /QUOTE]


        Actually this has been very well publicized. He says he will cut a TRILLION from the national debt in the first year,
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6061945].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Actually this has been very well publicized. He says he will cut a TRILLION from the national debt in the first year,
          I don't pay much attention any more, it's just become too much of an energy vampire. Few people believe in limited government nowadays as they're too concerned about controlling what other people do, instead of being concerned about the viability of the country as a whole.

          I probably paint with too wide a brush, but when I think 'politician', the vision that comes to mind are the 'leviathan' creatures in the TV show Supernatural. They're perfectly normal-looking people on the outside until they want something, then it's all teeth and venom
          Signature

          The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

          Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6062646].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    TL,
    I've spent so much time on this and the Martin thread that I am behind on a few others I follow, if no one has answered your question by the time I get back I will give it a try.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981837].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Thom is correct. It's a fundamental constitutional right. Freedom Of Speech.

    Besides, having a political opinion does not equate to wanting to overthrow the government. But the reason they can't in uniform is because it ould be perceived as a government position on something when in fact it is a personal position (which we as Americans are allowed to have,no matter what our job is).

    I just offered to send you a copy of the constitution.But I will even extend that offer to anyone that posts they want a copy.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981898].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Thom is correct. It's a fundamental constitutional right. Freedom Of Speech.

      Besides, having a political opinion does not equate to wanting to overthrow the government. But the reason they can't in uniform is because it ould be perceived as a government position on something when in fact it is a personal position (which we as Americans are allowed to have,no matter what our job is).

      I just offered to send you a copy of the constitution.But I will even extend that offer to anyone that posts they want a copy.
      I got this from about.com...


      Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD)

      Directives, and specific military regulations strictly limit a military active duty person's participation in partisan political activities.

      Here's a link for more...

      Military Folks and Politics -- Political Activities by Military Personnel


      Just like there are limits to free speech in a crowded theater...

      ... there are limits to free speech for active military personal.


      I know people who are active and I was told that they can not directly criticize the POTUS.


      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5981967].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I got this from about.com...


        Federal Law (Titles 10, 2, and 18, United States Code), Department of Defense (DOD)

        Directives, and specific military regulations strictly limit a military active duty person's participation in partisan political activities.

        Here's a link for more...

        Military Folks and Politics -- Political Activities by Military Personnel


        Just like there are limits to free speech in a crowded theater...

        ... there are limits to free speech for active military personal.


        I know people who are active and I was told that they can not directly criticize the POTUS.


        All The Best!!

        TL
        You do not have to be against the President to either have a political position or to have a preference for a certain candidate. While in uniform you are correct,they are representing our country at that time and therefore cannot do anything critical of the country or government.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5982059].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Thom is correct. It's a fundamental constitutional right. Freedom Of Speech.

      Besides, having a political opinion does not equate to wanting to overthrow the government. But the reason they can't in uniform is because it ould be perceived as a government position on something when in fact it is a personal position (which we as Americans are allowed to have,no matter what our job is).

      I just offered to send you a copy of the constitution.But I will even extend that offer to anyone that posts they want a copy.

      I already have one Kim.

      Thanks,


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5982027].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I already have one Kim.

        Thanks,


        TL
        Yor Welcome.
        I just wanted to extend the offer to anyone and everyone participating in this thread.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5982067].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I am on social security(disability due to my kidney failure) and I have Medicare (parts A&B,which is basically Drs and Hospitalization,but only 80%), but I also have private insurance though not real good policy,through my wifes job. Even with that we had to do bankruptcy due to the medical costs from my illness,plus we lost a lot of what we had.

    That being said I am still for Ron Paul because of his stands on many other things.
    Let me tell you, contrary to what a lot of people think, Social Security,at least what I get after paying into the sytem for 40 years,doesn't even cover poverty level living,which is why I ended up asking for help here. That was pprobably the most humbling thing I had ever done in my life,but if I hadn't and if all of you that helped, even those that are on opposite sides of the issues at the moment hadn't there is a good chance I would have been here now. But that isn't my point.
    My point is that even though I support Ron Paul, realistically I don't think he can do all the things he says he wants to do.No president has in my lifetime yet. Too many checks and balances come into play. But I do think He can get us going in the right direction again.
    Take away my benefits,however meager they are? Even if he wanted to I don't think he could manage it.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5983082].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I am on social security(disability due to my kidney failure) and I have Medicare (parts A&B,which is basically Drs and Hospitalization,but only 80%), but I also have private insurance though not real good policy,through my wifes job. Even with that we had to do bankruptcy due to the medical costs from my illness,plus we lost a lot of what we had.

      That being said I am still for Ron Paul because of his stands on many other things.
      Let me tell you, contrary to what a lot of people think, Social Security,at least what I get after paying into the sytem for 40 years,doesn't even cover poverty level living,which is why I ended up asking for help here. That was pprobably the most humbling thing I had ever done in my life,but if I hadn't and if all of you that helped, even those that are on opposite sides of the issues at the moment hadn't there is a good chance I would have been here now. But that isn't my point.
      My point is that even though I support Ron Paul, realistically I don't think he can do all the things he says he wants to do.No president has in my lifetime yet. Too many checks and balances come into play. But I do think He can get us going in the right direction again.
      Take away my benefits,however meager they are? Even if he wanted to I don't think he could manage it.
      Kim that's just it.
      He understands that people depend on S.S. and medicare and have been paying into the system their whole lives.
      He doesn't want to take that away, he wants to make it so the money is there for us that payed into it and not being 'borrowed' against by congress.
      He wants people just coming into the work force to be able to use that money for themselves. If they want to plan for retirement they would have that money to do so. Also it would save businesses big and small money that could go to higher salaries, better benefits, or whatever can be negotiated.
      His main idea with healthcare is to put it back in the hands of the doctors and patients. Something I'm sure we can all agree that is where our healthcare should be.

      I agree he wouldn't be able to do everything he wants to do.
      But it would be a start in the right direction.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5983447].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Patrician
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Kim that's just it.

        He wants people just coming into the work force to be able to use that money for themselves. If they want to plan for retirement they would have that money to do so.
        The thing is with this Thom - what about this group of people if (a) since it sounds optional to save for retirement - What if they don't? What are you doing to do with them when they get old? (b) what if like so many they don't have enough money except to survive paycheck to paycheck - nothing to save? (this is the majority) What do we do with them when they get old? No medical, no retirement even the piddly little amount of social security that nobody could live on other than at or below the poverty level -

        Afraid you can't make it optional. Yes they should be able to put it wherever they want, like to an investment vehicle so it earns money, rather than just to sit there and (be "borrowed" or "disappeared")
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5983685].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

          The thing is with this Thom - what about this group of people if (a) since it sounds optional to save for retirement - What if they don't? What are you doing to do with them when they get old? (b) what if like so many they don't have enough money except to survive paycheck to paycheck - nothing to save? (this is the majority) What do we do with them when they get old? No medical, no retirement even the piddly little amount of social security that nobody could live on other than at or below the poverty level -

          Afraid you can't make it optional. Yes they should be able to put it wherever they want, like to an investment vehicle so it earns money, rather than just to sit there and (be "borrowed" or "disappeared")
          Ever heard of personal responsibility?
          Why is it such a far fetched idea for people to be responsible for their own lives?
          Almost everyone I know has planned for their retirement for years.
          I'm the only person I know who my social security will be important to.
          All my other friends don't need it for when they retire.
          But I made the decision not plan my retirement.
          My plan always was and still is to continue what I do till I can't anymore.
          But I knew S.S. would be there at the end.
          If it didn't exist, I would of made and executed a proper retirement plan.
          Salaries could go up. Consider now how much it costs the employeer in taxes and matching S.S. for each employee.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5983889].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Social Security,at least what I get after paying into the sytem for 40 years,doesn't even cover poverty level living,which is why I ended up asking for help here. That was pprobably the most humbling thing I had ever done in my life,but if I hadn't and if all of you that helped, even those that are on opposite sides of the issues at the moment hadn't there is a good chance I would have been here now.
      You're right about THAT! My mother only got about $1000/month(BELOW POVERTY), and that wasn't even enough to pay for the modest old folks home. She ALSO needed medicare, which ALSO died out, and THEN, she needed medicaid, which is technically illegal. My mother's funeral cost about $850, as I recall. The funeral home got a special exemption from medicaid to pay for the cremation. Her family apparently has a nice burial plot, and the family expected ME, as the only child, to pay funeral service costs. They, of course, believed the BULL SCAM PROPAGANDA of a "funeral benefit". They ****CLAIM**** that it is $250 paid by the government for the funeral. ****BULL****! It is paid ONLY if you are an only child less than like 21, or a surviving spouse.

      So they don't even really pay for the funeral. And I ended up paying over the $250 even while I was reeling over the whole ordeal.

      They probably get about 12,000+ from me every year. So basic principle would be over $372000, and they paid my mother less than $240000.

      But that isn't my point.
      My point is that even though I support Ron Paul, realistically I don't think he can do all the things he says he wants to do.No president has in my lifetime yet. Too many checks and balances come into play. But I do think He can get us going in the right direction again.
      Take away my benefits,however meager they are? Even if he wanted to I don't think he could manage it.
      You have all THAT right!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984768].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    I remember last time wasn't it true that Ron Paul's supporters were BANISHED from the Republican National Convention?

    I think he is the only good possible candidate but I have noticed how he APPEARS to start out going strong and then peters out - media - fraud - whatever - at least he hasn't dropped out yet like he did last time.

    The system/country is so broken it makes me want to puke.

    (yes kim the issues you raise are ones where i do have reservations about w/RP.)
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5983154].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I agree 100% Thom, I was addressing who it was ( I'm not scrolling back up to see,I'm bouncing between too many threads as it is) that said he couldn't win based on those two social programs/issues.
    My point is their is so much more at stake than just those things and even if he did try to get rid of them,and I agree with you he wouldn't,but even if he did, he would be unsuccessful. I think that you are also correct that being a doctor he understand the health care issue much better than most.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5983577].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cashtree
    These guys nailed it, republicans and democrats are the two largest, in fact if you google red state(republican) or blue state(democrat) you can see on a map which states vote for which typically. The media managed to once again suppress Ron Paul, but they didn't manage to suppress his message and that's what's important.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5983609].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Definitely would Thank you on that post if I had a button,Cashtree.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5983656].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Thom or Kim or any RP fan...


    Is it safe to say that under Pauls' plans for health care in the USA...


    - The health care companies are not going anywhere.


    - The uninsured will stay uninsured but will continue to cost the average insured person at least $1,000 per year.


    - Health care companies will continue their practice of dropping people when someone gets real sick and then has a big bill as they have...

    ...for about 600K families each year who are forced to file for bankruptcy - because of an health issue.

    The sword of financial doom will continue to hoover over the average Americans head who fear a medical problem will do them in.


    BTW...

    The last thing a European is worried about is going bankrupt thanks to a medial problem.


    - Woman will continue to pay more than men for coverage when there is no real reason for the practice.


    Are my assumptions correct Thom?


    If not, please correct me.



    Thanks,

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5983797].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Thom or Kim or any RP fan...


      Is it safe to say that under Pauls' plans for health care in the USA...


      - The health care companies are not going anywhere.


      - The uninsured will stay uninsured but will continue to cost the average insured person at least $1,000 per year.


      - Health care companies will continue their practice of dropping people when someone gets real sick and then has a big bill as they have...

      ...for about 600K families each year who are forced to file for bankruptcy - because of an health issue.

      The sword of financial doom will continue to hoover over the average Americans head who fear a medical problem will do them in.


      BTW...

      The last thing a European is worried about is going bankrupt thanks to a medial problem.


      - Woman will continue to pay more than men for coverage when there is no real reason for the practice.


      Are my assumptions correct Thom?


      If not, please correct me.



      Thanks,

      TL
      Well Tl I'm not a Dr., Dr. Paul is.
      So I don't know if I can fully answer your question.
      The way I understand his plans for health care is to put it in the hands of the doctors and patients and get the insurance companies out of the middle. The three main reasons for high healthcare costs are insurance, lawsuits, and profit (pharmaceutical companies).
      If you look back a little in history you will see a correlation between when healthcare costs started to sky rocket and health insurance became the norm.
      Even today you can get a better rate from a doctor if you don't have insurance and pay cash.

      As you mentioned a European isn't worried about going bankrupt over a medical issue. But I believe over there they don't have health insurance companies and their tax dollars they pay for health care, goes to health care.

      All the problems you mentioned above about our current system can really be traced back to the health insurance companies.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984007].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Well Tl I'm not a Dr., Dr. Paul is.
        So I don't know if I can fully answer your question.
        The way I understand his plans for health care is to put it in the hands of the doctors and patients and get the insurance companies out of the middle. The three main reasons for high healthcare costs are insurance, lawsuits, and profit (pharmaceutical companies).
        If you look back a little in history you will see a correlation between when healthcare costs started to sky rocket and health insurance became the norm.
        Even today you can get a better rate from a doctor if you don't have insurance and pay cash.

        As you mentioned a European isn't worried about going bankrupt over a medical issue. But I believe over there they don't have health insurance companies and their tax dollars they pay for health care, goes to health care.

        All the problems you mentioned above about our current system can really be traced back to the health insurance companies.

        So, is Mr. Paul going to ban them from doing business or something like that?

        How does he plan on getting them (Health Insurance companies) out of the picture??


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984118].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          So, is Mr. Paul going to ban them from doing business or something like that.

          How does he plan on getting them (Health Insurance companies) out of the picture??


          TL
          Honestly TL, I don't know.
          But that's why he's running for pres. and not me
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984169].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            Honestly TL, I don't know.
            But that's why he's running for pres. and not me

            Followers should know what their leaders are about.

            It's a pretty basic question in regards to his solution for our troubled health care system - if he plans on getting those companies out of the equation I'd love to know how.


            All The Best!!

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984241].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Followers should know what their leaders are about.

              It's a pretty basic question in regards to his solution for our troubled health care system - if he plans on getting those companies out of the equation I'd love to know how.


              All The Best!!

              TL
              I agree.
              But I also know that issues can be very complex.
              Do you know every detail of our current health care bill that was passed?
              Do you know every detail of the current foreign policy?
              Did you know what they where going to be before the last election?
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984285].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Pat, I agree to an extent, but I wasn't given any options. I couldn't say"let me invest the way I want to". The government just took it,and they took it for 40 years.
    The rest of your questions is exactly why we need someone like Ron Paul in office. Your repubs or dems don't give a rats ass about us anymore..Sad but true. We need term limits and we need to take away their lifetime benefits. Most people in elected offices have no concept what its like to live in the real world any more. And it is the past few presidential terms that have done the most damage to this country in decades.
    We actually had a middle class until recently. Now ,for the most part,we have the rich and the poor, and the homeless and hungry.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5983818].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Pat, I agree to an extent, but I wasn't given any options. I couldn't say"let me invest the way I want to". The government just took it,and they took it for 40 years.


      The rest of your questions is exactly why we need someone like Ron Paul in office.

      Your repubs or dems don't give a rats ass about us anymore..Sad but true.

      We need term limits and we need to take away their lifetime benefits.

      Most people in elected offices have no concept what its like to live in the real world any more. And it is the past few presidential terms that have done the most damage to this country in decades.


      We actually had a middle class until recently. Now ,for the most part,we have the rich and the poor, and the homeless and hungry.

      Let's be nice and not say nasty things about other folks.


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5983870].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Let's be nice and not say nasty things about other folks.


        TL

        Ok, what and where did I say nasty things about someone? (or are you making a joke?)
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984003].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Ok, what and where did I say nasty things about someone? (or are you making a joke?)


          You said in post #81 of this thread...


          "Your repubs or dems don't give a rats ass about us anymore..Sad but true."


          All The Best!!


          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984044].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            You said in post #81 of this thread...


            "Your repubs or dems don't give a rats ass about us anymore..Sad but true."


            All The Best!!


            TL
            Well, that is me just stating the truth. Not saying nasty things about anyone.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984075].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

              Well, that is me just stating the truth. Not saying nasty things about anyone.

              The part about the dems can be easily disputed IMHO but you go right ahead and help us understand the virtues of Ron Paul and his policies.


              Thanks,


              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984141].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                The part about the dems can be easily disputed IMHO but you go right ahead and help us understand the virtues of Ron Paul and his policies.


                Thanks,


                TL
                Well, you can dispute it all you want.I am a person that voted democratic in at least 8 presidential elections so I have earned the right to say what I feel is the truth. As always,we can all agree to disagree
                Signature

                Read A Post.
                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                KimWinfrey.Com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984723].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I would say your assumptions are exactly that.
    You are right though that currently medical problems can financially destroy people.I am proof of that.
    But a lot of that can be fixed with a few easy solutions.

    Stop rediculous lawsuits.
    Of both kinds, the malpractice suits need a reasonable cap on them
    The vultures aka lawyers that are continuously hawking on tv to join their class action suits. The only people that make money off of those are the damn lawyers.

    End the corruption in Medicare,and it is rampant. Why do you see all the companies trying to get you to get your medicare medical supplies through them? Because they know how to jack the system.
    Stop that alone and I can promise we would be saving billions of dollars a year.

    Make the insurance companies and the hoispitals charge realistic charges,no more $50 for a tylenal that they poured out of the same bottle you buy at the loca 7-11.

    I could go on and on,but I don't see those as Ron Paul issues, I see them as its time for all of us to stand up to.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5983867].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

    Ever heard of personal responsibility?
    Why is it such a far fetched idea for people to be responsible for their own lives?
    Almost everyone I know has planned for their retirement for years.
    I'm the only person I know who my social security will be important to.
    All my other friends don't need it for when they retire.
    But I made the decision not plan my retirement.
    My plan always was and still is to continue what I do till I can't anymore.
    But I knew S.S. would be there at the end.
    If it didn't exist, I would of made and executed a proper retirement plan.
    Salaries could go up. Consider now how much it costs the employeer in taxes and matching S.S. for each employee.


    Yeah - I am all for personal responsibility - but you can't 'mandate' it - we will live with the consequences of our decisions -- AND we will live with the consequences of OTHERS BAD decisions.

    That's the point. We need to worry about it before-hand because we already have too many people living on the streets. Can you imagine that at 70 or 80? Probably nobody can at 20-30 when they need to start saving for retirement.

    I never dreamed in a million years I would live this long. I didn't start to worry until I was 40 and I am behind the 8-ball too - Then what I did have going went down the tubes pretty in the 'recessions' (wholesale theft by ?) (and before that 3 bank mergers where I was laid off each time)

    I will never retire until I can't work anymore either- not that I would really want to anyway and honestly I pray fervently everyday that I will not live to see helpless, diapers, dependent. Seriously if I can still walk I will find a bridge.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984019].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      Yeah - I am all for personal responsibility - but you can't 'mandate' it - we will live with the consequences of our decisions -- AND we will live with the consequences of OTHERS BAD decisions.

      That's the point. We need to worry about it before-hand because we already have too many people living on the streets. Can you imagine that at 70 or 80? Probably nobody can at 20-30 when they need to start saving for retirement.

      I never dreamed in a million years I would live this long. I didn't start to worry until I was 40 and I am behind the 8-ball too - Then what I did have going went down the tubes in the 'recessions' (and before that 3 bank mergers where I was laid off each time)

      I will never retire until I can't work anymore either- not that I would really want to anyway and honestly I pray fervently everyday that I will not live to see helpless, diapers, dependent. Seriously if I can still walk I will find a bridge.
      Isn't social security and medicare mandates?
      You don't have the option of not paying those taxes do you?
      Allowing someone to plan their own retirement isn't a mandate, it's more of a freedom.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984095].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Patrician
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Isn't social security and medicare mandates?
        You don't have the option of not paying those taxes do you?
        Allowing someone to plan their own retirement isn't a mandate, it's more of a freedom.
        Both true statements Thom but my point is still that they won't if they have a choice. and again, yes we should have a choice HOW we do it.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984122].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

          Both true statements Thom but my point is still that they won't if they have a choice. and again, yes we should have a choice HOW we do it.
          Think of it like this Pat.
          I think it's safe to say that the majority of people who didn't plan for retirement knew S.S. would be there for them. So why do the responsible thing when your butt is still covered. If the system wasn't there then you would either have to be a responsible adult or you would pay the price.
          But it would be on you, and you are the one that would have the freedom to make the choice.
          But there are other problems with the current S.S. system.
          For example under this system, if I die tomorrow the government gets all the money I paid into the system. If I had children under 19 they would get a small amount every month till they turned 19. If I was married my wife would get a small check and maybe $250 to bury me.
          But I'm single so the government gets it all
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984230].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Ron Paul is a libertarian. He doesn't think the government should be involved in anything really. If he had his way there would be: no social security, no medicare, no public schools, no government involved in cleaning up pollution, no information labels on foods, etc... Paul would have voted against the civil rights bill of 1964 because it "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices." Recently Paul said the victims of the tornadoes in the midwest shouldn't get any federal aid: "The people who live in tornado alley, just as I live in hurricane alley, they should have insurance."

        Here's Ron Paul's vision of the US:

        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984204].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KimW
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Ron Paul is a libertarian. He doesn't think the government should be involved in anything really. If he had his way there would be: no social security, no medicare, no public schools, no government involved in cleaning up pollution, no information labels on foods, etc... Paul would have voted against the civil rights bill of 1964 because it "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices." Recently Paul said the victims of the tornadoes in the midwest shouldn't get any federal aid: "The people who live in tornado alley, just as I live in hurricane alley, they should have insurance."

          Here's Ron Paul's vision of the US:

          REGULATION VACATION CELEBRATION! - YouTube
          I didn't watch the video this time, but I'm just going to address sa couple of things.
          Yes Paul would get the government out of a lot of things,IF he could actually pull it off,but realistically,unless he was elected then immediately declared himself dictator of the country,we ALL know it would be impossible to do what he claims he wants.
          As I mentioned several times before, our country has too many checks and balances in the system to even worry about many of those things happening.
          Instead,and this is just my desire, I hope he can wake up enough people to get the people involved enough to effect some real change for the better in thsi country,because right now it's on a landslide down into Dismal swamp.
          Signature

          Read A Post.
          Subscribe to a Newsletter
          KimWinfrey.Com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984754].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by KimW View Post

            I didn't watch the video this time, but I'm just going to address sa couple of things.
            Yes Paul would get the government out of a lot of things,IF he could actually pull it off,but realistically,unless he was elected then immediately declared himself dictator of the country,we ALL know it would be impossible to do what he claims he wants.
            As I mentioned several times before, our country has too many checks and balances in the system to even worry about many of those things happening.
            Instead,and this is just my desire, I hope he can wake up enough people to get the people involved enough to effect some real change for the better in thsi country,because right now it's on a landslide down into Dismal swamp.
            Don't fall for it Kim.
            Everything in Tim's post is either taken so far out of context it's ridiculous or speculation.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5985014].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thetrafficguy
    There are independents and it is growing, but yes only 2 major parties.

    Centralized power takes its effects
    Signature
    "SUPER AFFILIATE EXPOSES Highly Profitable Traffic Source!"

    "Use This Trick To Make An Extra $50 - $500 Per DAY!"
    Click Here To Check It Out Before The Price Jumps Up AGAIN!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984314].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    A "Thanks" to you Steve ( I think they are stealing my Thanks button,so this will have to suffice)
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5984781].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    But my reply is sincere!
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5985024].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Here's Ron Paul commenting on a hypothetical health care situation...


    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5987733].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Here's Ron Paul commenting on a hypothetical health care situation...


      Heckler interrupts Ron Paul hypothetical health care question - YouTube
      Notice the applause he got for his reply
      Freedom and personal responsibility.
      Tell me what is wrong with that?
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5987983].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Notice the applause he got for his reply
        Freedom and personal responsibility.
        Tell me what is wrong with that?
        There's nothing wrong with personal responsibility.

        Absolutely nothing.


        More on health care since it's one of the most important issues facing Americans.


        Thom, the new health care law provides these benefits to Americans once all the benefits kick in about 2014.


        This is a short list of the benefits as there are more.


        - Providers will not be able to deny coverage to those that can't afford it.


        - Women will not pay more than men for coverage.


        Right now, about 30 states allow it.


        - Providers will not be able to drop someone once they get sick and have a huge bill.


        - 600K Americans ( at least ) will no longer file for bankruptcy each year because of a medical problem thanks to the above situation.


        - Americans will not have a sword ( of a medical prob bankrupting them ) hanging over our heads - for all our lives.


        Europeans don't have this problem either.


        - Americans will not have to buy health insurance for themselves once they reach the age of 21 - we can stay on our parents plan until we are 26 - saving the family member about 3K per year.


        Thom,


        Is it safe to say that under the Ron Paul health care plan/policy...


        All of the above benefits will be cancelled?


        All The Best!!


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5988447].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Thom, the new health care law provides these benefits to Americans once all the benefits kick in about 2014.
          No it doesn't TL.
          The new law says if you don't have insurance you have to pay a fine to the IRS. They aren't providing anything except a mandate which benefits the health insurance companies.
          What they are doing is forcing you to buy health insurance weather you want it or not.
          That promotes neither freedom or personal responsibility, but it does promote more government intrusion into our private lives.
          Taking away personal responsibility.
          I don't really have health insurance.
          I do have medicare part b, which has actually prevented me from getting affordable health insurance.
          I'll explain that. NYS has a program where if you don't have insurance you can get it at a rate based on your income. The insurance comes from the regular providers such as CDPHP and Fedelis. But because I have medicare I'm not eligible for the program. The only way I can be eligible with medicare is to go on welfare.
          So my federal medicare is free but it only covers over night hospital stays and doesn't cover any doctor fees or test fees, just the room and board.
          And even then they only cover 80%.
          I can get part a, but that will cost me $80+ a month, and still not cover doctor expenses 100%.
          Under the new healthcare law, that won't change, except I will probably be required to buy part a.
          Now without that I would be eligible for insurance under the state program and I would have 100% coverage for everything, at a cost of approximately $30 a month which would rise or fall depending on my income. In other words I could have truly affordable health insurance if the federal govt, didn't interfere.
          So I would actually have a chance of affordable health care under Dr. Paul's plan.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5988827].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            No it doesn't TL.

            The new law says if you don't have insurance you have to pay a fine to the IRS.

            They aren't providing anything except a mandate which benefits the health insurance companies.

            What they are doing is forcing you to buy health insurance weather you want it or not.

            That promotes neither freedom or personal responsibility, but it does promote more government intrusion into our private lives.

            Taking away personal responsibility.

            I don't really have health insurance.

            I do have medicare part b, which has actually prevented me from getting affordable health insurance.

            I'll explain that. NYS has a program where if you don't have insurance you can get it at a rate based on your income. The insurance comes from the regular providers such as CDPHP and Fedelis. But because I have medicare I'm not eligible for the program. The only way I can be eligible with medicare is to go on welfare.
            So my federal medicare is free but it only covers over night hospital stays and doesn't cover any doctor fees or test fees, just the room and board.
            And even then they only cover 80%.

            I can get part a, but that will cost me $80+ a month, and still not cover doctor expenses 100%.

            Under the new healthcare law, that won't change, except I will probably be required to buy part a.
            Now without that I would be eligible for insurance under the state program and I would have 100% coverage for everything, at a cost of approximately $30 a month which would rise or fall depending on my income. In other words I could have truly affordable health insurance if the federal govt, didn't interfere.
            So I would actually have a chance of affordable health care under Dr. Paul's plan.

            Thom, those benefits will be real for most Americans and that is a simple fact.


            Let's not talk about the mandate for now.


            But we can talk about it later if you like.


            I'd simply like to know if those benefits under the ACA will disappear under the RP health care plan - that's all.



            All The Best!!

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5988930].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Thom, those benefits will be real for most Americans and that is a simply fact.


              Let's not talk about the mandate for now.


              But we can talk about it later if you like.


              I'd simply like to know if those benefits under the ACA will disappear under the RP health care plan - that's all.



              All The Best!!

              TL
              Not necessarily.
              I feel confidant that the mandate will disappear though.
              Why not talk about the mandate?
              It's an important part of the law.
              So far you've brought this up twice.
              Europeans don't have this problem either.
              But like I said earlier, they don't have the health insurance companies in the middle.
              Yes they pay higher taxes, but the money they pay in taxes goes to health care.
              Our taxes will be going to the 6,000 new IRS employees that will be hired to watch us and make sure we have ins. or pay the fine.
              I never said the whole health care law is bad, but I don't see how it is even close to what they have in Europe or to what we could have here.
              It's a simple fact that the more government tries to run our lives, the worse our lives become.
              We become more and more dependent on them every day and in doing so we are losing our self- responsibility and are forgetting how to depend on ourselves, family, and community.

              So why should I be denied my freedom to choose weather I want health insurance or to choose what type of medical help I prefer, because someone else in the country wants the government to hold their hand and take care of them?
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5989097].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                Not necessarily.
                I feel confidant that the mandate will disappear though.
                Why not talk about the mandate?
                It's an important part of the law.
                So far you've brought this up twice.

                But like I said earlier, they don't have the health insurance companies in the middle.
                Yes they pay higher taxes, but the money they pay in taxes goes to health care.
                Our taxes will be going to the 6,000 new IRS employees that will be hired to watch us and make sure we have ins. or pay the fine.
                I never said the whole health care law is bad, but I don't see how it is even close to what they have in Europe or to what we could have here.
                It's a simple fact that the more government tries to run our lives, the worse our lives become.
                We become more and more dependent on them every day and in doing so we are losing our self- responsibility and are forgetting how to depend on ourselves, family, and community.

                So why should I be denied my freedom to choose weather I want health insurance or to choose what type of medical help I prefer, because someone else in the country wants the government to hold their hand and take care of them?

                The mandate is an discussion for later in this thread.


                I just wanted to make sure I got this right - regarding benefits.


                Since Ron Paul isn't into forcing/mandating anyone - including businesses and health care providers...

                ... to do anything, ...


                ... I can only surmise that if he has his way, all these benefits would disappear with his health care plan.


                - Providers will not be able to deny coverage to those that can't afford it.


                - Providers will not be able to deny coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.


                - 95% of Americans will have a health care plan.


                - Women will not pay more than men for coverage.


                Right now, about 30 states allow it.


                - Providers will not be able to drop someone once they get sick and have a huge bill.


                That one is a biggie!


                - 600K Americans ( at least ) will no longer file for bankruptcy each year because of a medical problem thanks to the above situation.


                Damn! I know it's a big country but 600k a year?


                Sooner or later it's gana be me or someone I know who will escape that fate thanks to this benefit.


                - Americans will not have a sword ( of a medical prob bankrupting them ) hanging over our heads - for all our lives.


                Europeans or the Japanese don't have this problem either.


                - Americans will not have to buy health insurance for themselves once they reach the age of 21 - we can stay on our parents plan until we are 26 - saving the family member about 3K per year.


                - Providers can no longer establish lifetime or annual dollar limits of coverage.

                - Beginning in 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will receive a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs and biologics when they reach the dreaded donut hole.

                These are the first steps toward completely filling in the donut hole by 2020.

                - Providers will be forced to spend 80% of the money they take in on actual care.

                If not they must give rebates to policy holders for the difference.


                Wow, most people can easily agree that this is a nice set of health care benefits.


                But since Mr. Paul is seriously adverse to forcing anyone into doing anything...


                ... all these great benefits for the American people will be eliminated if Ron Paul has his way.


                I'm clear now.


                Thanks,


                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5990513].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  The mandate is an discussion for later in this thread.


                  I just wanted to make sure I got this right - regarding benefits.


                  Since Ron Paul isn't into forcing/mandating anyone - including businesses and health care providers...

                  ... to do anything, ...


                  ... I can only surmise that if he has his way, all these benefits would disappear with his health care plan.


                  - Providers will not be able to deny coverage to those that can't afford it.


                  - Providers will not be able to deny coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.


                  - 95% of Americans will have a health care plan.


                  - Women will not pay more than men for coverage.


                  Right now, about 30 states allow it.


                  - Providers will not be able to drop someone once they get sick and have a huge bill.


                  That one is a biggie!


                  - 600K Americans ( at least ) will no longer file for bankruptcy each year because of a medical problem thanks to the above situation.


                  Damn! I know it's a big country but 600k a year?


                  Sooner or later it's gana be me or someone I know who will escape that fate thanks to this benefit.


                  - Americans will not have a sword ( of a medical prob bankrupting them ) hanging over our heads - for all our lives.


                  Europeans or the Japanese don't have this problem either.


                  - Americans will not have to buy health insurance for themselves once they reach the age of 21 - we can stay on our parents plan until we are 26 - saving the family member about 3K per year.


                  - Providers can no longer establish lifetime or annual dollar limits of coverage.

                  - Beginning in 2011, Medicare beneficiaries will receive a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs and biologics when they reach the dreaded donut hole.

                  These are the first steps toward completely filling in the donut hole by 2020.

                  - Providers will be forced to spend 80% of the money they take in on actual care.

                  If not they must give rebates to policy holders for the difference.


                  Wow, most people can easily agree that this is a nice set of health care benefits.


                  But since Mr. Paul is seriously adverse to forcing anyone into doing anything...


                  ... all these great benefits for the American people will be eliminated if Ron Paul has his way.


                  I'm clear now.


                  Thanks,


                  TL

                  TL,

                  Here is the Ron Paul proposed legislation regarding health care:

                  Private Option Health Care Act

                  I have no opinion on this at the moment because I am still researching, but it hardly equals Ron Paul wants no health care.

                  Draw your conclusions, but draw them after reading.

                  Mike
                  Signature

                  Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5990597].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                    TL,

                    Here is the Ron Paul proposed legislation regarding health care:

                    Private Option Health Care Act

                    I have no opinion on this at the moment because I am still researching, but it hardly equals Ron Paul wants no health care.

                    Draw your conclusions, but draw them after reading.

                    Mike

                    I never said that RP wants no health care.

                    Please re-read my post.


                    Will read RP's health plan over the weekend.

                    Thanks,

                    TL
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5991282].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      I never said that RP wants no health care.

                      Please re-read my post.


                      Will read RP's health plan over the weekend.

                      Thanks,

                      TL

                      Whatever :rolleyes:
                      Signature

                      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5991480].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                    TL,

                    Here is the Ron Paul proposed legislation regarding health care:

                    Private Option Health Care Act

                    I have no opinion on this at the moment because I am still researching, but it hardly equals Ron Paul wants no health care.

                    Draw your conclusions, but draw them after reading.

                    Mike
                    I never said Mr. Paul wants no health care or does not have a health care plan.


                    I just read it and...


                    It's an interesting plan and I like the part about importing approved drugs and being able to purchase plans across state lines.


                    If I understand correctly, ( and maybe I don't )...

                    ...everyone who pays for a health plan receives...


                    100% reimbursement for their medial plans...


                    ... and expenses.


                    Wow!!

                    ( if true )

                    That would handle most of the benefits of the ACA that I list earlier in this thread.

                    I guess that would work around the huge problem of providers dropping folks when they get sick and have a huge medical bill.


                    It's affecting at least 600K families a year in the USA and it needs to stop asap.

                    This is a big concern of mine.


                    Questions...


                    How does he pay for his plan??


                    This is important.


                    What does his plan do for the yearly budget and national debt outlook?


                    Does it raise the debt when compared to what the feds are spending now or what?


                    I couldn't get any of that info from reading his plan.


                    Question????...


                    Is everyone ( or close to everyone ) covered in RP's plan?


                    If not, that's a bummer and just a deal breaker for me.



                    Why??


                    Other "advanced" countries cover nearly everyone so I don't see why we can't do it also.



                    Question??????????

                    - How would Ron Paul's plan address people who simply can't afford any health care plan?

                    Would it be just to bad for them and they'll have to depend on charity etc. when they get sick.


                    If he has no plans for these people and wants them to depend of the good graces of the society - if/when they get sick - then that's a bummer.


                    Is Mr. Paul in favor of phasing out medicare??


                    IMHO, that would not be cool if that's the case.


                    - I also hope women would not pay more than men for coverage with Mr. Paul's plan.


                    All The Best!!


                    TL
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995072].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      There's not much for the fed. to pay for under his plan.
                      Much of the cost in the current plan we have is administrative.
                      6,000 new IRS employees, etc.
                      His plan won't mandate coverage for everyone, but it should lower the costs making it more affordable to everyone.
                      Myself I'd love to see medicare either phased out or at the least fixed.
                      I have a feeling that anyone else that has had to use medicare would agree.
                      Like with S.S. RP doesn't want to end it now, but phase it out in the future.
                      Now again like S.S. if he can make the program work like it is suppose to, and make it solvent then I don't really see either of them being phased out in the future.
                      As for everyone affording insurance, why can't the residents of other states pressure there reps. to put plans in place like NY has?
                      With NY's Child health plus and family health plus plans everyone can afford insurance. The only way really that you can't get it here is if you have medicare.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995263].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        There's not much for the fed. to pay for under his plan.
                        Much of the cost in the current plan we have is administrative.
                        6,000 new IRS employees, etc.
                        His plan won't mandate coverage for everyone, but it should lower the costs making it more affordable to everyone.
                        Myself I'd love to see medicare either phased out or at the least fixed.
                        I have a feeling that anyone else that has had to use medicare would agree.
                        Like with S.S. RP doesn't want to end it now, but phase it out in the future.
                        Now again like S.S. if he can make the program work like it is suppose to, and make it solvent then I don't really see either of them being phased out in the future.
                        As for everyone affording insurance, why can't the residents of other states pressure there reps. to put plans in place like NY has?
                        With NY's Child health plus and family health plus plans everyone can afford insurance. The only way really that you can't get it here is if you have medicare.

                        So people who still can't afford care under his plan are S.O.L.?

                        Is that correct??


                        Anyway,


                        You've mentioned twice, the alleged 6,000 new IRS employees supposedly needed to enforce the ACA.

                        I can't find it doing a search of Ron Paul's site.

                        Do you have a decent source for that allegation?

                        There have been many mis-truths regarding the ACA and this may be one of the biggest IMHO.

                        Please help.

                        All The Best!!

                        TL
                        Signature

                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995416].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                          So people who still can't afford care under his plan are S.O.L.?

                          Is that correct??


                          Anyway,


                          You've mentioned twice, the alleged 6,000 new IRS employees supposedly needed to enforce the ACA.

                          I can't find it doing a search of Ron Paul's site.

                          Do you have a decent source for that allegation?

                          There have been many mis-truths regarding the ACA and this may be one of the biggest IMHO.

                          Please help.

                          All The Best!!

                          TL
                          TL in reading that I realized I made a mistake. I should of been typing 600 not 6,000. My bad and I apologize for it.
                          I can't find the exact article I read that in. But it has to do with the extra burden on the IRS in implementing the new mandate.
                          I know 600 isn't really a big deal, so it doesn't validate what I've been saying about it being an issue.
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995529].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                            TL in reading that I realized I made a mistake. I should of been typing 600 not 6,000. My bad and I apologize for it.
                            I can't find the exact article I read that in. But it has to do with the extra burden on the IRS in implementing the new mandate.
                            I know 600 isn't really a big deal, so it doesn't validate what I've been saying about it being an issue.
                            Actually, they DID hire 4500 new ones, for that plan. 3997 are agents to audit, etc... That leaves 503 desk jobs. So it IS more than 600.

                            Steve
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995576].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                              Actually, they DID hire 4500 new ones, for that plan. 3997 are agents to audit, etc... That leaves 503 desk jobs. So it IS more than 600.

                              Steve
                              Steve,

                              I saw an article with similar numbers, but it was saying that was GOING to be the amount. Where did you read that this is how many that have already been hired?

                              Mike
                              Signature

                              Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995580].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                                Steve,

                                I saw an article with similar numbers, but it was saying that was GOING to be the amount. Where did you read that this is how many that have already been hired?

                                Mike
                                Well, ONE reference is: IRS to Hire 4500 New Revenue Agents
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995592].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                            TL in reading that I realized I made a mistake.

                            I should of been typing 600 not 6,000.

                            My bad and I apologize for it.

                            I can't find the exact article I read that in.

                            But it has to do with the extra burden on the IRS in implementing the new mandate.

                            I know 600 isn't really a big deal, so it doesn't validate what I've been saying about it being an issue.

                            I just heard/found that some congress persons are/were saying it could be as high as 16,500!

                            Even Ron Paul is quoted as saying it at this source.

                            FactCheck.org : IRS Expansion

                            Seriously disputes that number etc.

                            I think it's a bit of a stretch to put it kindly.


                            But...

                            On an update, the article mentions another 1,200 employees and another 193 agents.


                            All The Best!!


                            TL
                            Signature

                            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995604].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                          So people who still can't afford care under his plan are S.O.L.?

                          Is that correct??


                          Anyway,


                          You've mentioned twice, the alleged 6,000 new IRS employees supposedly needed to enforce the ACA.

                          I can't find it doing a search of Ron Paul's site.

                          Do you have a decent source for that allegation?

                          There have been many mis-truths regarding the ACA and this may be one of the biggest IMHO.

                          Please help.

                          All The Best!!

                          TL
                          TL,

                          Rumor had it back in 2010, RP suggested about 16,000 new employees may be needed. Of course, that was in the early days and no one really knew.

                          In the MANY sites I found (including the IRS site) stated the IRS requested 1293 new employees specifically for the new health care law for FYE 2011, to be used in many capacities.

                          From there, sources vary on how many more would be needed by 2014 when the law is in full swing. I read anywhere between another 2 - 3,000 to over 5,000. But again, no one really knows until everything is in place. Perhaps it will hold at around 3,000. Maybe it will balloon to 10,000.

                          So, looking for "facts" on this is difficult. Except for the 1293 that were already hired.

                          Mike
                          Signature

                          Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995543].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                          So people who still can't afford care under his plan are S.O.L.?

                          Is that correct??


                          Anyway,


                          You've mentioned twice, the alleged 6,000 new IRS employees supposedly needed to enforce the ACA.

                          I can't find it doing a search of Ron Paul's site.

                          Do you have a decent source for that allegation?

                          There have been many mis-truths regarding the ACA and this may be one of the biggest IMHO.

                          Please help.

                          All The Best!!

                          TL
                          Well, they DID recently hire 4500 for it! Isn't that ENOUGH!!!!!!

                          And *****************NOBODY***************** wants health insurance! NOBODY! GOT THAT!? Why does EVERYONE take some goal, or a method to attain that goal, name it, change the actual item named, and say THAT is what they want!? I once dropped AT&T because they did NOT understand what I want! They said I had a working phone. Well, I did NOT want that! WHY? It is simply another thing to worry about! They said I have "service". Well, I did NOT want THAT! It is simply another BILL! I wanted to be able to talk to someone else OVER the phone. They REFUSED to do that in detroit or virginia, where I needed it, so I DROPPED THEM! ODD that a place supposedly stating they would do that couldn't understand the concept.

                          NOBODY wants ANY kind of insurance!

                          The reason why people have health insurance is *****NOT***** to have health insurance! It is to be able to have potential health problems they have taken care of!

                          So if giving "health insurance" to everyone devalues or disables, the ability of the people that CURRENTLY have their needs taken care of to have their needs taken care of that HELL YES! The poor should be SOL!

                          What good is it to have everyone "insured" if the coverage is worthless? Kim is here today ONLY because he managed to be covered as well as he was and you heard him, it was NO walk in the park! I had to pay a lot TOO! And NOW, the HOSPITAL is saying that they plan to cut me off, EVEN though I am paying! They made over $3000 off me, NOT including the operation that was over $200K!

                          HECK, CVS setup minute clinics that probably could handle most of the stuff the poor go in for.

                          Steve
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995554].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      I never said Mr. Paul wants no health care or does not have a health care plan.


                      I just read it and...


                      It's an interesting plan and I like the part about importing approved drugs and being able to purchase plans across state lines.


                      If I understand correctly, ( and maybe I don't )...

                      ...everyone who pays for a health plan receives...


                      100% reimbursement for their medial plans...


                      ... and expenses.


                      Wow!!

                      ( if true )

                      That would handle most of the benefits of the ACA that I list earlier in this thread.

                      I guess that would work around the huge problem of providers dropping folks when they get sick and have a huge medical bill.


                      It's affecting at least 600K families a year in the USA and it needs to stop asap.

                      This is a big concern of mine.


                      Questions...


                      How does he pay for his plan??


                      This is important.


                      What does his plan do for the yearly budget and national debt outlook?


                      Does it raise the debt when compared to what the feds are spending now or what?


                      I couldn't get any of that info from reading his plan.


                      Question????...


                      Is everyone ( or close to everyone ) covered in RP's plan?


                      If not, that's a bummer and just a deal breaker for me.



                      Why??


                      Other "advanced" countries cover nearly everyone so I don't see why we can't do it also.



                      Question??????????

                      - How would Ron Paul's plan address people who simply can't afford any health care plan?

                      Would it be just to bad for them and they'll have to depend on charity etc. when they get sick.


                      If he has no plans for these people and wants them to depend of the good graces of the society - if/when they get sick - then that's a bummer.


                      Is Mr. Paul in favor of phasing out medicare??


                      IMHO, that would not be cool if that's the case.


                      - I also hope women would not pay more than men for coverage with Mr. Paul's plan.


                      All The Best!!


                      TL
                      If he paid for the insurance, premiums would be lower, health costs would likely be lower, and it would be a lower cost than trying to pay for all services. ALSO, you wouldn't be gearing up infrastructure to support it. Still, he probably meant taking it out of the persons income. The current tax plan DOESN'T! The stuff ends up getting taxed MULTIPLE times.

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995349].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Being able to buy health insurance across state lines is an old Republican idea that sounds good but has some real problems. One of them is that what happened to credit cards could happen to health insurance, which is the banks/corporations look for the best deal possible for them and worst deal for consumers, find a desperately poor state willing to lower regulations and standards, use that state as a home base for the industry and voila: no real choices and a bad product for consumers. With the credit card industry South Dakota was the poor state willing to give the deal to the banks. Soon after other states wanted some of the business and it was a race to the bottom as far as a product for consumers was concerned. It's not a good idea or even very original.

                      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...more/rise.html

                      http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...oss_state.html

                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      .. and being able to purchase plans across state lines.

                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995666].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Being able to buy health insurance across state lines is an old Republican idea that sounds good but has some real problems. One of them is that what happened to credit cards could happen to health insurance, which is the banks/corporations look for the best deal possible for them and worst deal for consumers, find a desperately poor state willing to lower regulations and standards, use that state as a home base for the industry and voila: no real choices and a bad product for consumers. With the credit card industry South Dakota was the poor state willing to give the deal to the banks. Soon after other states wanted some of the business and it was a race to the bottom as far as a product for consumers was concerned. It's not a good idea or even very original.

                        Secret History Of The Credit Card - More To Explore | FRONTLINE | PBS

                        Ezra Klein - Selling insurance across state lines: A terrible, no good, very bad health-care idea

                        Interesting Tim.

                        Ezra is saying that this thing about buying insurance across state line will not help at least control costs at all.

                        Is that right??

                        That article by Erza Kline demolishes the concept and gives examples why it won't help.


                        Thanks for the info.




                        What do you think about Ron Paul's plan to pay 100% of all medical expenses for everyone that purchases a plan.


                        That's what it looks like on his website as it describes his proposed legislation and even lists the legislation.





                        I really want to know if everyone is covered under his plan.

                        Mike seems to think so.

                        But I don't know.



                        Tim,


                        IYHO...


                        What happens to people who can not afford to purchase a plan in RP's plan??


                        All The Best!!


                        TL
                        Signature

                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995786].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                          Interesting Tim.

                          So you're saying that this thing about buying insurance across state line will not help at least control costs IHMO.

                          Is that right??


                          What do you think about Ron Paul's plan to pay 100% of all medical expenses for everyone that purchases a plan.


                          That's what it looks like on his website as it describes his proposed legislation and even lists the legislation.





                          I really want to know if everyone is covered under his plan.

                          Mike seems to think so.

                          But I don't know.



                          Tim,


                          IYHO...


                          What happens to people who can not afford to purchase a plan in RP's plan??


                          All The Best!!


                          TL

                          TL,

                          You like to tell people to re-read what you post. Now I say the same to you.

                          I did NOT say RPs plan would cover most everyone. In fact, I stated I had no opinion yet.

                          What I DID say was:

                          "I agree we need to make health care available to everyone. In fact, pretty much everyone does on both sides. The differences lie in the ways to achieve it. And between the two, I favor RPs plan."

                          I hope that clears up what I ACTUALLY said

                          Mike
                          Signature

                          Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995812].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                            Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                            TL,

                            You like to tell people to re-read what you post. Now I say the same to you.

                            I did NOT say RPs plan would cover most everyone. In fact, I stated I had no opinion yet.

                            What I DID say was:

                            "I agree we need to make health care available to everyone. In fact, pretty much everyone does on both sides. The differences lie in the ways to achieve it. And between the two, I favor RPs plan."

                            I hope that clears up what I ACTUALLY said

                            Mike

                            Sorry, I mis-interrupted this statement from you...

                            You said...

                            "I agree we need to make health care available to everyone.

                            In fact, pretty much everyone does on both sides.

                            The differences lie in the ways to achieve it.

                            And between the two, I favor RPs plan."


                            TL
                            Signature

                            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995848].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          I think you misunderstood it TL. It only says people would be able to deduct health care expenses from their taxes. That can be a great savings for some but for many it would have no effect at all I would think. I would say more than 50% of Americans wouldn't see any benefit from this and these are the ones who are currently uninsured. So, this part of his plan does nothing for the tens of millions who are uninsured. I really don't see much else in his plans to address these millions who are currently uninsured. Zilch. Nada. Nil.

                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                          What do you think about Ron Paul's plan to pay 100% of all medical expenses for everyone that purchases a plan.


                          That's what it looks like on his website as it describes his proposed legislation and even lists the legislation.

                          I really want to know if everyone is covered under his plan.
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5998180].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            I think you misunderstood it TL. It only says people would be able to deduct health care expenses from their taxes. That can be a great savings for some but for many it would have no effect at all I would think. I would say more than 50% of Americans wouldn't see any benefit from this and these are the ones who are currently uninsured. So, this part of his plan does nothing for the tens of millions who are uninsured. I really don't see much else in his plans to address these millions who are currently uninsured. Zilch. Nada. Nil.
                            So you're saying that more then half of the country are uninsured now?
                            Want to show some proof of that?

                            Just curious, how does the current plan we have make health insurance affordable?
                            Signature

                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5999591].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                              So you're saying that more then half of the country are uninsured now?
                              Want to show some proof of that?

                              Just curious, how does the current plan we have make health insurance affordable?
                              Well, you see, *****SOMEONE***** has to provide the "services". In fact, I now have people threatening to pull away service that I should ******NOT****** need, but the LAW demands it! The LAW says I must get a HOSPITAL to track monitoring that I could do MYSELF! he LAW says that I can't get the drug unless I get a prescription from the doctor. The LAW says the doctor can't give me a prescription unless I am monitored. For good measure, the LAW says I can not get a machine to monitor myself unless the doctor gives me a prescription for THAT machine from THAT supplier!
                              AND, the new HCA says that those service costs HAVE to increase!

                              BUT, they don't think that certain people should have to work, and they want them to have insurance.

                              The number of people not working now is supposedly 43%! The number of underemployed, menial task, or illegals, etc... is probably a fair percentage of the remaining 57%.

                              So I can believe the 50%. Of course MOST are illegal or there by CHOICE! HECK, some of the higher paid people are illegals!

                              NOW, to your question of how the current plan "helps" or plans to "help"? EASY! They STEAL from the 57%(They are discussing that in the SCUS even now), and broaden medicare. You mark my words, if it continues, THAT will be the "single payer option". I don't know why nobody sees it. It is a dark night and those letters surround the planet, are miles high and flashing bright neon! It is screamed from the highest mountain tops.

                              Steve
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5999774].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                              No, it's not that half the country are uninsured, but that half the country don't end up paying federal taxes because they don't make enough money, so deducting medical expenses won't help them at all.

                              One way the new plan would help, if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down, is to provide subsidies for those who can't afford health insurance. It also provides significant tax credits for small businesses who provide health care for their employees. It eliminates annual and lifetime caps. It eliminates the ability of insurance companies to use pre-existing conditions to deny people from getting insurance which is a big reason millions can't get it now.
                              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                              So you're saying that more then half of the country are uninsured now?
                              Want to show some proof of that?

                              Just curious, how does the current plan we have make health insurance affordable?
                              Signature
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6000104].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                No, it's not that half the country are uninsured, but that half the country don't end up paying federal taxes because they don't make enough money, so deducting medical expenses won't help them at all.

                                One way the new plan would help, if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down, is to provide subsidies for those who can't afford health insurance. It also provides significant tax credits for small businesses who provide health care for their employees. It eliminates annual and lifetime caps. It eliminates the ability of insurance companies to use pre-existing conditions to deny people from getting insurance which is a big reason millions can't get it now.
                                What do you mean by subsidies?
                                Does that mean that the govt. is going to give money to the people who can't afford insurance so they can buy it?
                                Or will it work like the subsidy programs we have for oil and agriculture?
                                If that is the case then why can you be fined for not having ins. starting it 2014?
                                On the tax credits I'll wait to hear from a small business owner with employees, before I commit to that being as good as they claim.
                                From my experience they usually raise something somewhere else and it ends up being a wash.
                                I've had a pre existing condition sense 75 that has cost more to deal with then anything else I've had wrong with me combined. Never have I had a problem getting insurance because of it. If the health insurance market was opened up, it wouldn't be a problem for anyone else either.
                                Signature

                                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6000245].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                  What do you mean by subsidies?
                                  Does that mean that the govt. is going to give money to the people who can't afford insurance so they can buy it?
                                  Yes.
                                  Or will it work like the subsidy programs we have for oil and agriculture?
                                  If that is the case then why can you be fined for not having ins. starting it 2014?
                                  Yeah, it's a bit different than the subsidies for oil and agriculture. Those subsidies are given to the oil industry although even they admit they don't need them. Nobody can really give a good reason why they are still getting subsidies since they are making record profits in the tens of billions each year. The agriculture subsidies are also not needed because the farmers/corporations don't have enough money, but it's for different reasons from oil subsidies it seems to me.
                                  On the tax credits I'll wait to hear from a small business owner with employees, before I commit to that being as good as they claim.
                                  From my experience they usually raise something somewhere else and it ends up being a wash.
                                  I've had a pre existing condition sense 75 that has cost more to deal with then anything else I've had wrong with me combined. Never have I had a problem getting insurance because of it. If the health insurance market was opened up, it wouldn't be a problem for anyone else either.
                                  I agree about waiting and seeing how the tax credits for small businesses work. You are fortunate Thom to be able to get insurance while having a pre-existing condition. I've been turned down several times for insurance in the past simply because of a prescription I was given. It has been estimated that half the country has pre-existing conditions that would make it difficult or expensive to get health insurance. Many of these are already employed with health insurance, but are afraid to quit a job because of pre-existing conditions.
                                  Signature
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6002869].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                    Yes.


                                    Yeah, it's a bit different than the subsidies for oil and agriculture. Those subsidies are given to the oil industry although even they admit they don't need them. Nobody can really give a good reason why they are still getting subsidies since they are making record profits in the tens of billions each year. The agriculture subsidies are also not needed because the farmers/corporations don't have enough money, but it's for different reasons from oil subsidies it seems to me.


                                    I agree about waiting and seeing how the tax credits for small businesses work. You are fortunate Thom to be able to get insurance while having a pre-existing condition. I've been turned down several times for insurance in the past simply because of a prescription I was given. It has been estimated that half the country has pre-existing conditions that would make it difficult or expensive to get health insurance. Many of these are already employed with health insurance, but are afraid to quit a job because of pre-existing conditions.
                                    I still don't really understand what you mean by the subsidies, but I can do the research on that
                                    Whenever I hear them use that word it sends all sorts of red flags up to me
                                    Yes Tim I know it can be hard for some to get pre-existing conditions approved. I think it's a New York thing or maybe the insurance companies don't think it's a big deal. I say it's cost more then everything else I've had done, but I also didn't do a lot with doctors in general. Though trying to make my Orthopedic surgeon my primary care doctor never went well with the companies
                                    I'm not saying what we have in NY is perfect, but it seems to be a good combination of regulations and programs.
                                    Our Child Health Plus and Family Health Plus plans makes insurance affordable to everyone with a low income.

                                    To me a good national plan would be.
                                    Let ins. companies sell across state lines.
                                    Let the fed. govt. set regulations so you can't be denied ins. or have limits set.
                                    Allow FDA approved drugs be imported.
                                    Create a health plus plan like the two we have in NY.
                                    Both plans have monthly payments based on your income. You may have to pay $0 or it can go up to regular rates.
                                    Add a 1%(?) tax to the health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, whatever companies that deal with health care to cover governmental administrative costs and the costs form the two plans.
                                    Signature

                                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6003020].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                  What do you mean by subsidies?
                                  Does that mean that the govt. is going to give money to the people who can't afford insurance so they can buy it?
                                  YEP!

                                  why can you be fined for not having ins. starting it 2014?
                                  They CLAIM it is to sweeten the pot to pay for the case of them getting insurance LATER and being covered for a preexisting condition. We ALL know that isn't true! They work TEFRA in REVERSE! Give them a dollar, and they spend three, or MORE!

                                  From my experience they usually raise something somewhere else and it ends up being a wash.
                                  Where are YOU? MY experience is that they raise things elsewhere and make it WORSE!

                                  I've had a pre existing condition sense 75 that has cost more to deal with then anything else I've had wrong with me combined. Never have I had a problem getting insurance because of it. If the health insurance market was opened up, it wouldn't be a problem for anyone else either.
                                  There have been laws in place for over a decade that say that any preinsured preexisting condition ****MUST**** be covered if it would otherwise be allowed, and has been covered within the last 90 days! I actually had an insurance company fight me for a preexisting condition because of MORONS involved with an insurance transition. The earlier insurance company sent them a letter and it was resolved in a DAY! The ONLY legal way out would be if they could prove they NEVER covered that problem for ANYONE, and I knowingly declined it, or that I was not covered in the 90 days prior.

                                  Steve
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6003125].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post



                                    Where are YOU? MY experience is that they raise things elsewhere and make it WORSE!

                                    Steve
                                    It's Easter I was trying to be nice
                                    But like I told Tim, I'd rather reserve judgment on that till I heard from some one who owns a small business and is effected by it.
                                    Signature

                                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6003198].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Being able to buy health insurance across state lines is an old Republican idea that sounds good but has some real problems. One of them is that what happened to credit cards could happen to health insurance, which is the banks/corporations look for the best deal possible for them and worst deal for consumers, find a desperately poor state willing to lower regulations and standards, use that state as a home base for the industry and voila: no real choices and a bad product for consumers. With the credit card industry South Dakota was the poor state willing to give the deal to the banks. Soon after other states wanted some of the business and it was a race to the bottom as far as a product for consumers was concerned. It's not a good idea or even very original.
                        So it is bad because it is a REPUBLICAN idea? THAT is your claim!?!?!?
                        Credit cards only recently became REALLY bad, but the multistate deal happened BEFORE that! You DO know that banks don't really handle the base system, right? So it starts in ONE state and, 98% of the states are states where it is NOT! California has special limits concerning credit, but they have SPECIFICALLY excluded banks for over 2 decades!

                        As for insurance, ALL states have good and bad, and MOST people buy the best they can afford unless they don't care for the higher quality. AGAIN, true for DECADES! And the HCP does NOT specify what the insurance will be, and you have a political, legal, and industry body 50% controlled by the president, so you can NOT say it will be decent at all. With increased costs, and lowered prices, and a central organizer, it is guaranteed to get worse.

                        Anyway, as I stated earlier, the FDA should indicate preferred things, and the FTC should make sure all is as advertised, etc... That will bring up EVERYTHING to a NATIONAL minimum. FIRST you say we should do this because people are covered and THEN you say we should not allow some states to sell insurance to other states because they are bad. PLEASE make up you mind! By YOUR statements, 2%, or more, of the states should have BAD insurance. If all states were the same, then you say over 6MILLION people should have inferior insurance.

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996746].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author KimW
                          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                          So it is bad because it is a REPUBLICAN idea? THAT is your claim!?!?!?
                          Credit cards only recently became REALLY bad, but the multistate deal happened BEFORE that! You DO know that banks don't really handle the base system, right? So it starts in ONE state and, 98% of the states are states where it is NOT! California has special limits concerning credit, but they have SPECIFICALLY excluded banks for over 2 decades!

                          As for insurance, ALL states have good and bad, and MOST people buy the best they can afford unless they don't care for the higher quality. AGAIN, true for DECADES! And the HCP does NOT specify what the insurance will be, and you have a political, legal, and industry body 50% controlled by the president, so you can NOT say it will be decent at all. With increased costs, and lowered prices, and a central organizer, it is guaranteed to get worse.

                          Anyway, as I stated earlier, the FDA should indicate preferred things, and the FTC should make sure all is as advertised, etc... That will bring up EVERYTHING to a NATIONAL minimum. FIRST you say we should do this because people are covered and THEN you say we should not allow some states to sell insurance to other states because they are bad. PLEASE make up you mind! By YOUR statements, 2%, or more, of the states should have BAD insurance. If all states were the same, then you say over 6MILLION people should have inferior insurance.

                          Steve
                          Not going into everything here but the FDA works for the corporations,not the people. They approve poison that can kill us yet disapprove natural things proven to help us.

                          The FTC at one time did try to protect the consumer (it's REAL job) but not any longer.

                          The EPA is amazingly corrupt. Don't want to spend the time and/or money protecting the environment? Just donate money to the right places and you can pollute that river without fear of any interruptions of you business.
                          Signature

                          Read A Post.
                          Subscribe to a Newsletter
                          KimWinfrey.Com

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996781].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                            Not going into everything here but the FDA works for the corporations,not the people.
                            That's what I was thinking when I read RP's plan to allow foreign drugs to be sold in the US as long as they where FDA approved drugs and passed FDA Quality.
                            Then I thought 'doesn't the president appoint the head of the FDA?'
                            Signature

                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996810].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                            Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                            Not going into everything here but the FDA works for the corporations,not the people. They approve poison that can kill us yet disapprove natural things proven to help us.

                            The FTC at one time did try to protect the consumer (it's REAL job) but not any longer.

                            The EPA is amazingly corrupt. Don't want to spend the time and/or money protecting the environment? Just donate money to the right places and you can pollute that river without fear of any interruptions of you business.
                            The FDA is ****SUPPOSED**** to work for the CONSUMER! If they can't do the job, the Agency should be GUTTED and fixed. And the current workers can pay back the last 3 years or so of salaries and benefits!

                            SAME for the FTC!

                            The EPA is a JOKE! It seems to do NOTHING to protect anything, but several things to HURT it.

                            Steve
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996883].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author KimW
                              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                              The FDA is ****SUPPOSED**** to work for the CONSUMER! If they can't do the job, the Agency should be GUTTED and fixed. And the current workers can pay back the last 3 years or so of salaries and benefits!

                              SAME for the FTC!

                              The EPA is a JOKE! It seems to do NOTHING to protect anything, but several things to HURT it.

                              Steve
                              Steve,
                              Those are my points exactly!

                              I don't know anyone who did or does work at the FDA,but I'm smart enough to know they are corrupt and haven't worked for the consumer in years. If they were,most of the drugs you see advertised every day would be illegal.


                              My father retired from the FTC,he was as honest as the come. He was a very difficult person in almost all other aspect but he was always fighting for what was right .
                              The FTC doesn't do that anymore.

                              And the EPA, my sister works for them and her husband is a judge for them.
                              I wouldn't trust any of them to do what's good for the country.
                              That's all I got to say about that.
                              Signature

                              Read A Post.
                              Subscribe to a Newsletter
                              KimWinfrey.Com

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996939].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Christopher Fox
                              Boy. When I saw this thread title pop up with the caveat (this is okay though), I snickered. I haven't looked at this thread prior to now, but certainly was not the least bit surprised at what I found inside.

                              My snicker turned into a chuckle. No political arguing from me, but here is an interesting read from a lady who is a dual US/Canadian citizen. It does a pretty good job dispelling many of the common myths that you hear about the US health care system, which, yes, is not perfect and could use some fixin' up, but not as imperfect as some socialized systems and not as imperfect as proponents of socialism claim:

                              http://www.pacificresearch.org/docLi..._Ten_Myths.pdf

                              Make your own decisions, as I am not here to argue politics, but do yourself a favor and peruse that .pdf and arm yourself with as much informational ammunition as possible.

                              And my second non-political comment is simply this, an observation:

                              For Ron Paul having such a snowball's chance in hell, you sure know quite a bit about him TLTheLiberator. You may not be too concerned about him, but the left wing pundits who whip guys like you up into a frenzy through their media outlets are - else they wouldn't be sending you out as an attack dog - as you did with your starting the Paul bashing for no real reason on page 1 followed up with the Obama praising - with the amount of disinformation about him I've seen here and elsewhere to throw all over the net that they are.

                              Where there's smoke, there's fire and, I must admit, the media, both left and right, has done their damndest, with some unfortunate success, of stomping out as many of those little fires as they can ...

                              Me? Nah, I don't talk politics. I have abandoned the left/right paradigm foisted upon us by the major media outlets and focus on the true power structure of the world and our country. I understand where the corruption lies and who owns most of our politicians - I'm sure many of you can guess who I'll be voting for ...
                              Signature
                              One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothing can beat teamwork.

                              - Seldom Seen Smith
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6090538].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                Originally Posted by Christopher Fox View Post

                                Boy. When I saw this thread title pop up with the caveat (this is okay though), I snickered. I haven't looked at this thread prior to now, but certainly was not the least bit surprised at what I found inside.

                                My snicker turned into a chuckle. No political arguing from me, but here is an interesting read from a lady who is a dual US/Canadian citizen. It does a pretty good job dispelling many of the common myths that you hear about the US health care system, which, yes, is not perfect and could use some fixin' up, but not as imperfect as some socialized systems and not as imperfect as proponents of socialism claim:

                                http://www.pacificresearch.org/docLi..._Ten_Myths.pdf

                                Make your own decisions, as I am not here to argue politics, but do yourself a favor and peruse that .pdf and arm yourself with as much informational ammunition as possible.

                                And my second non-political comment is simply this, an observation:

                                For Ron Paul having such a snowball's chance in hell, you sure know quite a bit about him TLTheLiberator. You may not be too concerned about him, but the left wing pundits who whip guys like you up into a frenzy through their media outlets are - else they wouldn't be sending you out as an attack dog - as you did with your starting the Paul bashing for no real reason on page 1 followed up with the Obama praising - with the amount of disinformation about him I've seen here and elsewhere to throw all over the net that they are.

                                Where there's smoke, there's fire and, I must admit, the media, both left and right, has done their damndest, with some unfortunate success, of stomping out as many of those little fires as they can ...

                                Me? Nah, I don't talk politics. I have abandoned the left/right paradigm foisted upon us by the major media outlets and focus on the true power structure of the world and our country. I understand where the corruption lies and who owns most of our politicians - I'm sure many of you can guess who I'll be voting for ...
                                Mr. F. said...

                                For Ron Paul having such a snowball's chance in hell, you sure know quite a bit about him TLTheLiberator.

                                I say...

                                Aside from the question from the OP...

                                This thread opened up with folks talking about RP like he was the next coming.

                                This had me wondering why he wasn't doing all that well in the actual repub primary voting.

                                So, I had to ask his devotees why????

                                Mr. F. also said...

                                You may not be too concerned about him, but the left wing pundits who whip guys like you ( Me ) up into a frenzy through their media outlets are - else they wouldn't be sending you out as an attack dog - ...

                                ...as you did with your starting the Paul bashing for no real reason on page 1 followed up with the Obama praising - with the amount of disinformation about him I've seen here and elsewhere to throw all over the net that they are.

                                I say...

                                I gather Mr. F. is still upset with me because of what transpired during the...

                                ... "Why I love my country" thread.


                                Quick background:

                                Dennis posted a great video by a Canadian about why America is a great country etc. and a the greatest force for good the world has ever known.


                                After that I said ...


                                ..."Despite our flaws, America has been the greatest force for good the world has ever known"


                                BTW...

                                ( Garyv & Dennis thanked me )


                                Highhopes countered with "CORRECTION"...


                                ... along with a history of the British Empire's great expansion since say 1700.

                                - Mark Andrews & Jimbo13 thanked him for that.


                                I countered with my opinions as to why the US has been the greatest force for good etc. and make it clear that...


                                ... no one can be #1 in everything.


                                - Alistar asked me if Mickey Mouse gave me that info.


                                - Kim countered and referred Alistar to the great video Dennis posted.


                                - Note: Nothing else was heard from our British friends after the above.


                                But... ( trumpet blaring... )


                                ... here comes Mr. F. playing the role of an "attack dog" ...


                                ...to scold me and to put me in my place.


                                ( I'll throw in, methinks Mr. F. would have probably been a "Tory" during the American Revolution. - LOL! )


                                He says ( in response to my response to Highhopes...)


                                "Really dude? highhopes didn't help much, but you really want to take this thread there? The whole pissin' contest thing?

                                ( here's the kicker... )

                                And make the rest of us Americans look bad?"


                                I politely responded to his emotionally charged ill-informed attack ...


                                (For example...

                                dude didn't even know that the Magna Carta only applied to the nobles and no one else)


                                ...and his response IMHO, was much like someone wiping their nose after it had been bloodied.

                                Something like...


                                "I didn't even read your post so tell it to someone that cares."


                                ( I could hear the emotional sniffs)


                                So, here we are...


                                ... he pops into this thread and goes out of his way to take swipes at me -...


                                ... calling me an "attack dog for the media", and saying I bashed RP for no real reason...


                                ...when I'm pretty sure all I was doing was questioning why RP had not done all that well ( to say the least ) in actual GOP primaries...


                                ( I have since been informed by RP fans that there is a massive media cover up and RP will take the nomination at the convention and then sweep into the WH as #45 in Nov.)


                                ...and conducting a thorough examination of RP's positions...


                                ... since policy positions do have actual effects on nations and their people's lives.


                                Above he says...

                                "I'm sure many of you can guess who I'll be voting for."


                                I say...

                                Maybe you'll write in Winston Churchill.



                                TL


                                Ps. I'm not angry about anything - just trying to have a little fun.
                                Signature

                                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6091526].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                  Still waiting for the videos of RP lying TL.
                                  Still waiting on proof he voted for subsidies also now that I think of it.
                                  In fact I'm still waiting for an explanation on how putting us over 5 trillion dollars in debt in 3 years has helped the economy.
                                  Signature

                                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6091671].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                    Still waiting for the videos of RP lying TL.

                                    Still waiting on proof he voted for subsidies also now that I think of it.

                                    In fact I'm still waiting for an explanation on how putting us over 5 trillion dollars in debt in 3 years has helped the economy.


                                    Too bad we'll never get to see RP fail to fulfill any one of his campaign promises. (LOL)


                                    Here's a video of RP bailing out of a interview with CNN after being confronted with charges of...


                                    ...racist, anti-semantic and Konspiratorial content in one or more of his newsletters.


                                    IMHO, he pretends he didn't know what was in the newsletters as they were being released.

                                    I'll be the first to say that people can change.


                                    BTW...

                                    I love the look on his face.

                                    Then the heat is too much to bare so he bails!!!

                                    LiveLeak.com - ron paul lies about being a nazi
                                    Signature

                                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6091879].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                      Too bad we'll never get to see RP fail to fulfill any one of his campaign promises. (LOL)


                                      Here's a video of RP bailing out of a interview with CNN after being confronted with charges of...


                                      ...racist, anti-semantic and Konspiratorial content in one or more of his newsletters.


                                      IMHO, he pretends he didn't know what was in the newsletters as they were being released.

                                      I'll be the first to say that people can change.


                                      BTW...

                                      I love the look on his face.

                                      Then the heat is too much to bare so he bails!!!

                                      LiveLeak.com - ron paul lies about being a nazi
                                      That the best you got?
                                      Give me a minute to stop laughing.

                                      OK did you listen to the interview?
                                      As he said he went over all that the day before in an extensive interview with CNN which is where that reporter was from. Like he told her just go back and listen to the interview from the day before.
                                      The look on his face was because he was tired of getting asked the same question by the same 'news group', not because the heat was to much to bare (really TL, grasping at straws are we?)
                                      So if you don't believe his explanation, why should we believe that Obama wasn't pals with Derrick Bell, Bill Ayers, and follows Bell's views?
                                      Barack Obama Palled Around With Radical Professor - Katie Pavlich

                                      So where's the videos of RP lying? Still can't find any?
                                      Signature

                                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6091989].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author KimW
                                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                        That the best you got?
                                        Give me a minute to stop laughing.

                                        OK did you listen to the interview?
                                        As he said he went over all that the day before in an extensive interview with CNN which is where that reporter was from. Like he told her just go back and listen to the interview from the day before.
                                        The look on his face was because he was tired of getting asked the same question by the same 'news group', not because the heat was to much to bare (really TL, grasping at straws are we?)
                                        So if you don't believe his explanation, why should we believe that Obama wasn't pals with Derrick Bell, Bill Ayers, and follows Bell's views?
                                        Barack Obama Palled Around With Radical Professor - Katie Pavlich

                                        So where's the videos of RP lying? Still can't find any?

                                        You really need to ask,Thom?
                                        Signature

                                        Read A Post.
                                        Subscribe to a Newsletter
                                        KimWinfrey.Com

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092003].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                          I'd like to see proof of the accusations, Kim.
                                          So far I've seen nothing to prove the lies spread about RP, while everything said about Obama has been backed up with facts.
                                          Best they can do is speculate on what "might" happen if RP is elected, but because that is about something that hasn't happened yet, it really doesn't hold any water.
                                          Yet here we have a president that has more baggage then Samsonite and he's the better choice?
                                          One is a lawyer who has no experience and has not studied economics, and he knows better then a person who is a doctor and has studied economics for 30 years?
                                          A lawyer is claiming how great his health care plan is, yet a doctor who has actually practiced medicine doesn't know more about health care?
                                          Signature

                                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092058].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                            I'd like to see proof of the accusations, Kim.
                                            So far I've seen nothing to prove the lies spread about RP, while everything said about Obama has been backed up with facts.


                                            Best they can do is speculate on what "might" happen if RP is elected, but because that is about something that hasn't happened yet, it really doesn't hold any water.


                                            Yet here we have a president that has more baggage then Samsonite and he's the better choice?

                                            One is a lawyer who has no experience and has not studied economics, and he knows better then a person who is a doctor and has studied economics for 30 years?


                                            A lawyer is claiming how great his health care plan is, yet a doctor who has actually practiced medicine doesn't know more about health care?

                                            As Bones on Star Trek would say...

                                            I'm a doctor not an accountant.


                                            It's not hard to speculate has to what will happen under a RP admin - especially if he has congress on his side.


                                            His website clearly spells out his attitudes, platform and policy positions.


                                            FYI...

                                            Policies have consequences and actual outcomes that effect the lives of people.


                                            TL
                                            Signature

                                            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092329].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                              It's not hard to speculate has to what will happen under a RP admin - especially if he has congress on his side.


                                              His website clearly spells out his platform and policy positions.

                                              FYI...

                                              Policies have consequences and outcomes.


                                              TL
                                              Still avoiding my questions I see.

                                              It's not hard to speculate what 4 more years of Obama would be like.
                                              Seeing how we already have hard evidence.
                                              Again you can only speculate and guess with RP.
                                              "Policies have consequences and outcomes."
                                              So does that apply to your guy also?
                                              Signature

                                              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                              Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                              As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092420].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                    Still waiting for the videos of RP lying TL.
                                    Still waiting on proof he voted for subsidies also now that I think of it.



                                    In fact I'm still waiting for an explanation on how putting us over 5 trillion dollars in debt in 3 years has helped the economy.

                                    I let Tim can handle the question regarding subsidies.


                                    I'll tackle your question on the 5 trillion.


                                    #1: Obama walked into an economy with 65% of that 5 trillion debt baked into the cake.

                                    - that's a fact.


                                    The only debt Obama is absolutely positively directly responsible for is...

                                    - 800 billion: Stimulus funds:

                                    - 620 billion: Extending the Bush tax cuts:

                                    - 450 billion: Other expenses that can be directly attributed to Obama:


                                    The national piggy bank hasn't been helped by the terrible economy either that he "inherited"...

                                    ...as the fed gov is missing out on yearly revenues of at least 600 billion a year since he took office.


                                    No fair minded person can attribute the entire 5 trill directly to Obama...


                                    ... but it makes a great political talking point...


                                    ... to feed to the uninformed so that they can repeat it.


                                    Once again...


                                    Now, if Obama was like RP and his fans and wanted to take a hatchet to our situation...


                                    ... he could save a lot of money - ...



                                    and balance the budget...


                                    ...for the "national government"...



                                    ...but once again...


                                    IMHO and that of the admin and real dems everywhere...


                                    the draconian "hatchet approach"...


                                    ...would cause too much unnecessary extra pain in the society...


                                    ... that would also negatively domino and cause even more pain.


                                    IMHO we've already suffered enough pain.


                                    Dems are not going to solve our situation by throwing the American people to the wolfs as some people would not mind doing...


                                    .. to fix some imaginary Greek like collapse that supposed to be right around the corner.




                                    TL
                                    Signature

                                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092072].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                      I let Tim can handle the question regarding subsidies.


                                      I'll tackle your question on the 5 trillion.


                                      #1: Obama walked into an economy with 65% of that 5 trillion debt baked into the cake.

                                      - that's a fact.


                                      The only debt Obama is absolutely positively directly responsible for is...

                                      - 800 billion: Stimulus funds:

                                      - 620 billion: Extending the Bush tax cuts:

                                      - 450 billion: Other expenses that can be directly attributed to Obama:


                                      The national piggy bank hasn't been helped by the terrible economy either that he "inherited"...

                                      ...as the fed gov is missing out on yearly revenues of at least 600 billion a year since he took office.


                                      No fair minded person can attribute the entire 5 trill directly to Obama...


                                      ... but it makes a great political talking point...


                                      ... to feed to the uninformed so that they can repeat it.


                                      Once again...


                                      Now, if Obama was like RP and his fans and wanted to take a hatchet to our situation...


                                      ... he could save a lot of money - ...



                                      and balance the budget...


                                      ...for the "national government"...



                                      ...but once again...


                                      IMHO and that of the admin and real dems everywhere...


                                      the draconian "hatchet approach"...


                                      ...would cause too much unnecessary extra pain in the society that would also negatively domino and cause even more pain.


                                      IMHO we've already suffered enough pain.


                                      Dems are not going to solve our situation by throwing the American people to the wolfs as some people would not mind doing...


                                      .. to fix some imaginary Greek like collapse that supposed to be right around the corner.




                                      TL
                                      Can you show proof of your facts?
                                      Why do you continue to avoid the other questions I asked.
                                      Where's the video's of RP lying like you claimed he does?
                                      Why won't you comment on this?
                                      "OK did you listen to the interview?
                                      As he said he went over all that the day before in an extensive interview with CNN which is where that reporter was from. Like he told her just go back and listen to the interview from the day before.
                                      The look on his face was because he was tired of getting asked the same question by the same 'news group', not because the heat was to much to bare (really TL, grasping at straws are we?)
                                      So if you don't believe his explanation, why should we believe that Obama wasn't pals with Derrick Bell, Bill Ayers, and follows Bell's views?
                                      Barack Obama Palled Around With Radical Professor - Katie Pavlich"

                                      See TL the best you can do with RP is speculate what would happen if he is elected.
                                      Where as with Obama we already can see the harm he has done.

                                      You guys are searching for RP supporting subsidies but you can't find anything, because he never did.
                                      Yet your guy has supported subsidies and still does.
                                      The only difference is what he wants the subsidies for.
                                      Oil, no. Chevy volt, yes.
                                      What about Solyndra? How much did Obama give to that company that went belly up?
                                      Signature

                                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092304].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                        Can you show proof of your facts?
                                        Why do you continue to avoid the other questions I asked.
                                        Where's the video's of RP lying like you claimed he does?
                                        Why won't you comment on this?
                                        "OK did you listen to the interview?
                                        As he said he went over all that the day before in an extensive interview with CNN which is where that reporter was from. Like he told her just go back and listen to the interview from the day before.
                                        The look on his face was because he was tired of getting asked the same question by the same 'news group', not because the heat was to much to bare (really TL, grasping at straws are we?)

                                        So if you don't believe his explanation, why should we believe that Obama wasn't pals with Derrick Bell, Bill Ayers, and follows Bell's views?
                                        Barack Obama Palled Around With Radical Professor - Katie Pavlich"

                                        See TL the best you can do with RP is speculate what would happen if he is elected.
                                        Where as with Obama we already can see the harm he has done.

                                        You guys are searching for RP supporting subsidies but you can't find anything, because he never did.

                                        Yet your guy has supported subsidies and still does.

                                        The only difference is what he wants the subsidies for.
                                        Oil, no. Chevy volt, yes.

                                        What about Solyndra?

                                        How much did Obama give to that company that went belly up?

                                        Tim is the one who mentioned subsidies so he'll have to deal with that subject.


                                        Those facts relating to the 5 trill in debt Obama is supposed to be responsible for...

                                        ...are readily available on the net.


                                        I could give you a link but all you would do is question the link(s) no matter where they came from...


                                        ... since it doesn't fit with the narrative you've been fed and tried to repeat.



                                        Bill Ayers?????????????


                                        That's a stupid lie that's only repeated by the right wing hit machine.


                                        Are you going to go "birther" next???


                                        I know what he did and I also....


                                        I believe he teaches or did teach at the University of Chicago.

                                        I guess that says a lot about the UofC also.


                                        Derrick Bell??

                                        Old black people are apt to say some so-called radical stuff and maybe even some stuff that can be interpreted as racist by some...


                                        or...


                                        ... it can be interpreted as an old black person...


                                        who's unable to see clearly and get past the hurt that been inflected on him in the past.



                                        Most white people understand that it does not follow that Mr. Bell or Rev Wright hates all white people or something like that.


                                        I wonder why him and Rev Wright are not a big deal for most white folks but for


                                        others...


                                        ... it is supposed to be proof of Obama's secret racism against whites - ...


                                        ...even though the mother who raised him was white and the people who took care of him, his grandparents were white.


                                        Just like older white people and the white people of the south can't bring themselves to vote for Obama as they voted against him at least 70% in the election of 2008.


                                        The country has plenty of baggage but people can and do change.


                                        Solendra??

                                        All projects don't work out.

                                        I heard that the funds lost on Solendra were less than 2% of the entire budget allocated towards the green energy direction Obama's trying to drag the country towards.


                                        It's a big deal to those trying to score political points and some mislead folks have even...

                                        ... tried to justified Solendra's failure as a good reason to abandon the green energy direction.


                                        It's...


                                        Another reason Germany is kicking our asses in going green.



                                        TL
                                        Signature

                                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092935].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                          Tim is the one who mentioned subsidies so he'll have to deal with that subject.


                                          Those facts relating to the 5 trill in debt Obama is supposed to be responsible for...

                                          ...are readily available on the net.


                                          I could give you a link but all you would do is question the link(s) no matter where they came from...


                                          ... since it doesn't fit with the narrative you've been fed and tried to repeat.



                                          Bill Ayers?????????????


                                          That's a stupid lie that's only repeated by the right wing hit machine.


                                          Are you going to go "birther" next???


                                          I know what he did and I also....


                                          I believe he teaches or did teach at the University of Chicago.

                                          I guess that says a lot about the UofC also.


                                          Derrick Bell??

                                          Old black people are apt to say some so-called radical stuff and maybe even some stuff that can be interpreted as racist by some...


                                          or...


                                          ... it can be interpreted as an old black person...


                                          who's unable to see clearly and get past the hurt that been inflected on him in the past.



                                          Most white people understand that it does not follow that Mr. Bell or Rev Wright hates all white people or something like that.


                                          I wonder why him and Rev Wright are not a big deal for most white folks but for


                                          others...


                                          ... it is supposed to be proof of Obama's secret racism against whites - ...


                                          ...even though the mother who raised him was white and the people who took care of him, his grandparents were white.


                                          Just like older white people and the white people of the south can't bring themselves to vote for Obama as they voted against him at least 70% in the election of 2008.


                                          The country has plenty of baggage but people can and do change.


                                          Solendra??

                                          All projects don't work out.

                                          I heard that the funds lost on Solendra were less than 2% of the entire budget allocated towards the green energy direction Obama's trying to drag the country towards.


                                          It's a big deal to those trying to score political points and some mislead folks have even...

                                          ... tried to justified Solendra's failure as a good reason to abandon the green energy direction.


                                          It's...


                                          Another reason Germany is kicking our asses in going green.



                                          TL
                                          There is a lot of garbage there. I can say that the right has said a LOT of off the wall stuff, like about bill ayers, obamas upbringing, saul alinsky, etc... I checked out some of the crazier claims, and they were TRUE! Right down to saul alinsky. I actually bought his book. I read the whole thing, and it is as said. If I were a follower though, I would certainly not want to admit that, so I can appreciate that you don't want to.

                                          HECK, there was a crazy thing that happened last week. I verified that the circumstance existed, the person mentioned existed, her employer exists, and has her as an employee and that she works SPECIFICALLY on the specialty mentioned in the story, etc... ALSO, a LOT of people are saying it is true and MANY have first hand experience with it. If *****ANY***** lies existed, I would expect many to lose their careers(NOTE, I say CAREERS! I DON'T mean they would be fired, I mean they would be prevented from EVER working in the field), many lawsuits, people thrown in jail, with their names dragged through the mud, and have it spread all over the LSM! YOU would start a thread about it!

                                          So WHY did none of that happen? The plaintiff apparently won on a TECHNICALITY on friday. WHY is THAT not mentioned? Many would LOVE to mention that BUT, BREATHING that would lead to exposing the REST!

                                          So what is all that about? I wish I could say. It is funny and works into this thread AND your post. It EVEN works into saul alinsky and a habit you have here! Oh well!

                                          BTW it IS funny! One comment made ****ALONE**** should guarantee a place on YOU TUBE!

                                          OK, 2nd video on youtube posted 2 days ago, and already over 5000 hits. I wonder when it hits the LSM. Yahoo and Google picked it up though.

                                          Steve
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6093292].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author KimW
                                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                  Mr. F. said...

                                  For Ron Paul having such a snowball's chance in hell, you sure know quite a bit about him TLTheLiberator.

                                  I say...

                                  Aside from the question from the OP...

                                  This thread opened up with folks talking about RP like he was the next coming.

                                  What a bold face mistatemnet of the facts. I was the first to post after the original question was asked. I politely answered the OPs questions and used Ron Paul an an example,(see post #2)then the first post from TL was also answering the OPs question.(post#3),and post #4 was the OP thanking us for answering.Then post #5 was TL posting a Ron Paul Video with the following comment:
                                  "Not a fan but here's...


                                  my fav Ron Paul moment.


                                  Thanks for a great laugh Mr. Paul."

                                  This is the factual chain of events that everyone can actually go back and see for themselves. No one was talking like Mr Paul was the next coming. :rolleyes:



                                  This had me wondering why he wasn't doing all that well in the actual repub primary voting.

                                  So, I had to ask his devotees why????

                                  Again,that is not factual. (See post #9).

                                  Mr. F. also said...

                                  You may not be too concerned about him, but the left wing pundits who whip guys like you ( Me ) up into a frenzy through their media outlets are - else they wouldn't be sending you out as an attack dog - ...

                                  ...as you did with your starting the Paul bashing for no real reason on page 1 followed up with the Obama praising - with the amount of disinformation about him I've seen here and elsewhere to throw all over the net that they are.

                                  Obviously even the person you are responding to saw that yoou tried to create the frenzy.

                                  I say...

                                  I gather Mr. F. is still upset with me because of what transpired during the...

                                  ... "Why I love my country" thread.

                                  I know you made an out of place post there. Having nothing to do with the thread.


                                  Quick background:

                                  Dennis posted a great video by a Canadian about why America is a great country etc. and a the greatest force for good the world has ever known.


                                  After that I said ...


                                  ..."Despite our flaws, America has been the greatest force for good the world has ever known"


                                  BTW...

                                  ( Garyv & Dennis thanked me )

                                  So what? You feel that validates or gives crdence to your out of place comment?

                                  GaryV also said TL don't start crap here. Not his exact words but that was the intent of his post,go look it up if you want his exact wording.


                                  Highhopes countered with "CORRECTION"...


                                  ... along with a history of the British Empire's great expansion since say 1700.

                                  - Mark Andrews & Jimbo13 thanked him for that.


                                  I countered with my opinions as to why the US has been the greatest force for good etc. and make it clear that...


                                  ... no one can be #1 in everything.


                                  - Alistar asked me if Mickey Mouse gave me that info.


                                  - Kim countered and referred Alistar to the great video Dennis posted.


                                  - Note: Nothing else was heard from our British friends after the above.


                                  But... ( trumpet blaring... )


                                  ... here comes Mr. F. playing the role of an "attack dog" ...


                                  ...to scold me and to put me in my place.

                                  I must have missed that, I'll have to go read it,but I am sure your slant is as inaccurate as most of your posts.


                                  ( I'll throw in, methinks Mr. F. would have probably been a "Tory" during the American Revolution. - LOL! )

                                  Yes, you should have been a comedian :rolleyes:


                                  He says ( in response to my response to Highhopes...)


                                  "Really dude? highhopes didn't help much, but you really want to take this thread there? The whole pissin' contest thing?

                                  Yeah,I think Mr Fox has your number,just as others do.

                                  ( here's the kicker... )

                                  And make the rest of us Americans look bad?"


                                  I politely responded to his emotionally charged ill-informed attack ...

                                  Very doubtful, but as I said, I'll go reread that thread too and if that is in fact what happened I will change thisstatement.


                                  (For example...

                                  dude didn't even know that the Magna Carta only applied to the nobles and no one else)


                                  ...and his response IMHO, was much like someone wiping their nose after it had been bloodied.

                                  Again,you should have been a comedian,most responses after your posts are not anywhere near what you seem to think,usually at my end they are chuckles and grins.

                                  Something like...


                                  "I didn't even read your post so tell it to someone that cares."

                                  That sounds like something you would say after reading other peoples posts....lol


                                  ( I could hear the emotional sniffs)

                                  doubtful


                                  So, here we are...


                                  ... he pops into this thread and goes out of his way to take swipes at me -..

                                  WOW, A TL tactic. .


                                  ... calling me an "attack dog for the media", and saying I bashed RP for no real reason...

                                  Hey,the facts are the facts....go back and reread the first comment I made and it actually verifies what he said.


                                  ...when I'm pretty sure all I was doing was questioning why RP had not done all that well ( to say the least ) in actual GOP primaries...

                                  Again, anyone can see that was not what you were doing. :rolleyes:


                                  ( I have since been informed by RP fans that there is a massive media cover up and RP will take the nomination at the convention and then sweep into the WH as #45 in Nov.)

                                  I have not seen one poster in this thread make such a claim,though I have seen you try to bait posters into getting into that argument with you. Please show a single post where someone that supports Mr Paul has made such a statement.


                                  ...and conducting a thorough examination of RP's positions...


                                  ... since policy positions do have actual effects on nations and their people's lives.


                                  Above he says...

                                  "I'm sure many of you can guess who I'll be voting for."


                                  I say...

                                  Maybe you'll write in Winston Churchill.

                                  Yes, another knee-buster.



                                  TL


                                  Ps. I'm not angry about anything - just trying to have a little fun.

                                  And I'm not angry. As most people know and I stated above it is fun for others too when it is so easy catching you in your distorted versions of both the real world and the one you live in.
                                  I invite everyone reading this thread to go back to page one and see the real chain of events and not the version you claimed in this post.
                                  Of course now that you have been called out on the truth I wouldn't be surprised if you went back and changed them, but that's ok,I C&P them in case of such an event.
                                  Signature

                                  Read A Post.
                                  Subscribe to a Newsletter
                                  KimWinfrey.Com

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6091995].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                    Here's a little more on Obama and Bell.
                                    OBAMA: 'Open up your hearts and your minds' to racialist prof
                                    Signature

                                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092002].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                    Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                                    And I'm not angry. As most people know and I stated above it is fun for others too when it is so easy catching you in your distorted versions of both the real world and the one you live in.
                                    I invite everyone reading this thread to go back to page one and see the real chain of events and not the version you claimed in this post.
                                    Of course now that you have been called out on the truth I wouldn't be surprised if you went back and changed them, but that's ok,I C&P them in case of such an event.

                                    How about if I ask you to not respond to anything I post in this thread or anywhere else on this forum?

                                    And I won't mention your name or allude to you in any way shape or form.

                                    Can we agree on that?

                                    Please let me know if you agree.

                                    Dealing with you is like dealing with seasoned and I don't need it.

                                    TL
                                    Signature

                                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092082].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Christopher Fox
                                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                  This thread opened up with folks talking about RP like he was the next coming.
                                  That is not at all accurate Mr. L. Kim made a comment about him being the only viable candidate. You then launched into Ron Paul bashing, posting that vid, attached with a condescending laugh trying to make him look stupid - I guess that was your intent? Remember?

                                  And then by page 2 and post #57, you were engaged in Obama campaigning with silly platitudes like:

                                  Does he believe the fed gov should be involved in helping the nation go in a new/green energy direction? & Does he believe the fed gov should help as many people as possible achieve higher education?

                                  See your use of words like help? You set up a false dilemma. You either agree with Obama and your side and want to help or you are big jackass and don't care about people and wish them ill. That is simpleton stuff- but you have obviously bought into it hook, line & sinker. Plenty on the right do as well. Silly platitudes that don't intelligently discuss or present ides properly.

                                  Nothing more than Political Copywriting, designed to appeal to and trigger emotions, not reason. Works on you apparently.

                                  And then by page 3 you were fully engaged defending Obama's socilaist health care policies with a bunch of silly rhetorical questions that actually skirt any discussion of the issues, merely assert you either agree with Obama or you are a bad person.

                                  On that note I will say:

                                  The CBO also initially said that the law will save the federal gov about 110 billion over the first 10 years and more than 1 trill over the 2nd 10 years of the plan.

                                  You should maybe look into how the CBO generates those numbers - what data they are forced to use. The CBO doesn't take into consideration anything other than what the legislators hand them. That's it. It is not some kind of independent, impartial financial review. It political hogwash. And yes, that applies to what both parties hand the CBO, yet everyone runs around claiming that it came from the CBO, so it must be impartial and accurate. Nonsense. There are so many aspects of the costs that the CBO is not allowed to look at and take into consideration.

                                  Makes for good rhetoric though, doesn't it?

                                  Page 4 has you continuing to campaign for Obama through the illegal aliens issue and quoting left wing pundits like Ezra Klein.

                                  Page 5 is riddled with inaccurate assertions, and of course, attacking the right from the position of the left and silly comments about gridlock - reasserting the position of the left that more legislation is always the answer and only government can 'help the middle class'. And while you have bashed Reagan (who brought up Reagan?) I have yet to see you identify and democrat by name to criticize - but maybe I missed it.

                                  Page 6 you cricled back around to Paul bashing insinuating he is a racist, women hater, etc. You even included some more swell platitudes championing Obama and suggesting you either support the left or you hate women.

                                  ...

                                  Look, you were conversing back and forth and other people were offering their views, to be sure - I am not suggesting there were not Paul Proponents in this thread, but don't claim innocence on either the Paul bashing, which you started after one comment by one person, not the resounding chorus of people you claim, or the Obama campaigning. And then just continued to throw out a bunch of ridiculous platitudes and rhetoric you pick up from whatever left wing media outlets you patronize, bashing anyone who disagrees with the left as racist, chauvinistic, etc.

                                  You just seem to want to skip any consideration for a point counter yours as having any intellectual merit and based only in stupidity, hate and an utter lack of compassion for fellow human beings.

                                  And that is what a lot of your schitck is - silly one line platitudes where you try to frame a question of either you want to help or you're a big meanine.

                                  It is all there for us all to read ...

                                  There were no 'people' as you claim. There was a person who made a comment, which you than used that comment to launch into an attack

                                  This had me wondering why he wasn't doing all that well in the actual repub primary voting.
                                  Please ....

                                  I say...I gather Mr. F. is still upset with me because of what transpired during the ... "Why I love my country" thread.
                                  This time, you get a Puuuuhleeeeease. Hardly. First of all, all I did is remind you of some things there and point out how silly your claims were. That's it. Second of all, I wasn't kidding when I said I didn't read your response. And still haven't. There wasn't really anything for you to say in response, and quite frankly, I just didn't care what you came up with. There was no emotional attachment you incorrectly claim. Get over yourself buddy.

                                  There was absolutely nothing for me to be upset about from you in that thread - I put you in your place, not the other way around. However, since you are asserting that my response in this thread is somehow of a personal nature, I assure you it is not. It was merely a comment about how everyone, left and right, says Paul is nothing to be concerned, yet they make sure, just as you did, to try to throw insults his way and besmirch his character at every opportunity.

                                  And although I have no personal attachment to any argument with you, as you wrongly claim, I have noticed that on this forum, you certainly win the prize for trying to get your Obama campaigning / republican bashing / libertarian bashing the most. You try to sneak that stuff into plenty of threads, non-political threads frequently.

                                  Usually with those meaningless, silly, one line platitudes or vague insinuations. I have called you on it in a thread previous to the one you indicate, and, no it was not personal then, just as this post is not personal now. Merely my observations I am sharing dude. That's all. Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill and understand that if you do what you do with trying to sneak your partisan politics in every thread that shows the slightest opportunity for you to do so, guys like me might point it out. That's all.

                                  Quick background:
                                  Like I said, Mr. L, I really don't care about any of that. You have taken it personally, obviously as you have brought it into this thread now, but I don't. It ain't no big deal. Take a deep breath and let it go buddy

                                  ... here comes Mr. F. playing the role of an "attack dog" ...
                                  No, you are confusing my pointing out my observations. An attack dog is what you engaged in on page on. You are free to disagree with my observations of course.

                                  ( I'll throw in, methinks Mr. F. would have probably been a "Tory" during the American Revolution. - LOL! )
                                  ... says the left wing proponent of big government socialism to the libertarian. :rolleyes:

                                  But that's okay, I won't condemn you for trying to make a funny.

                                  And make the rest of us Americans look bad?
                                  Yes, with the whole arrogant and ignorant claim that England owes any freedoms it has to us. It is simply not true - historically, and I was merely pointing out that you speak only for yourself, and not me.

                                  It was an incredibly silly and inaccurate assertion to make. That's all.

                                  I politely responded to his emotionally charged ill-informed attack ...
                                  I'm sure you did Mr. L. But as I am saying for the third time now - I didn't read it as I really don't care and wasn't emotional about anything, either at the time, or now. You, however, can't seem to let it go.

                                  Let it go Mr. L. It ain't no big thang.


                                  (For example...dude didn't even know that the Magna Carta only applied to the nobles and no one else)
                                  Umm ... it is nice to see that you know how to use wikipedia. It is a shame to see, however, that you make incorrect assumptions about my knowledge base. If you think that the Magna Carta did not lay groundwork for both our Constitution and the Brits enjoying the freedoms they do have from the House of Windsor today, you simply do not understand history. Period. There is no other way to say it. And I only point it out so you do not continue to make yourself look silly by saying silly things and not grasping the connection between the Magna Carta and events that continued to happen for centuries afterwards.


                                  Mr. L, the rest I am not responding to was certainly lovely, but, I just don't really care buddy. Feel free to say whatever you want about me and my words from this point forward, but know this is my last post in this thread. I'm just not into it and the things I say stand on their own merit and don't require any further defense from my keyboard.

                                  Right now, despite your claim of my emotional attachment to our exchange, none exists. What does exist, however, is a pain in the ass 12 month old Red Heeler that is starting to drive me batty. So her and I are going to go run around in the woods for a couple hours to work some of that crazy energy out of her.

                                  So, toodles. Feel free to come back at me with another response, but my sincere advice is to just let it go and not get all worked up about it ...
                                  Signature
                                  One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothing can beat teamwork.

                                  - Seldom Seen Smith
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6093122].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author KimW
                                    Originally Posted by Christopher Fox View Post

                                    That is not at all accurate Mr. L. Kim made a comment about him being the only viable candidate. You then launched into Ron Paul bashing, posting that vid, attached with a condescending laugh trying to make him look stupid - I guess that was your intent? Remember?

                                    And then by page 2 and post #57, you were engaged in Obama campaigning with silly platitudes like:

                                    Does he believe the fed gov should be involved in helping the nation go in a new/green energy direction? & Does he believe the fed gov should help as many people as possible achieve higher education?

                                    See your use of words like help? You set up a false dilemma. You either agree with Obama and your side and want to help or you are big jackass and don't care about people and wish them ill. That is simpleton stuff- but you have obviously bought into it hook, line & sinker. Plenty on the right do as well. Silly platitudes that don't intelligently discuss or present ides properly.

                                    Nothing more than Political Copywriting, designed to appeal to and trigger emotions, not reason. Works on you apparently.

                                    And then by page 3 you were fully engaged defending Obama's socilaist health care policies with a bunch of silly rhetorical questions that actually skirt any discussion of the issues, merely assert you either agree with Obama or you are a bad person.

                                    On that note I will say:

                                    The CBO also initially said that the law will save the federal gov about 110 billion over the first 10 years and more than 1 trill over the 2nd 10 years of the plan.

                                    You should maybe look into how the CBO generates those numbers - what data they are forced to use. The CBO doesn't take into consideration anything other than what the legislators hand them. That's it. It is not some kind of independent, impartial financial review. It political hogwash. And yes, that applies to what both parties hand the CBO, yet everyone runs around claiming that it came from the CBO, so it must be impartial and accurate. Nonsense. There are so many aspects of the costs that the CBO is not allowed to look at and take into consideration.

                                    Makes for good rhetoric though, doesn't it?

                                    Page 4 has you continuing to campaign for Obama through the illegal aliens issue and quoting left wing pundits like Ezra Klein.

                                    Page 5 is riddled with inaccurate assertions, and of course, attacking the right from the position of the left and silly comments about gridlock - reasserting the position of the left that more legislation is always the answer and only government can 'help the middle class'. And while you have bashed Reagan (who brought up Reagan?) I have yet to see you identify and democrat by name to criticize - but maybe I missed it.

                                    Page 6 you cricled back around to Paul bashing insinuating he is a racist, women hater, etc. You even included some more swell platitudes championing Obama and suggesting you either support the left or you hate women.

                                    ...

                                    Look, you were conversing back and forth and other people were offering their views, to be sure - I am not suggesting there were not Paul Proponents in this thread, but don't claim innocence on either the Paul bashing, which you started after one comment by one person, not the resounding chorus of people you claim, or the Obama campaigning. And then just continued to throw out a bunch of ridiculous platitudes and rhetoric you pick up from whatever left wing media outlets you patronize, bashing anyone who disagrees with the left as racist, chauvinistic, etc.

                                    You just seem to want to skip any consideration for a point counter yours as having any intellectual merit and based only in stupidity, hate and an utter lack of compassion for fellow human beings.

                                    And that is what a lot of your schitck is - silly one line platitudes where you try to frame a question of either you want to help or you're a big meanine.

                                    It is all there for us all to read ...

                                    There were no 'people' as you claim. There was a person who made a comment, which you than used that comment to launch into an attack



                                    Please ....



                                    This time, you get a Puuuuhleeeeease. Hardly. First of all, all I did is remind you of some things there and point out how silly your claims were. That's it. Second of all, I wasn't kidding when I said I didn't read your response. And still haven't. There wasn't really anything for you to say in response, and quite frankly, I just didn't care what you came up with. There was no emotional attachment you incorrectly claim. Get over yourself buddy.

                                    There was absolutely nothing for me to be upset about from you in that thread - I put you in your place, not the other way around. However, since you are asserting that my response in this thread is somehow of a personal nature, I assure you it is not. It was merely a comment about how everyone, left and right, says Paul is nothing to be concerned, yet they make sure, just as you did, to try to throw insults his way and besmirch his character at every opportunity.

                                    And although I have no personal attachment to any argument with you, as you wrongly claim, I have noticed that on this forum, you certainly win the prize for trying to get your Obama campaigning / republican bashing / libertarian bashing the most. You try to sneak that stuff into plenty of threads, non-political threads frequently.

                                    Usually with those meaningless, silly, one line platitudes or vague insinuations. I have called you on it in a thread previous to the one you indicate, and, no it was not personal then, just as this post is not personal now. Merely my observations I am sharing dude. That's all. Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill and understand that if you do what you do with trying to sneak your partisan politics in every thread that shows the slightest opportunity for you to do so, guys like me might point it out. That's all.



                                    Like I said, Mr. L, I really don't care about any of that. You have taken it personally, obviously as you have brought it into this thread now, but I don't. It ain't no big deal. Take a deep breath and let it go buddy



                                    No, you are confusing my pointing out my observations. An attack dog is what you engaged in on page on. You are free to disagree with my observations of course.



                                    ... says the left wing proponent of big government socialism to the libertarian. :rolleyes:

                                    But that's okay, I won't condemn you for trying to make a funny.



                                    Yes, with the whole arrogant and ignorant claim that England owes any freedoms it has to us. It is simply not true - historically, and I was merely pointing out that you speak only for yourself, and not me.

                                    It was an incredibly silly and inaccurate assertion to make. That's all.



                                    I'm sure you did Mr. L. But as I am saying for the third time now - I didn't read it as I really don't care and wasn't emotional about anything, either at the time, or now. You, however, can't seem to let it go.

                                    Let it go Mr. L. It ain't no big thang.




                                    Umm ... it is nice to see that you know how to use wikipedia. It is a shame to see, however, that you make incorrect assumptions about my knowledge base. If you think that the Magna Carta did not lay groundwork for both our Constitution and the Brits enjoying the freedoms they do have from the House of Windsor today, you simply do not understand history. Period. There is no other way to say it. And I only point it out so you do not continue to make yourself look silly by saying silly things and not grasping the connection between the Magna Carta and events that continued to happen for centuries afterwards.


                                    Mr. L, the rest I am not responding to was certainly lovely, but, I just don't really care buddy. Feel free to say whatever you want about me and my words from this point forward, but know this is my last post in this thread. I'm just not into it and the things I say stand on their own merit and don't require any further defense from my keyboard.

                                    Right now, despite your claim of my emotional attachment to our exchange, none exists. What does exist, however, is a pain in the ass 12 month old Red Heeler that is starting to drive me batty. So her and I are going to go run around in the woods for a couple hours to work some of that crazy energy out of her.

                                    So, toodles. Feel free to come back at me with another response, but my sincere advice is to just let it go and not get all worked up about it ...
                                    Mr. Fox,
                                    Thank you for verifying what I posted earlier.
                                    Signature

                                    Read A Post.
                                    Subscribe to a Newsletter
                                    KimWinfrey.Com

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6093251].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Being able to buy health insurance across state lines is an old Republican idea that sounds good but has some real problems. One of them is that what happened to credit cards could happen to health insurance, which is the banks/corporations look for the best deal possible for them and worst deal for consumers, find a desperately poor state willing to lower regulations and standards, use that state as a home base for the industry and voila: no real choices and a bad product for consumers. With the credit card industry South Dakota was the poor state willing to give the deal to the banks. Soon after other states wanted some of the business and it was a race to the bottom as far as a product for consumers was concerned. It's not a good idea or even very original.

                        Secret History Of The Credit Card - More To Explore | FRONTLINE | PBS

                        Ezra Klein - Selling insurance across state lines: A terrible, no good, very bad health-care idea
                        Using an example of something that happened 30 years ago in a different industry, doesn't make your statement right.
                        Neither is using a liberal democrat's (Ezra Klein) take on what would happen.
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5999693].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Baahh Bahhh Bahhh
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5988199].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5989120].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "Since Ron Paul isn't into forcing/mandating anyone - including businesses and health care providers...

    ... to do anything, ..."

    So TL your position on this,and it appears everything else, is that everyone has to be forced to do anything?

    I'm just asking because that is what it appears you are saying......

    I just want to be clear on your statement.......
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5990663].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      "Since Ron Paul isn't into forcing/mandating anyone - including businesses and health care providers...

      ... to do anything, ..."

      So TL your position on this,and it appears everything else, is that everyone has to be forced to do anything?

      I'm just asking because that is what it appears you are saying......

      I just want to be clear on your statement.......

      I didn't say Mr. Paul has no health care plan...


      .. but I am saying his plan would not include most if any of those benefits above.


      Mr. Paul appears to be for a strict free market approach to health care.

      ( and just about everything else - BTW. )


      The strict free market approach basically says...


      Companies can do whatever they want to/with consumers and consumers will find the best deal.

      Competition will force companies to provide valuable better and better deals for the consumers.

      That's the free market approach in a nutshell right?


      All I'm saying is that Mr. Paul as a libertarian would not be inclined to force health insurance companies to give their clients all those benefits I listed.


      And, you know as well as I do...


      ...that If providers are not forced,

      ... they won't provide those benefits because they have had plenty of opportunity in the past to provide those benefits and they clearly did not.


      Sure Mr. Paul will have a health care plan for the nation.


      I just doubt it will have all if any, of the benefits listed above since Mr. P. is not into forcing the providers to do any of the above.


      That's all.


      Now I understand.


      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5990780].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I didn't say Mr. Paul has no health care plan...


        .. but I am saying his plan would not include most if any of those benefits above.


        Mr. Paul appears to be for a strict free market approach to health care.

        ( and just about everything else - BTW. )


        The strict free market approach basically says...


        Companies can do whatever they want to/with consumers and consumers will find the best deal.

        Competition will force companies to provide valuable better and better deals for the consumers.

        That's the free market approach in a nutshell right?


        All I'm saying is that Mr. Paul as a libertarian would not be inclined to force health insurance companies to give their clients all those benefits I listed.


        And, you know as well as I do...


        ...that If providers are not forced,

        ... they won't provide those benefits because they have had plenty of opportunity in the past to provide those benefits and they clearly did not.


        Sure Mr. Paul will have a health care plan for the nation.


        I just doubt it will have all if any, of the benefits listed above since Mr. P. is not into forcing the providers to do any of the above.


        That's all.


        Now I understand.


        All The Best!!

        TL
        Interesting, you didn't even try to touch my question. It had nothing to do with Ron Paul.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5991287].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          .. they won't provide those benefits because they have had plenty of opportunity in the past to provide those benefits and they clearly did not.
          Currently you cannot buy health insurance from an out of state company. In other words the company has to be approved by the state to sell health insurance in the sate. So there isn't much incentive in most states to provide better benefits.
          .
          RP's plan would use the interstate commerce clause to allow you to purchase any plan from any insurance company in the country instead of just the few in your state.
          (thanks Mike for that link)
          You don't think that will lower insurance cost and improve benefits?

          It's not like people would have you believe about RP and regulations.
          He doesn't want to de-regulate everything. He wants to get rid of the regulations that are hindering our countries growth.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5991421].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            Currently you cannot buy health insurance from an out of state company. In other words the company has to be approved by the state to sell health insurance in the sate. So there isn't much incentive in most states to provide better benefits.
            .
            RP's plan would use the interstate commerce clause to allow you to purchase any plan from any insurance company in the country instead of just the few in your state.
            (thanks Mike for that link)
            You don't think that will lower insurance cost and improve benefits?

            It's not like people would have you believe about RP and regulations.
            He doesn't want to de-regulate everything. He wants to get rid of the regulations that are hindering our countries growth.
            Unfortunately, both sides will spin this to make it what it's not. It's been done right in this very thread
            Signature

            Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5991485].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            Currently you cannot buy health insurance from an out of state company. In other words the company has to be approved by the state to sell health insurance in the sate. So there isn't much incentive in most states to provide better benefits.
            .
            RP's plan would use the interstate commerce clause to allow you to purchase any plan from any insurance company in the country instead of just the few in your state.
            (thanks Mike for that link)
            You don't think that will lower insurance cost and improve benefits?

            It's not like people would have you believe about RP and regulations.
            He doesn't want to de-regulate everything. He wants to get rid of the regulations that are hindering our countries growth.
            The hospital is trying to KILL me! They have REFUSED to allow me to continue with my career as it stands, and provide me with a drug that THEY have forced me into a position so that I have to take it FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE!!!!!!! I have to call them next monday to see where I stand for this month. It will be about 3 months before I ust switch prescriptions. So I AGAIN have to scramble to try to find some place to provide that service. HECK, it only means upwards of $600/year profit for them with almost NO effort or risk! The HELL with insurance, this is the HOSPITAL, money or no! LUCKILY, I NEVER trusted them, so I didn't switch, and I have 2 months more prescriptions, and some to ride things out. So THEY got about $600, and I got *****NOTHING***** for it! NO prescription! STILL, what am I to do?

            NOW, as for insurance, if the FDA and FTC did their jobs, we should NOT need insurance commissioners. We have NOBODY filling the role federally! So the STATES do! That could be upwards of $5,000,000 in wastes just for THEIR redundant salaries! And what of their assistants, offices, and all the support? That could be BILLIONS! And then they make STUPID laws like senseless licenses, senseless insurance, and dumb requirements. This could be HUNDREDS of billions that the insurance companies must pay. And they wonder why it is so expensive? DUMB!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5992369].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Steve, I know your familiar with Epogen and the ridiculous price thay charge for it.
    Well,with my transplant I don't have to take it anymore.
    When they came and got the dialysis equiptment out of our house,I asked them what else they could take,becuase I still had almost 2 months of medical supplies and medicines,most still in the factory shipping boxes. They told me they weren't taking any of that back and to dispose of it..
    First, even though I live in a good neighborhood I think, I am not throwing boxes of needles and syringes into the trash. And the Epogen,which they bill my insurance I think about a grand for each tiny bottle,they said to throw away too. andI have about 10 bottles of it. Talk about waste. We even asked if we could donate the stuff to any free clinics or anything and they told us it was against the law. :rolleyes:
    I probably have a few $1000s of supplies still in my house.
    And I know I mentioned this numerous times over the years. Even though my wife and I did the whole dialysis treatments here at home, the insurance company was charged almost 2 grand a day by the dialysis company.
    Want to lower helth care costs? Stop the fraud,
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5992399].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Steve, I know your familiar with Epogen and the ridiculous price thay charge for it.
      Well,with my transplant I don't have to take it anymore.
      When they came and got the dialysis equiptment out of our house,I asked them what else they could take,becuase I still had almost 2 months of medical supplies and medicines,most still in the factory shipping boxes. They told me they weren't taking any of that back and to dispose of it..
      First, even though I live in a good neighborhood I think, I am not throwing boxes of needles and syringes into the trash.
      If they are still new, and sealed, KEEP THEM. You NEVER KNOW!

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      And the Epogen,which they bill my insurance I think about a grand for each tiny bottle,they said to throw away too. andI have about 10 bottles of it. Talk about waste. We even asked if we could donate the stuff to any free clinics or anything and they told us it was against the law. :rolleyes:
      Actually, that makes sense! I think it DOES have a definite expiration. They may be multi use. NO offense, but you might have contaminated them. There is no way to know, so they're right. Want to know a secret? They charge you PER THE VIAL! If you take 3000 units, and the next smallest vial is 5000, you pay for 5000! That MIGHT be why aspirin cost $5! They charge for the next largest unit that can provide it, and you can't buy aspirin at the drug store, you have to buy a bottle of aspirin.

      BTW the last I knew, 5000 units would cost about $750. Of course, it COULD cost more! An increase of $.03/unit is NOT unusual and THAT would add $150 to each 5000 unit vial!

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I probably have a few $1000s of supplies still in my house.
      And I know I mentioned this numerous times over the years. Even though my wife and I did the whole dialysis treatments here at home, the insurance company was charged almost 2 grand a day by the dialysis company.
      Want to lower helth care costs? Stop the fraud,
      You're right, but it doesn't count here. They COULD charge people per unit, and use other units on other patients, but they say they don't.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5992675].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BTW a prescription of about 50,000 units isn't that unusual, and that could be 10 5000 unit vials! So your stash might be only ONE dose! Of course, it depends how big the vials are and what they're prescribed.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5992702].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Yep, you are right on all counts,they do charge PER vial and I do have two different sizes. But I see how in theory I could have contaminated but like I said a lot of the supplies are still in the manufacturers orginal packaging.

    Except the Epogen,since that has to be refridgerated it has been taken out of the shipping package.

    My prescription was one vial per S h o t, I think it was 20,000 unit bottles. I could go look but I'm not going to tonight .
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5992713].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Yep, you are right on all counts,they do charge PER vial and I do have two different sizes. But I see how in theory I could have contaminated but like I said a lot of the supplies are still in the manufacturers orginal packaging.

      Except the Epogen,since that has to be refridgerated it has been taken out of the shipping package.

      My prescription was one vial per S h o t, I think it was 20,000 unit bottles. I could go look but I'm not going to tonight .
      20,000 unit vials, last I knew cost like $3000 each!

      But yeah, even donating ASPIRIN, in theory, could be problematic.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5992868].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        20,000 unit vials, last I knew cost like $3000 each!

        But yeah, even donating ASPIRIN, in theory, could be problematic.

        Steve
        I just checked as I made my morning cofee.
        I have 8 vials,4 are 10,000 units and 4 are 20,000 units.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5994094].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          I just checked as I made my morning cofee.
          I have 8 vials,4 are 10,000 units and 4 are 20,000 units.
          Kim when my wife died I had left a full bottle of liquid morphine and two boxes of 75m morphine patches. They weren't opened at all and I couldn't give those back either. Ended up flushing the liquid and burning the patches.
          I thought out of all the drugs they would want them back.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5994290].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            Kim when my wife died I had left a full bottle of liquid morphine and two boxes of 75m morphine patches. They weren't opened at all and I couldn't give those back either. Ended up flushing the liquid and burning the patches.
            I thought out of all the drugs they would want them back.
            Would YOU want to risk YOUR $%^&*( on drugs that were donated? It is like the old rumor of restaurants reusing parsley!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5994378].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              Would YOU want to risk YOUR $%^&*( on drugs that were donated? It is like the old rumor of restaurants reusing parsley!

              Steve
              Sounds like some of the parties I went to in the 70's...
              Signature
              Professional Googler
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5994391].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              Would YOU want to risk YOUR $%^&*( on drugs that were donated? It is like the old rumor of restaurants reusing parsley!

              Steve
              No but I would think they would take them back to dispose of properly.
              They had no idea of if I would dispose of them or sell them.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5994519].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I want medicare to stay,but I want it both fixed and the corruption and graft stopped.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995350].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I want medicare to stay,but I want it both fixed and the corruption and graft stopped.
      That's the thing Kim.
      If it was fixed and the corruption and graft was gone, it would be a good program IMHO.
      I feel the same way about S.S.
      One of the big changes I'd like to see in S.S. is being able to will any money left in your account to whom ever you want when you die.
      I'd also like to see them both be optional.
      When you are forced to purchase something, it is always low quality.
      Like S.S. for example.
      If they said here's the deal. You give use 7% of your gross pay every week and after you reitre we will give you x amount per month till your money runs out. You can also purchase insurance at $1 a week so if your account runs out of money before you die, you can continue collecting the same amount.
      If any money is left in your account you can leave it to the person of your choice named in your will.
      Make that optional and I'm sure most would still opt in because it's a good inexpensive safety net.

      For Medicare if they just set it up so they payed 80% across the board and actually did, that would be a huge improvement. Keep the rates the same even. But again make it optional.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995465].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I want medicare to stay,but I want it both fixed and the corruption and graft stopped.

      Total fed gov cost for medicare was $523 billion in 2010.

      The ACA will stop overpaying providers by at least 50 billion per year.


      Are you saying there are lots of other savings available?


      IYHO...


      How much of the 523 billion - after the 50 billion is deducted for over payments is corruption and graft??


      another...

      50 billion, 100 billion?? 200 billion ??


      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995525].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    TL,

    Thanks for reading it.

    I have to admit that I am woefully lax in my total understanding of both the current plan and RP's. Just some reading of both. It's a continuing education...

    I agree we need to make health care available to everyone. In fact, pretty much everyone does on both sides. The differences lie in the ways to achieve it. And between the two, I favor RPs plan.

    It's been said and I largely agree that the large costs for health care seems to come from health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and tort lawyers. In my simplistic understanding of economics, it seems to me that if you get these 3 items under control it would go a long way to fixing the problems. And I know there are other issues, but let's just start with these. I believe fixing these alone would help tremendously.

    I tend to think - from the many examples - that another large entitlement program put in the hands of our government will eventually turn disastrously expensive and overly bureaucratic. Politicians have a way of making anything sound rosey in order to get something passed, then promptly run it in to the ground.

    Like I said - I'm no expert. Feel free to post links to the new plan that you think I should read and I will most certainly do so. Education is grand

    Mike
    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995476].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

      TL,

      Thanks for reading it.

      I have to admit that I am woefully lax in my total understanding of both the current plan and RP's. Just some reading of both. It's a continuing education...

      I agree we need to make health care available to everyone. In fact, pretty much everyone does on both sides. The differences lie in the ways to achieve it. And between the two, I favor RPs plan.

      It's been said and I largely agree that the large costs for health care seems to come from health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and tort lawyers. In my simplistic understanding of economics, it seems to me that if you get these 3 items under control it would go a long way to fixing the problems. And I know there are other issues, but let's just start with these. I believe fixing these alone would help tremendously.

      I tend to think - from the many examples - that another large entitlement program put in the hands of our government will eventually turn disastrously expensive and overly bureaucratic. Politicians have a way of making anything sound rosey in order to get something passed, then promptly run it in to the ground.

      Like I said - I'm no expert. Feel free to post links to the new plan that you think I should read and I will most certainly do so. Education is grand

      Mike
      You said...

      I agree we need to make health care available to everyone.


      In fact, pretty much everyone does on both sides.


      I say...


      I'm not trying to be argumentative but...


      I don't think that's the case with Mr. Paul's plan or any recent GOP plan.


      I hope I'm wrong.


      If the other "advanced" counties can cover everyone - so can we IMHO.

      All The Best!!


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995637].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        You said...

        I agree we need to make health care available to everyone.

        In fact, pretty much everyone does on both sides.


        I say...


        I'm not trying to be argumentative but...


        I don't think that's the case with Mr. Paul's plan or any recent GOP plan.


        I hope I'm wrong.

        All The Best!!


        TL
        It's OK TL. I expect you to think along your parties lines. You're not the first or last that has said this. But it's not your fault.

        I used to buy into most everything the right said once. Then I opened my eyes a bit more.

        There's hope for us all

        Mike
        Signature

        Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995689].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

          It's OK TL. I expect you to think along your parties lines. You're not the first or last that has said this. But it's not your fault.

          I used to buy into most everything the right said once. Then I opened my eyes a bit more.

          There's hope for us all

          Mike

          If a plan does not cover most everyone it does not cover everyone.

          Either it does or it does not.


          If it does not, there are many people who do not have a problem with it.


          Many people like me do have a problem with it.


          When I say everyone - I'm talking about at least 95% of all Americans.


          If RP's plan or the GOP covers close to everyone please show me where and how.


          I'm seriously not trying to be argumentative and...

          From what I can tell in RP's plan, if you can't afford to buy health insurance that's just too bad for you.

          Please prove me wrong if you have a difference of opinion of my last statement.

          All The Best!!

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995737].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            If a plan does not cover most everyone it does not cover everyone.

            Either it does or it does not.


            If it does not, there are many people who do not have a problem with it.


            Many people like me do have a problem with it.


            When I say everyone - I'm talking about at least 95% of all Americans.


            If RP's plan or the GOP covers close to everyone please show me where and how.


            I'm seriously not trying to be argumentative and...

            From what I can tell in RP's plan, if you can't afford to buy health insurance that's just too bad for you.

            Please prove me wrong if you have a difference of opinion of my last statement.

            All The Best!!

            TL
            To me, most everyone and 95% are pretty much the same thing. 95% is NOT everyone, so you and I must agree on "most everyone". Semantics. No point in arguing that.

            Otherwise, I really don't know yet. I already stated I am still reading and researching - when time allows. I have a life

            Enough for today. It's beautiful outside, I ran 12 miles this morning and now I want to take advantage of the sunshine with my son.

            Mike
            Signature

            Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995778].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Anybody thinking about medical care for illegal immigrants? (11-14 million here now)

    They can't get insurance so they use emergency rooms.

    This would be the case for people who cannot afford to pay for insurance and/or if given the option not to because they won't/can't 'afford it'.

    Here is a page with a whole list of articles about the fact that emergency rooms are just shutting down completely because where these people could/should/would go to a doctor for maybe a couple hundred dollars ($15 for 'in network' if they had medicare or insurance) - instead they are running up $10,000 in the emergency room.

    So again - with the present proposed options and/or the 'alternative' proposals by candidates, what will happen to people who are not for whatever reason 'in the system'

    https://www.google.com/search?source...ooms+shut+down
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995685].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Patrician
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      No I am asking you if you are saying that for anyone to do anything they need to be forced into it. That is what your statement seemed to be saying.
      This is the point - FORCED

      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      Anybody thinking about medical care for illegal immigrants? (11-14 million here now)

      They can't get insurance so they use emergency rooms.

      This would be the case for people who cannot afford to pay for insurance and/or if given the option not to because they won't/can't 'afford it'.

      Here is a page with a whole list of articles about the fact that emergency rooms are just shutting down completely because where these people could/should/would go to a doctor for maybe a couple hundred dollars ($15 for 'in network' if they had medicare or insurance) - instead they are running up $10,000 in the emergency room.

      So again - with the present proposed options and/or the 'alternative' proposals by candidates, what will happen to people who are not for whatever reason 'in the system'

      https://www.google.com/search?source...ooms+shut+down

      What I keep asking is if you do not want to FORCE people to get insurance - WHAT will you do with them when they need medical care?

      If you make it OPTIONAL to have health care - health care in an emergency is NOT OPTIONAL.

      Are we going to let them die in the streets? NO! We are going to have to take care of the poor/uninsured/illegal either way - (and believe me many people are too poor to buy insurance right now - maybe if it was more affordable -- MAYBE they would be ABLE to have it).

      I can't believe anyone would be so knave to believe that leaving it as OPTIONAL that people would actually cooperate - sure logical people would - but if you believe that everybody is logical --or even pays their fair share of taxes/doesn't get paid under the table/crosses only in crosswalks,

      well Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm comes to mind.

      The point is what are the candidates planning to do with this issue - it won't go away -
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996216].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

        This is the point - FORCED




        What I keep asking is if you do not want to FORCE people to get insurance - WHAT will you do with them when they need medical care?

        If you make it OPTIONAL to have health care - health care in an emergency is NOT OPTIONAL.

        Are we going to let them die in the streets? NO! We are going to have to take care of the poor/uninsured/illegal either way - (and believe me many people are too poor to buy insurance right now - maybe if it was more affordable -- MAYBE they would be ABLE to have it).

        I can't believe anyone would be so knave to believe that leaving it as OPTIONAL that people would actually cooperate - sure logical people would - but if you believe that everybody is logical --or even pays their fair share of taxes/doesn't get paid under the table/crosses only in crosswalks,

        well Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm comes to mind.

        The point is what are the candidates planning to do with this issue - it won't go away -

        I don't think illegals are covered in the ACA (Affordable Care Act )

        I guess they'll have to try to buy private insurance on their own and/or stumble into emergency rooms that will deal with them the best they can.


        The ACA...

        Mandates that everyone who earns a living contribute something - based on their income to the national health care fund and that will help soften the blow of the illegals.


        Here's a good related article- you should check it out...

        http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._join_as_issue


        Hope this helps!


        All The Best!!


        TL


        Ps. I know you hate the economic burden illegals are putting on this country.

        I think I heard you say ( before ) that they are costing us about 100 bill a year.


        Pat, they are not leaving the country unless we start rounding them up etc.


        Why not recognize that fact that we are not going to round them up...


        ... and move on...


        ... and get them legally...

        ...into all our systems such as collecting taxes from them and that will help pay their way and more?
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996323].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KimW
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          I don't think illegals are covered in the ACA (Affordable Care Act )

          I guess they'll have to try to buy private insurance on their own and/or stumble into emergency rooms that will deal with them the best they can.


          The ACA...

          Mandates that everyone who earns a living contribute something - based on their income to the national health care fund and that will help soften the blow of the illegals.


          Here's a good related article- you should check it out...

          Immigration and 'Obamacare' Join as Issue - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢


          Hope this helps!


          All The Best!!


          TL


          Ps. I know you hate the economic burden illegals are putting on this country.

          I think I heard you say ( before ) that they are costing us about 100 bill a year.


          Pat, they are not leaving the country unless we start rounding them up etc.


          Why not recognize that fact that we are not going to round them up...


          ... and move on...


          ... and get them legally...

          ...into all our systems such as collecting taxes from them and that will help pay their way and more?
          Actually TL, we need to be arresting them as soon as we find them and escort them back over the border to whatever country they came from.

          They are not only placing a financial burden,they show they have no respect for our country and our laws.
          Anyone that is willing to come here legally and follow our laws is more than welcome in my eyes.
          The rest get them out as fast as possible.
          Our country is based on being a mixing bowl, but the immigrants came legally.
          While it is not Politically Correct to say get them out, it is what needs to be done.
          Pat is right.
          And the fact that you want to allow the law breakers to stay and turn them into "legal" citizens after they have already proven they have no respect for our country or laws speaks volumes.
          Signature

          Read A Post.
          Subscribe to a Newsletter
          KimWinfrey.Com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996419].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by KimW View Post

            Actually TL, we need to be arresting them as soon as we find them and escort them back over the border to whatever country they came from.

            They are not only placing a financial burden,they show they have no respect for our country and our laws.
            Anyone that is willing to come here legally and follow our laws is more than welcome in my eyes.
            The rest get them out as fast as possible.
            Our country is based on being a mixing bowl, but the immigrants came legally.
            While it is not Politically Correct to say get them out, it is what needs to be done.
            Pat is right.


            And the fact that you want to allow the law breakers to stay and turn them into "legal" citizens after they have already proven they have no respect for our country or laws speaks volumes.



            This is an emotional issue.

            Deportations are at an all time high Kim.


            We're finding and deporting at least 400,000 each year since 2008.

            We gave illegals aliens amnesty in the 1980's when Reagan was president.

            I guess that also speaks volumes about him and anyone who agreed with the policy in the 80's.


            Once again...


            We're finding and deporting at least 400,000 each year since 2008.


            At this pace, we can get rid of about 4 million of them in 10 years and in 20 years we can get rid of about 8 million and so forth.


            Maybe we should spend a lot more money on enforcement so that we can round up a lot more of them asap.


            My thing is if we're not going to deport them then let's get them online and get them paying taxes etc.,


            ... to at least lessen the economic burden they're putting on our society.



            All The Best!!


            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996648].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author KimW
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              This is an emotional issue.


              Deportations are at an all time high Kim.

              Support with proof please?
              But even if true,illegal aliens sneaking into the country is at all time highs too.
              Looks like its a wash.



              We're finding and deporting at least 400,000 each year since 2008.

              Again, I'd like to see the proof.

              We gave illegals aliens amnesty in the 1980's when Reagan was president.

              I don't recall that, but I admit I wasn't as politically active then as I should have been.Can you provide me with the executive order that did that?

              I guess that also speaks volumes about him and anyone who agreed with the policy in the 80's.

              I certainly didn't. I didn't vote or support him.


              Once again...


              We're finding and deporting at least 400,000 each year since 2008.

              Again, proof?






              At this pace, we can get rid of about 4 million of them in 10 years and in 20 years we can get rid of about 8 million and so forth.

              We should be at least doing 10 times that number per year then.


              Maybe we should spend a lot more money on enforcement so that we can round up a lot more of them asap.


              Of course we should. Let's take some of the money the country is spending on the illegal wars we are participating in?



              My thing is if we're not going to deport them then let's get them online and get them paying taxes etc.,


              ... to at least lessen the economic burden they're putting on our society.

              I think that is what Pat is in agreement with you on.



              All The Best!!

              TL

              Me, I say get them all out ASAP.
              An illegal alien raped someone I know last year,skipped bond and fled to Florida.Was brought back here for the arraingment(sp?) to see if charges should be brought against him,they decided there was enough evidence to bring the charges,then let him walk out of the courthouse a free man til the court date. I'll bet money he doesn't show.
              Signature

              Read A Post.
              Subscribe to a Newsletter
              KimWinfrey.Com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996710].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                Me, I say get them all out ASAP.
                An illegal alien raped someone I know last year,skipped bond and fled to Florida.Was brought back here for the arraingment(sp?) to see if charges should be brought against him,they decided there was enough evidence to bring the charges,then let him walk out of the courthouse a free man til the court date. I'll bet money he doesn't show.
                Sorry to hear that.




                I said...

                Deportations are at an all time high Kim.

                You said...

                Support with proof please?

                Here's a link from a down the middle publication regarding deportations.

                Obama's ICE reports record number of deportations of illegal immigrants - TheHill.com


                You said...

                But even if true,illegal aliens sneaking into the country is at all time highs too.
                Looks like its a wash.


                I say...


                That is not true.


                Even Sal acknowledges border crossings are way down- for numerous reasons.


                Here's a link that should shed light on the subject.

                What deters illegal immigrant border crossings into the US? Violence in Mexico. - CSMonitor.com


                I said...

                We gave illegals aliens amnesty in the 1980's when Reagan was president.


                You said...

                I don't recall that, but I admit I wasn't as politically active then as I should have been.


                Can you provide me with the executive order that did that?


                Here's a link...

                Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


                All The Best!!

                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996820].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author KimW
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  Sorry to hear that.




                  I said...

                  Deportations are at an all time high Kim.

                  You said...

                  Support with proof please?

                  Here's a link from a down the middle publication regarding deportations.

                  Obama's ICE reports record number of deportations of illegal immigrants - TheHill.com

                  Thanks, I will look at it


                  You said...

                  But even if true,illegal aliens sneaking into the country is at all time highs too.
                  Looks like its a wash.


                  I say...


                  That is not true.

                  I say it is true.And just because I like Sal and she is a friend,doesn't mean I think everything she says is always right,just like my friends here don't always think I am right,but its all good.
                  But in this case its been proven over and over, And its simple math, illegal imigrants figures keep going up even as we ,according to you are deporting record numbers.The figures couldn't logically go up if we were deporting more than were coming in.


                  Even Sal acknowledges border crossings are way down- for numerous reasons.

                  See what I said above.


                  Here's a link that should shed light on the subject.

                  What deters illegal immigrant border crossings into the US? Violence in Mexico. - CSMonitor.com

                  Again, I'll look at it,just not right now.


                  I said...

                  We gave illegals aliens amnesty in the 1980's when Reagan was president.


                  You said...



                  Can you provide me with the executive order that did that?


                  Here's a link...

                  Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


                  All The Best!!

                  TL
                  I don't recall that, but I admit I wasn't as politically active then as I should have been.
                  I admitted I could be wrong and it appears I was, though the act did have limitations.Even with those limitations I would have fought against it if I had known about it.
                  Signature

                  Read A Post.
                  Subscribe to a Newsletter
                  KimWinfrey.Com

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996900].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Patrician
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          Ps. I know you hate the economic burden illegals are putting on this country.

          I think I heard you say ( before ) that they are costing us about 100 bill a year.
          Pat, they are not leaving the country unless we start rounding them up etc.
          Why not recognize that fact that we are not going to round them up...
          ... and move on...
          ... and get them legally...
          ...into all our systems such as collecting taxes from them and that will help pay their way and more?
          I am for 'guest worker cards' - (aka 'green cards') - I am for a short period of 'amnesty' to get the ones who will go along with the program to become legal. (not the amnesty they have now which is illegal occupation against the will of the majority of people) and deport the rest. period and I will never 'move on'.

          we could have a special group insurance for 'guest workers' - (not sure if they pay taxes - if so they could be in the same plan as the rest of the people who do pay taxes here).

          and if we are getting snarky - if you like them so much why don't you be responsible for them.

          I see Americans - VETERANS, ELDERLY AND DISABLED AMERICAN CITIZENS BEING DENIED AND PERSECUTED, WHILE FOR SOME REASON THEY LOOK THE OTHER WAY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO ARE THWARTING OUR LAWS AND USING OUR RESOURCES WITHOUT PUTTING ANYTHING BACK LIKE THE REST OF US ARE REQUIRED TO DO UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.

          Thanks but slavery went out of style a while back. Why should we have to support them - particularly when we are having a problem supporting ourselves????
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996595].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

            I am for 'guest worker cards' -

            I am for a short period of 'amnesty' to get the ones who will go along with the program to become legal. (not the amnesty they have now which is illegal occupation against the will of the majority of people) and deport the rest. period and I will never 'move on'.

            we could have a special group insurance for 'guest workers' - (not sure if they pay taxes - if so they could be in the same plan as the rest of the people who do pay taxes here).

            and if we are getting snarky - if you like them so much why don't you be responsible for them.

            I see Americans - VETERANS, ELDERLY AND DISABLED AMERICAN CITIZENS BEING DENIED AND PERSECUTED, WHILE FOR SOME REASON THEY LOOK THE OTHER WAY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO ARE THWARTING OUR LAWS AND USING OUR RESOURCES WITHOUT PUTTING ANYTHING BACK LIKE THE REST OF US ARE REQUIRED TO DO UNDER PENALTY OF LAW.

            Thanks but slavery went out of style a while back. Why should we have to support them????
            I'm sorry if you thought I was being snarky etc.

            OK,

            According to this statement that you made...


            I am for a short period of 'amnesty' to get the ones who will go along with the program to become legal.


            So you are for some form of amnesty?


            What does it entail?? ( if you don't mind )

            Thanks,

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996640].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              I'm sorry if you thought I was being snarky etc.

              OK,

              According to this statement that you made...


              I am for a short period of 'amnesty' to get the ones who will go along with the program to become legal.


              So you are for some form of amnesty?


              What does it entail?? ( if you don't mind )

              Thanks,

              TL
              She ALSO said SHORT! The fact is that we DO have such a system. It has been around for over 100 years. There are MANY ways a person can come in, and stay LEGALLY! And there are SEVERAL ways in which the can get a GREEN CARD during that time. HECK, they don't even enforce the punishments for failing to meet obligations.

              If we are going to support healthcare for them, maybe they should DEcrease imigration.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996828].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

        This is the point - FORCED




        What I keep asking is if you do not want to FORCE people to get insurance - WHAT will you do with them when they need medical care?

        If you make it OPTIONAL to have health care - health care in an emergency is NOT OPTIONAL.

        Are we going to let them die in the streets? NO! We are going to have to take care of the poor/uninsured/illegal either way - (and believe me many people are too poor to buy insurance right now - maybe if it was more affordable -- MAYBE they would be ABLE to have it).

        I can't believe anyone would be so knave to believe that leaving it as OPTIONAL that people would actually cooperate - sure logical people would - but if you believe that everybody is logical --or even pays their fair share of taxes/doesn't get paid under the table/crosses only in crosswalks,

        well Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm comes to mind.

        The point is what are the candidates planning to do with this issue - it won't go away -
        Pat you're saying everyone in this country should be forced by the government to get health Insurance?
        I haven't had real health insurance since 2003 and I don't want it.
        When I spent the night in the hospital last May The total cost was around $14,000. The hospital knocked $11,000 off their bill and Medicare paid $2,000 of it. That was all medicare paid.
        Now the ambulance ride was $600, they deleted the whole bill because I didn't have ins. or a job.
        The cardiologist who diagnosed what was wrong, his bill was $375. When I told him I didn't have ins. He dropped it to $150.
        The E.R. Dr. bill I'm still disputing.
        My point is if you don't have any ins. they will work with you.
        By the way that is the only time in 8 years that I came close to actually needing a doctor and even then I only went to find out what had happened 3 days after the event happened.
        Myself and many Americans don't have ins. by choice and I will not be forced to buy it.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996754].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KimW
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          Pat you're saying everyone in this country should be forced by the government to get health Insurance?
          I haven't had real health insurance since 2003 and I don't want it.
          When I spent the night in the hospital last May The total cost was around $14,000. The hospital knocked $11,000 off their bill and Medicare paid $2,000 of it. That was all medicare paid.
          Now the ambulance ride was $600, they deleted the whole bill because I didn't have ins. or a job.
          The cardiologist who diagnosed what was wrong, his bill was $375. When I told him I didn't have ins. He dropped it to $150.
          The E.R. Dr. bill I'm still disputing.
          My point is if you don't have any ins. they will work with you.
          By the way that is the only time in 8 years that I came close to actually needing a doctor and even then I only went to find out what had happened 3 days after the event happened.
          Myself and many Americans don't have ins. by choice and I will not be forced to buy it.
          Thom,
          I think if someone needs it it should be available to them, but no one should be forced into it,which is part of why I was asking TL for clarification on what he was meaning.
          I do think you were lucky though,on what and who will work with you on medical bills. The hospital that I have gone to for most of my illness is supposedly a "non-profit" hospital that will provide service no matter what,yet a visit to the emergency room averages about $1500 per for me,and insurance or not,they want the whole amount.

          I already have said what I think would decrease the cost of care immensely earlier in this thread,and again, I think medical service should be provided if needed,but I certainly don't agree with obamas plan where everyone has to pay for it.
          Signature

          Read A Post.
          Subscribe to a Newsletter
          KimWinfrey.Com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996816].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by KimW View Post

            Thom,
            I think if someone needs it it should be available to them, but no one should be forced into it,which is part of why I was asking TL for clarification on what he was meaning.
            I do think you were lucky though,on what and who will work with you on medical bills. The hospital that I have gone to for most of my illness is supposedly a "non-profit" hospital that will provide service no matter what,yet a visit to the emergency room averages about $1500 per for me,and insurance or not,they want the whole amount.

            I already have said what I think would decrease the cost of care immensely earlier in this thread,and again, I think medical service should be provided if needed,but I certainly don't agree with obamas plan where everyone has to pay for it.
            I agree Kim, if a person wants health insurance they should be able to get it.
            Not all the doctors and hospitals do that I understand.
            That's why the E.R. dr. bill is in dispute
            His billing company after 6 months finally cut his bill in half, but by then I had decided I would only pay for the time he spent on me. So my number is around $150, theirs is around $450
            If I remember right, we both said the same thing on what would lower the health care costs
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5997219].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      Anybody thinking about medical care for illegal immigrants? (11-14 million here now)

      They can't get insurance so they use emergency rooms.

      This would be the case for people who cannot afford to pay for insurance and/or if given the option not to because they won't/can't 'afford it'.

      Here is a page with a whole list of articles about the fact that emergency rooms are just shutting down completely because where these people could/should/would go to a doctor for maybe a couple hundred dollars ($15 for 'in network' if they had medicare or insurance) - instead they are running up $10,000 in the emergency room.

      So again - with the present proposed options and/or the 'alternative' proposals by candidates, what will happen to people who are not for whatever reason 'in the system'

      https://www.google.com/search?source...ooms+shut+down
      Well, they should NOT be here if they are illegal!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996762].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    The only thing the IRS is is legalized theft.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995714].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    TL,
    what happened to answering my question I asked you?
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995798].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      TL,
      what happened to answering my question I asked you?

      Repeat it and I will answer it right now.


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995821].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Well, sure, let me go back,find the post and then cut and paste it for you
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995824].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Ok, it is post number 117,and has nothing to do with Ron Paul. ahe was only mentioned in the post for context purposes:

    "So TL your position on this,and it appears everything else, is that everyone has to be forced to do anything?

    I'm just asking because that is what it appears you are saying......

    I just want to be clear on your statement......."
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995840].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Ok, it is post number 117,and has nothing to do with Ron Paul. ahe was only mentioned in the post for context purposes:

      "So TL your position on this,and it appears everything else, is that everyone has to be forced to do anything?

      I'm just asking because that is what it appears you are saying......

      I just want to be clear on your statement......."
      I'm not sure I agree with your above statement but...

      I'm saying that...

      The health care providers must be forced to do the right thing such as...

      - not kicking people to the curb if they get sick among many other abuses of the American people.

      I hope that answers your question.

      If not please let me know.


      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995870].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I'm not sure I agree with your above statement but...

        I'm saying that...

        The health care providers must be forced to do the right thing such as...

        - not kicking people to the curb if they get sick among many other abuses of the American people.

        I hope that answers your question.

        If not please let me know.


        All The Best!!

        TL
        No I am asking you if you are saying that for anyone to do anything they need to be forced into it. That is what your statement seemed to be saying.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995986].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          No I am asking you if you are saying that for anyone to do anything they need to be forced into it.

          That is what your statement seemed to be saying.

          That would be silly on my part and I try not to be silly when it comes to matters of public policy.

          In certain situations my answer is yes.

          I'm not a big believer in forcing anyone to do anything unless absolutely necessary...

          ...but with the health care situation in the USA I believe...

          - People who are earning a living should be forced to buy/pay into our health insurance system.

          How much you pay should be based on how much you earn and the ACA makes up the difference in getting low wage earners a decent health care plan.


          Providers must be forced to provide and stop abusing the American people.

          Providers had their chance and plenty of time to do the right things...

          ... but...

          ...they have failed miserably so now we, via the fed gov and the ACA, will force them to do the right things.

          Is that enough for you on my position regarding forcing people etc.??

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996048].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    FYI...

    The private health care providers and their administration of a lot of our Health Care system earns them at least...


    $400 billion per year and employ at least ??? people.



    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5995969].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      FYI...

      The private health care providers and their administration of a lot of our Health Care system earns them at least...


      $400 billion per year and employ at least ??? people.



      TL
      Exactly why I mentioned in another post that things like this SHOULD be addressed. Greed is bad enough. Greed at the expense of human health or life is deplorable.
      Signature

      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996017].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

        Exactly why I mentioned in another post that things like this SHOULD be addressed.

        Greed is bad enough. Greed at the expense of human health or life is deplorable.

        The thing is these companies were/are making profits as high as 40% and their specialty was/is denying coverage to clients when clients needed them the most.


        600k American families as year were/are filing for bankruptcy thanks to a medical prob and all of them had some form of health insurance.

        They got stabbed in the back when they needed help the most.


        The ACA mandates providers to spend 80% of all income on actual health care services and find a way to survive on just 20% profit for their services.


        In exchange they get 30-40 million new customers.


        All The Best!!

        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996155].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "Since Ron Paul isn't into forcing/mandating anyone - including businesses and health care providers...

    ... to do anything, ..."
    Now you are saying you meant healthcare TL? Because my question issn't about Ron Paul,I didn't repost that part, I am focused on how it seems you are saying the only way to get someone,anyone,to do something is to force them to.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996387].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      "Since Ron Paul isn't into forcing/mandating anyone - including businesses and health care providers...

      ... to do anything, ..."


      Now you are saying you meant healthcare TL?

      Because my question issn't about Ron Paul,I didn't repost that part, I am focused on how it seems you are saying the only way to get someone,anyone,to do something is to force them to.

      And I'm saying I don't know how you came up with that.

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996406].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        And I'm saying I don't know how you came up with that.

        TL
        Because you said it.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996422].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KimW
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          And I'm saying I don't know how you came up with that.

          TL
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Because you said it.
          Right here:

          "Since Ron Paul isn't into forcing/mandating anyone - including businesses and health care providers...

          ... to do anything, ...



          ... I can only surmise that if he has his way, all these benefits would disappear with his health care plan.


          - Providers will not be able to deny coverage to those that can't afford it.


          - Providers will not be able to deny coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.


          - 95% of Americans will have a health care plan.


          - Women will not pay more than men for coverage."

          All I did was take what you said and the implication that if you feel RP has to do it then any and everyone has to do it.
          Signature

          Read A Post.
          Subscribe to a Newsletter
          KimWinfrey.Com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996646].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Pat is even softer on them than I am. I don't support any form of anmesty. Again,I know I am not politically Correct, but for me I will admit it's very personal.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996660].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Patrician
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Pat is even softer on them than I am. I don't support any form of anmesty. Again,I know I am not politically Correct, but for me I will admit it's very personal.
      Yes Kim - I hear you - and believe me I had to come a long way to get to any form of amnesty - 1/3 is being realistic (compromise - better than nothing); 1/3 is about Jesus. If He lives in me it is impossible for me to hate, which He never does; and 1/3 is "show mercy and you will be given mercy" (what if it was me?)


      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      So, you're basically for the same type of amnesty that I am.

      It's a solid plan to address the issue IMHO.
      Has this always been your position or have you evolved into it???

      TL
      See above TL!
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996684].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Pat is even softer on them than I am. I don't support any form of anmesty. Again,I know I am not politically Correct, but for me I will admit it's very personal.

      I guess Pat's position on this issue speaks volumes about Pat also as you said it speaks volumes about me.


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996686].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I guess Pat's position on this issue speaks volumes about Pat also as you said it speaks volumes about me.


        TL
        Why of course,just as my position speaks volumes about me.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996719].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

    I'm sorry if you thought I was being snarky etc.

    OK,
    According to this statement that you made...
    I am for a short period of 'amnesty' to get the ones who will go along with the program to become legal.

    So you are for some form of amnesty?
    What does it entail?? ( if you don't mind )

    Thanks,
    TL

    Just STEP UP -

    Cop to THE FACT that they are here illegally, and want to become legal.

    Get a social security number, a job and pay taxes.

    OR as I say - be a 'guest worker' -get a 'green card'.

    Simple.



    If none of the above by X date we find them and kick them out.

    I do not believe they deserve to be in prison (and that costs more money).

    However if we find them and they have committed any other crime besides being here illegally then they go to prison just like our native born crooks. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LENDER
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996666].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      Just STEP UP -

      Cop to that they are here illegally, and want to become legal.

      Get a social security number, a job and pay taxes.

      OR as I say - be a 'guest worker' -get a 'green card'.

      Simple.



      If none of the above by X date we find them and kick them out.

      I do not believe they deserve to be in prison (and that costs more money).

      However if we find them and they have committed any other crime besides being here illegally then they go to prison just like our native born crooks.

      So, you're basically for the same type of amnesty that I am.

      It's a solid plan to address the issue IMHO.

      Has this always been your position or have you evolved into it???



      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996679].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
    Many of those 400,000 per year deportations are the same people over and over. Some are NEVER caught. That's just another BS spin doctor figure.
    Signature
    Professional Googler
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996751].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Dave Patterson View Post

      Many of those 400,000 per year deportations are the same people over and over.

      Some are NEVER caught.


      That's just another BS spin doctor figure.

      Why do I have the feeling that no source of info on this subject would satisfy you and Kim??


      Let me add Seasoned to the list.



      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996834].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Why do I have the feeling that no source of info on this subject would satisfy you and Kim??



        TL
        The same reason no source will satisfy you. Like, your immigration figures are BS...Report says US immigration deportation data released is skewed
        Signature
        Professional Googler
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996852].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by Dave Patterson View Post

          The same reason no source will satisfy you. Like, your immigration figures are BS...Report says US immigration deportation data released is skewed
          I'm willing to bet that the number of deportations is very arguable and that you can find any number of sources to dispute anything the fed gov says - quickly online.


          But...

          That does not mean they are correct in their assessment and you can't prove they are correct, ...

          ...just like you can say that I can not actually prove the federal figures are accurate.



          All The Best!!

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996908].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            I'm willing to bet that the number of deportations is very arguable and that you can find any number of sources to dispute anything the fed gov says - quickly online.


            But...

            That does not mean they are correct in their assessment and you can't prove they are correct, ...

            ...just like you can say that I can not actually prove the federal figures are accurate.



            All The Best!!

            TL
            You know,TL, sometimes peoples intelligence can actually be enough proof of something, at least those of us educated before they started the dumbing down of America, aka "No Child Left Behind" BS.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996950].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I was typing a different response when this was posted,so I will address it here:

    "I do not believe they deserve to be in prison (and that costs more money).

    However if we find them and they have committed any other crime besides being here illegally then they go to prison just like our native born crooks. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LENDER"

    They probably do deserve to be in prison,just not ours. Remember when Castro gave "amnesty" to cubans and sent us all his criminals? ( is this the thing you were talking about with Reagan,TL?)

    From my perspective the majority have committed other crimes than just being here illegally,they can't exist in an underground society (which is how they survive in America) without breaking numerous laws. Again,this shows me they have no respect for our country,our laws or the citizens of this country.

    Now, totally unrelated, I am for English being a required language for any that wants to become a citizen. Of course I certainly would give a length of time for that because our language is so messed up that it is hard even for us to learn it properly.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996759].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Now, totally unrelated, I am for English being a required language for any that wants to become a citizen. Of course I certainly would give a length of time for that because our language is so messed up that it is hard even for us to learn it properly.
      Kim there at least USED to be a law that new immigrants were to take 5 years of english classes to learn the language. Of course, they NEVER need to learn ANYTHING.

      I wish I remembered the EXACT incident, and I think this happened a few months ago. A guy went to a city hall meeting with a public interpreter, that WE paid for, and at one point said he had been here for 20 years. IN SPANISH! One of the heads of the meeting stopped and said... "WAIT A SEC! You have been here for 22 years and can't speak english?" He THEN revealed that he COULD! And, it seemed, well, but HE DIDN'T WANT TO!!!!!!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996858].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    It is absolute insanity to let a rapist here illegally to walk without bail (even with bail) while 'awaiting trial'. Yeah right, they are going to show up for court.

    So even with 'amnesty' and 'green cards' - THUMB PRINT, social security, job, pay taxes. If not get the hell out.

    Crime is really a big part of the big picture on why we have to stop tolerating illegal immigration. Maybe just as important as all the money they cost for us to support them while they have carte blanche to 'live off the land' and we don't.

    It is so easy for them to disappear because unlike us slaves they are not in the system.

    With that said, 'love your enemies' - not because they deserve it but because hate is poisonous to our souls.

    So say with love, austa la vesta the free ride on gringo is done.

    i know my spanish spelling is even worse than my english - just a dumb gringa...
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996948].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      It is absolute insanity to let a rapist here illegally to walk without bail (even with bail) while 'awaiting trial'. Yeah right, they are going to show up for court.

      So even with 'amnesty' and 'green cards' - THUMB PRINT, social security, job, pay taxes. If not get the hell out.

      Crime is really a big part of the big picture on why we have stop tolerating illegal immigration. Maybe just as important as all the money they cost for us to support them while they have carte blanche to 'live off the land' and we don't.

      It is so easy for them to disappear because unlike us slaves they are not in the system.

      With that said, 'love your enemies' - not because they deserve it but because hate is poisonous to our souls.

      So say with love, austa la vesta the free ride on gringo is done.
      Pat you are right.
      And I honestly try not to hate anyone. I'm not successful,but I'm pretty close.

      And you also hit the other nail. Crime is a big reason. And unlike you and me, we can't just disappear with the help of a few millions just like us that feel its ok to hide those that don't care about our laws.

      That is why I say over and over, you're here legally and you are willing to learn our language ( how many countries do you think you could go and stay in and not be expected to learn their language??) and obey our laws, I welcome you with open arms.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5996978].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Yeah, I've always had health insurance since I wa diagnosed with kidney failure. I was on my wife's policy when diagnosed and when she got laid off The American Kidney Fund paid for me to be COBRAed in till she got re-employed and reinsured. But I was extremely lucky and that's why I tell people I know at least what that organization does with the money it raises.
    But my wife had to go to the ER once while she didn't have insureance and the bills are about $1500. They told her that there were ways to get assistance with the bill since she had no insurance,but basically they lied. They made no adjustments and sent collectors after us. I am like you though Thom, I have gotten where I will offer what I think is reasonable and they can take it or not.
    I especially love it when they threaten to mess with my credit. I just tell them go right ahead, I haven't had or used a credit card in 6 years now. :-)
    They really don't know what to do or say then.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5997266].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I especially love it when they threaten to mess with my credit. I just tell them go right ahead, I haven't had or used a credit card in 6 years now. :-)
      They really don't know what to do or say then.
      Yeah, it is SICK! That is what drives me UP THE WALL!!!!!!! THAT is what makes me wish I had more, as my mother would say, "LARCENY IN MY SOLE"!

      1. OH, you are 100% honest and doing great? OK, I will hurt you by doing 1,2,3 and 4!

      2. OH, you are 100% honest and doing OK? OK, I will hurt you by doing 1,2,3!

      3. OH, you are 100% honest, and have only been hurt? OK, I will hurt you by doing 2 and 3

      4. OH, you have tried, but have a blemished record? OK, I will hurt you by doing 3.

      5. OH, you belong to such and such a special class, or are a criminal we can't find, etc.... and chose not to pay? OK, forget it!

      6. OH, you belong to such and such a special class, and claim we have done so and so? OK, we will do 5.

      7. 5,6
      8. 5,6,7
      9. etc....

      It REALLY stinks!

      BWT 1 might be like a lawsuit, 2 might be harassment and garnishment, 3 would be like credit report, 4 would be public humiliation, 5 would be like simple benefits, 6 would be like financial windfall, and 7 would be like ownership in some part.

      And they say crime doesn't pay!

      HECK, look at that ILLEGAL that recently got a PUBLIC ATTORNEY to PROSECUTE a US citizen to have him pay the ILLEGAL money, from a US LOTTERY, that he did NOT deserve, couldn't get, and may ot have had any part in. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!?

      Illegal immigrant wins Houston County lottery ticket lawsuit | Houston & Peach | Macon.com

      When I was harassed, they CLAIMED they would help me, but it was a JOKE! I ended up SETTLING! AGAIN, the bad guys won!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5997429].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Yeah, I've always had health insurance since I wa diagnosed with kidney failure. I was on my wife's policy when diagnosed and when she got laid off The American Kidney Fund paid for me to be COBRAed in till she got re-employed and reinsured. But I was extremely lucky and that's why I tell people I know at least what that organization does with the money it raises.
      But my wife had to go to the ER once while she didn't have insureance and the bills are about $1500. They told her that there were ways to get assistance with the bill since she had no insurance,but basically they lied. They made no adjustments and sent collectors after us. I am like you though Thom, I have gotten where I will offer what I think is reasonable and they can take it or not.
      I especially love it when they threaten to mess with my credit. I just tell them go right ahead, I haven't had or used a credit card in 6 years now. :-)
      They really don't know what to do or say then.
      When they tell me it will effect my credit, I tell them I'd have to have some first
      In Ny you could of gotten insurance under the family health plus plan and the monthly payments would of been based on your income. They can't deny you for preexisting conditions either. Only problem is when you go on S.S.D. and they force medicare on you, your insurance is canceled

      When I was in the hospital last May the hospital tried to set me up with Fidelis to pay for everything. Soon as the girl found out I had medicare, she told me they couldn't do anything for me and I would have to apply for welfare to get help
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5997878].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        When I was in the hospital last May the hospital tried to set me up with Fidelis to pay for everything. Soon as the girl found out I had medicare, she told me they couldn't do anything for me and I would have to apply for welfare to get help
        One of the MANY things the politicians don't tell you!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5998107].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I'm looking into if we can deduct a portion of our expenses off for the room we used as the dialysis room as a medical expense. If it turns out I can I am going back as far as I can,which I think is 3 years, and redoing my taxes.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5998203].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I'm looking into if we can deduct a portion of our expenses off for the room we used as the dialysis room as a medical expense. If it turns out I can I am going back as far as I can,which I think is 3 years, and redoing my taxes.
      You CAN do such a thing for a business expenses, so if that room was only used for dialysis, you really OUGHT to be able to declare it. Of course, the deductions for medical expenses are LUDICROUS! You can only declare the part over like 7.5% of your income or some such.

      But GOOD IDEA!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5998254].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    What it is for medical deductions is if it is greater than your regular standard deduction then you can itemize. (I am talking about as a 'self-employed' 100% income - it may be different for part time or for huge expenses which of course would be greater than the standard deduction.)

    It is true that they will work with you in some cases if you are uninsured -- when I went to the emergency uninsured the hospital had various discounts that took $10,000 (for 4 hours, MRI, etc) down to $6000 - one % off for uninsured and one % deduction for paying the bill all at once - so I only paid about $6000. If I had qualified for low income they would have treated it as a charity and I would have paid much less by about 75% - or if I was unemployed I could apply for state welfare.

    However now i have insurance and here is another thing that makes me furious and I do not understand the logic.

    I have 3 different insurances that end up paying everything from hospital to doctors visits, tests and even deductibles - covered 100%.

    I get the bills however and I see this in EVERY case - numbers are hypothetical but in ratio to what I am saying.

    Radiology - $1000 Due for XXXX on March 1, 2011 @ Sicko Hospital

    Insurance 1 paid $25
    Insurance 2 paid $15
    Insurance 3 paid $12

    Amount you owe $0.00 - paid in full.

    Ok - now if I was uninsured I owe them $1000 - as an individual person.
    With insurance what they are accepting total is $52. case is closed.

    If they can afford to give the insurance companies the steep discount why are they so blood-thirsty to an individual???? Do you think for one minute they would accept my $52???? They would chase me to the end of the world.

    This does not seem at all fair and I believe the 'thinking' is related to the problem of why so many people can't afford decent medical care. They can't even afford insurance.

    The hospitals became 'for profit' corporations - they do not give a tinkers damn about the health or well-being of PEOPLE (or affordability). They are in it for the money.

    Hence, the $200 tylenol - $50 kleenex, etc.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5998684].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      What it is for medical deductions is if it is greater than your regular standard deduction then you can itemize. (I am talking about as a 'self-employed' 100% income - it may be different for part time or for huge expenses which of course would be greater than the standard deduction.)

      It is true that they will work with you in some cases if you are uninsured -- when I went to the emergency uninsured the hospital had various discounts that took $10,000 (for 4 hours, MRI, etc) down to $6000 - one % off for uninsured and one % deduction for paying the bill all at once - so I only paid about $6000. If I had qualified for low income they would have treated it as a charity and I would have paid much less by about 75% - or if I was unemployed I could apply for state welfare.

      However now i have insurance and here is another thing that makes me furious and I do not understand the logic.

      I have 3 different insurances that end up paying everything from hospital to doctors visits, tests and even deductibles - covered 100%.

      I get the bills however and I see this in EVERY case - numbers are hypothetical but in ratio to what I am saying.

      Radiology - $1000 Due for XXXX on March 1, 2011 @ Sicko Hospital

      Insurance 1 paid $25
      Insurance 2 paid $15
      Insurance 3 paid $12

      Amount you owe $0.00 - paid in full.

      Ok - now if I was uninsured I owe them $1000 - as an individual person.
      With insurance what they are accepting total is $52. case is closed.

      If they can afford to give the insurance companies the steep discount why are they so blood-thirsty to an individual???? Do you think for one minute they would accept my $52???? They would chase me to the end of the world.

      This does not seem at all fair and I believe the 'thinking' is related to the problem of why so many people can't afford decent medical care. They can't even afford insurance.

      The hospitals became 'for profit' corporations - they do not give a tinkers damn about the health or well-being of PEOPLE (or affordability). They are in it for the money.

      Hence, the $200 tylenol - $50 kleenex, etc.
      I don't know what kind of insurance you have, but I have had 3-4 plans, and THEY generally bring the REAL bill down to about HALF of what the hospital would charge me, and I then have to pay 20% of that, once it is over my deductible. So the 20% works out to more like 10%.

      Medicare is ENTIRELY different! Some idiot came up with a list of expenses for various medical cases, and they pay the hospital THAT! Sometimes, the charges are even HIGHER than they should be. One scamster said he provided orthotics to people, and medicare paid like twice the going rate. LUCKILY, that charge was STILL pretty low, but he made a LOT of claims! Anyway, the hospital does it ONLY because they are FORCED. They charge others MORE, which could be why they jack up bills by 100%.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5999726].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Pat,
    you are right and that is part of what Steve,Thom and myself have been touching on. All the numbers are charges that you see on medical bills are imaginary numbers pulled out of some mystical well somewhere.
    And they love to use a secret code that no ordinary person can decypher.
    I should be able to look at my bill and know what they are claiming they did and what the are trying to charge for it.

    I also get medical bills stating I have to pay such and such because even though the insurance paid it,they later took the money back and now the medical place says I am responsible fot it instead. And this is two yars after the dr or hospital visit!

    My primary care physician's office is telling me I owe them $400. I said why,I have always had insurance.
    They said BC&BS won't pay the bill.
    I said that's because I didn't have BC&BS at the time,my insurance was Cigna,and you had the correct information on file.
    They then try to tell me that it is too late for them to go to cigna and ask for payment,so now I owe them. I say that is BS,but I'm between a rock and a hard spot. My physician has been through almost all of my medical problems with me so I don't want to change,yet if I don't pay that bill,even though it is them that screwed up and not me,they won't see me any more.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5999617].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Pat,
      you are right and that is part of what Steve,Thom and myself have been touching on. All the numbers are charges that you see on medical bills are imaginary numbers pulled out of some mystical well somewhere.
      And they love to use a secret code that no ordinary person can decypher.
      I should be able to look at my bill and know what they are claiming they did and what the are trying to charge for it.

      I also get medical bills stating I have to pay such and such because even though the insurance paid it,they later took the money back and now the medical place says I am responsible fot it instead. And this is two yars after the dr or hospital visit!

      My primary care physician's office is telling me I owe them $400. I said why,I have always had insurance.
      They said BC&BS won't pay the bill.
      I said that's because I didn't have BC&BS at the time,my insurance was Cigna,and you had the correct information on file.
      They then try to tell me that it is too late for them to go to cigna and ask for payment,so now I owe them. I say that is BS,but I'm between a rock and a hard spot. My physician has been through almost all of my medical problems with me so I don't want to change,yet if I don't pay that bill,even though it is them that screwed up and not me,they won't see me any more.
      See Kim as you already know. That is what happens when the insurance companies stand between the doctor/hospital and patient.
      They inflate the bills to get what they can.
      Walk into a hospital with ins. under the current system and when they are diagnosing you they are calculating how much they can bill you're ins. company. They already know that if they think you have a heart problem based on one possible symptom that they can run tests a,b,c,and d and get paid. Where that symptom may also indicate heartburn, which could of been proved or dismissed with one simple test. They'll run all the heart tests first even though each one may be negative before testing for heartburn. Then if it is heartburn they still charge the ins. company who then denies payment for tests that where all unnecessary except for the first one that showed no heart problem. So you're stuck paying for all the unneeded tests.

      Walk into the same hospital without insurance and they test for the heartburn first.
      Take the ins. companies out of the middle and the hospitals and doctors can then concentrate on the patients instead of what they can bill.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5999717].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        See Kim as you already know. That is what happens when the insurance companies stand between the doctor/hospital and patient.
        They inflate the bills to get what they can.
        Walk into a hospital with ins. under the current system and when they are diagnosing you they are calculating how much they can bill you're ins. company. They already know that if they think you have a heart problem based on one possible symptom that they can run tests a,b,c,and d and get paid. Where that symptom may also indicate heartburn, which could of been proved or dismissed with one simple test. They'll run all the heart tests first even though each one may be negative before testing for heartburn. Then if it is heartburn they still charge the ins. company who then denies payment for tests that where all unnecessary except for the first one that showed no heart problem. So you're stuck paying for all the unneeded tests.

        Walk into the same hospital without insurance and they test for the heartburn first.
        Take the ins. companies out of the middle and the hospitals and doctors can then concentrate on the patients instead of what they can bill.
        Thanks Thom...now I have a little better understanding of the gibberish I've been getting in my mailbox from the ins. co....
        Signature
        Professional Googler
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5999737].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        See Kim as you already know. That is what happens when the insurance companies stand between the doctor/hospital and patient.
        They inflate the bills to get what they can.
        Walk into a hospital with ins. under the current system and when they are diagnosing you they are calculating how much they can bill you're ins. company. They already know that if they think you have a heart problem based on one possible symptom that they can run tests a,b,c,and d and get paid. Where that symptom may also indicate heartburn, which could of been proved or dismissed with one simple test. They'll run all the heart tests first even though each one may be negative before testing for heartburn. Then if it is heartburn they still charge the ins. company who then denies payment for tests that where all unnecessary except for the first one that showed no heart problem. So you're stuck paying for all the unneeded tests.

        Walk into the same hospital without insurance and they test for the heartburn first.
        Take the ins. companies out of the middle and the hospitals and doctors can then concentrate on the patients instead of what they can bill.
        Yep, 100% correct.
        A week or so ago when the Drs from the transplant unit called me at home after running some blood work and seeing my magneseum was low told me to go to the ER and tell them I needed a magnesum drip because it was so low.
        They even told me that the hospital would want to draw blood to test it.

        I went and did exactly what they said. WHen they went to draw blood they took 6 vials. I asked why and told them they already know what the problem was as the transplant unit had told me what to tell them and had aleady done every other test needed just a few hours ago.

        They claimed they needed to make sure nothing had changed. (In the period of about two hours.yeah,riight).
        I could have and should have been there a couple of hours ,max. I was there 8 hours and I was actually seen and/or involved in treatment about 30 minutes of that time.

        Major reform is needed.

        And we haven't even discussed how the insurance companies control the prescriptions the Drs write,and not the Drs.
        It's completely stupid I can get my scripts coordinated so I can get them refilled all at the same time. I might have one run out on Monday and one on tuesday,but if I want the Tuesday one refilled the same as they Monday one,well,that's just too bad,the insurance won't authorized the refill and/or pay for it. It's too early.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5999842].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          First of all, there is NO test to prove a problem was heartburn! VEN if they prove you had heartburn with 100% certainty, which they really CAN'T, it doesn't prove that you don't have a heart problem.

          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Yep, 100% correct.
          A week or so ago when the Drs from the transplant unit called me at home after running some blood work and seeing my magneseum was low told me to go to the ER and tell them I needed a magnesum drip because it was so low.
          They even told me that the hospital would want to draw blood to test it.

          I went and did exactly what they said. WHen they went to draw blood they took 6 vials. I asked why and told them they already know what the problem was as the transplant unit had told me what to tell them and had aleady done every other test needed just a few hours ago.

          They claimed they needed to make sure nothing had changed. (In the period of about two hours.yeah,riight).
          I could have and should have been there a couple of hours ,max. I was there 8 hours and I was actually seen and/or involved in treatment about 30 minutes of that time.

          Major reform is needed.

          And we haven't even discussed how the insurance companies control the prescriptions the Drs write,and not the Drs.
          It's completely stupid I can get my scripts coordinated so I can get them refilled all at the same time. I might have one run out on Monday and one on tuesday,but if I want the Tuesday one refilled the same as they Monday one,well,that's just too bad,the insurance won't authorized the refill and/or pay for it. It's too early.
          Yeah, but a lot of the problems are NOT the insurance company's fault. HECK, doctors prescriptions are ALSO controlled by the FDA! AND pharmacies are controlled by the doctors!!!!

          CASE IN POINT? I once went to fill a prescription in Boston the prescription was for a chemical called metoprolol. Being a popular drug, the state had PLENTY! ****BUT****, the doctor gave me a prescription for the brand name toprol. BOTH are the SAME drug! It is ILLEGAL in MA to prescribe toprol, so NOBODY had it in stock, and I had to wait.

          OK, WHY was toprol ILLEGAL? Well, one of the COST CUTTING measures they don't tell you about romney care is that he made it ILLEGAL to prescribe a name brand if a generic was available that could replace it. Metoprolol is the 1 for 1 generic for toprol.

          So WHY couldn't the pharmacy give me metoprolol? Well, US law FORBIDS them to do so unless the prescription specifically allows it.

          I was wasting money for YEARS!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6000025].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Patrician
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        See Kim as you already know. That is what happens when the insurance companies stand between the doctor/hospital and patient.
        They inflate the bills to get what they can.
        Walk into a hospital with ins. under the current system and when they are diagnosing you they are calculating how much they can bill you're ins. company. They already know that if they think you have a heart problem based on one possible symptom that they can run tests a,b,c,and d and get paid. Where that symptom may also indicate heartburn, which could of been proved or dismissed with one simple test. They'll run all the heart tests first even though each one may be negative before testing for heartburn. Then if it is heartburn they still charge the ins. company who then denies payment for tests that where all unnecessary except for the first one that showed no heart problem. So you're stuck paying for all the unneeded tests.

        Walk into the same hospital without insurance and they test for the heartburn first.
        Take the ins. companies out of the middle and the hospitals and doctors can then concentrate on the patients instead of what they can bill.
        Yes - exactly - but for example in some cases they want to rule out the possibilities that it is something more serious - because what if they said heartburn and it was heart disease and the person walked out with his Tums and dropped dead in the parking lot? So we pay for that too one way or the other.

        Off topic but this reminds me of a car dealership I will never go to again.

        My OnStar Diagnostics gave me a message about some kind of exhaust fumes. So I took it in and they charged me $350 to do all these diagnostic tests - the problem was the rubber seal around my gas cap. What, $25 for a gas cap?

        So to me they ripped me off because they should have, if they cared anything about me as a customer, tried the gas cap first. But then there would be no labor charges...

        They got me for a $350 gas cap but I take my business elsewhere. They were 'penny wise and pound foolish'...

        With doctors and hospitals other than a 'second opinion' we are kind of stuck with whatever they say - especially if you get freaked out like I do.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6002925].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Does it eliminate the from stopping covering my anti-rejection drugs after 18 months?
    After the insurance stops covering those it is estimated my monthly meds will cost me almost 2K a month.
    This is why a lot of organ receivers end up losing the organ,they cant afford the meds and the organ fails.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6000115].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Does it eliminate the from stopping covering my anti-rejection drugs after 18 months?
      After the insurance stops covering those it is estimated my monthly meds will cost me almost 2K a month.
      This is why a lot of organ receivers end up losing the organ,they cant afford the meds and the organ fails.
      NOPE! There is to be a board, 50% controlled by people the president selects, and most won't be medical. One person involved said that those younger or older than a certain range should be sacrificed! SO, if you get too old, they may cut off your antirejection drugs.
      Assuming, of course, it were EVER covered.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6003085].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        NOPE! There is to be a board, 50% controlled by people the president selects, and most won't be medical. One person involved said that those younger or older than a certain range should be sacrificed! SO, if you get too old, they may cut off your antirejection drugs.
        Assuming, of course, it were EVER covered.

        Steve
        I know congress is petitioned EVERY year to make medicare cover the drugs. And,in the long run it would actually save the government/medicare program a LOT of money.
        It is far cheaper to pay for the anti-rejection drugs than to pay for the dialysis.
        Like Pat said in a previous post, " 'penny wise and pound foolish'... " :rolleyes:
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6003138].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          I know congress is petitioned EVERY year to make medicare cover the drugs. And,in the long run it would actually save the government/medicare program a LOT of money.
          It is far cheaper to pay for the anti-rejection drugs than to pay for the dialysis.
          Like Pat said in a previous post, " 'penny wise and pound foolish'... " :rolleyes:
          THEY won't look at it that way. HERE is one suggested way to look at it:

          METHOD COST PRODUCTIVE COVERAGE TOTAL COST
          DIALYSIS $90K/year Y $90K/year $90K/year
          TRANSPLANT $100K+$10K/year Y $100K+$10K $100K+$10K/year
          DIALYSIS $90K/year N $0K/year $0K/year
          TRANSPLANT $100K+$10K/year N $0K $0K

          SO, if they don't deem you productive, then they wouldn't cover EITHER! There is NO savings on the drugs, because they cover NOTHING! And productive is something like 14-40/yo. They do the SAME sort of thing on transplant lists, as you have found.

          Look at CHENEY! People are UPSET that he got a heart while younger people didn't. I wonder how many recipients on the list could even have taken the heart! It had to be the right size, right tissue type, and right blood type. The likelyhood of it being used is probably LOWER than a kidney. AORTAS vary GREATLY in size. They might be like a 1/4 of an inch in a premie to like 2" in a person with morfans. Mine is 1". I know that because they had to use the right size aortic stem. And a kidney could vary in size quite a bit, and still be usable, and a heart really can't. Of course, even on bloodtype alone, there are 8 main ones. Most have one of those 8, but there ARE others. I know of at least 6 others! One is SO rare that only 4 people in the world are known to have it! NOT 4%, but FOUR people! They all live in india. BTW Only about 3% of people in the US have my blood type. What if cheney had MY blood type?

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6003270].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Here is what I found about your question Kim:

      Starting Jan 1st 2014 "The law prohibits new plans and existing group plans from imposing annual dollar limits on the amount of coverage an individual may receive."

      Lifetime & Annual Limits
      The Affordable Care Act prohibits health plans from putting a lifetime dollar limit on most benefits you receive. The law also restricts and phases out the annual dollar limits a health plan can place on most of your benefits -- and does away with these limits entirely in 2014.

      What This Means for You
      Before the health care law, many health plans set an annual limit -- a dollar limit on their yearly spending for your covered benefits. Many plans also set a lifetime limit -- a dollar limit on what they would spend for your covered benefits during the entire time you were enrolled in that plan. You were required to pay the cost of all care exceeding those limits.

      Under the law, lifetime limits on most benefits are prohibited in any health plan or insurance policy issued or renewed on or after September 23, 2010.
      The law restricts and phases out the annual dollar limits that all job-related plans, and individual health insurance plans issued after March 23, 2010, can put on most covered health benefits. Specifically, the law says that none of these plans can set an annual dollar limit lower than:
      $750,000: for a plan year or policy year starting on or after September 23, 2010 but before September 23, 2011.
      $1.25 million: for a plan year or policy year starting on or after September 23, 2011 but before September 23, 2012.
      $2 million: for a plan year or policy year starting on or after September 23, 2012 but before January 1, 2014.
      No annual dollar limits are allowed on most covered benefits beginning January 1, 2014.
      Lifetime & Annual Limits | HealthCare.gov

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Does it eliminate the from stopping covering my anti-rejection drugs after 18 months?
      After the insurance stops covering those it is estimated my monthly meds will cost me almost 2K a month.
      This is why a lot of organ receivers end up losing the organ,they cant afford the meds and the organ fails.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6003303].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Tim,
    Don't want to sound dense,but does that include medicare? I didn't specify in my question that it was that program I was actually talking about,and I should have. I'm not sure about private insurance,but I know that private insurance is always iffy nowadays,both my wife and I are over fifty and decent paying jobs with good benefits are hard to find now for that age group. I may or may not be deemed healthy enough to go back to work,I don't know,But when she got laid off from her job after being htere for almost 20 years she has not been able to found anything comparable since,and was actually completely out of work for about 18 months. (which was one of the events that led be to baring my situation on here in the first place).
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6003381].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Tim,
      Don't want to sound dense,but does that include medicare? I didn't specify in my question that it was that program I was actually talking about,and I should have. I'm not sure about private insurance,but I know that private insurance is always iffy nowadays,both my wife and I are over fifty and decent paying jobs with good benefits are hard to find now for that age group. I may or may not be deemed healthy enough to go back to work,I don't know,But when she got laid off from her job after being htere for almost 20 years she has not been able to found anything comparable since,and was actually completely out of work for about 18 months. (which was one of the events that led be to baring my situation on here in the first place).
      Interesting question! As of last year, medicare *******DID******* have a limit! I know that because my mother had to get MEDICAID to stay in the home. BTW even homes in CATHOLIC holdings cost a FORTUNE! It is UNREAL! And you do NOT get much!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6003476].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Kim, from the AARP website:

      "Are Medicare supplemental and Medicare Advantage plans also prohibited from limiting coverage?

      Yes, for the most part, but not because of the health care reform law's ban. Medicare supplemental insurance (medigap) and Medicare Advantage plans are regulated by earlier laws that already prohibit annual and lifetime limits. However, medigap policies sold before 1992 can impose limits.

      Medicare Advantage plans have no lifetime limits because they have to offer coverage that is at least as good as traditional Medicare, says Vicki Gottlich, senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, D.C. "There has never been a cap on the total amount of benefits for which Medicare will pay," she explains. So Medicare Advantage plans have to follow suit."

      Health Care Reform, Annual and Lifetime Coverage Limits - AARP Bulletin

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Tim,
      Don't want to sound dense,but does that include medicare? I didn't specify in my question that it was that program I was actually talking about,and I should have. I'm not sure about private insurance,but I know that private insurance is always iffy nowadays,both my wife and I are over fifty and decent paying jobs with good benefits are hard to find now for that age group. I may or may not be deemed healthy enough to go back to work,I don't know,But when she got laid off from her job after being htere for almost 20 years she has not been able to found anything comparable since,and was actually completely out of work for about 18 months. (which was one of the events that led be to baring my situation on here in the first place).
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6003671].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    As I said though, medicare coverage RAN OUT for an old folks home!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6004887].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Yeah, unfortunately Steve, LTC isn't covered by Medicare:

      "Generally, Medicare does not pay for long-term care. Long-term care can be provided at home, in the community, or in various types of facilities, including nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Most long-term care is considered to be "custodial care."

      Custodial care is nonskilled, personal care, such as help with activities of daily living like bathing, dressing, eating, getting in or out of bed or chair, moving around, and using the bathroom. It may also include care that most people do for themselves. Medicare does not pay for custodial care.

      Medicare pays only for medically necessary skilled nursing facility (SNF) care. Generally, skilled care is available only for a short time after a hospitalization. Skilled care is health care given when you need skilled nursing or rehabilitation staff to manage, observe, and evaluate your care. Examples of skilled care are changing sterile dressings and physical therapy."

      https://questions.medicare.gov/

      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      As I said though, medicare coverage RAN OUT for an old folks home!

      Steve
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6005032].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Well Tim thanks for the info you've given us on the health care plan.
        I learned a bit more about it.
        It hasn't changed my mind to much about it, there are still things in it I like and don't like.

        To change the subject a little.
        We've been focused on the presidential race because that is the only one we all will vote on.
        But what about Congress and the Senate?
        That's where I see us needing the real change.
        It doesn't matter who we elect as president, as long as the congressmen and senators are still just corporate mouthpieces.
        When I write my congressman about something like labeling GE foods and his reply is straight off the Monsanto website, that bothers me.
        When the repubs. won't vote on something because it's a dem. plan, that bothers me.
        When the dems. do the same, that bothers me.
        Both sides claim they are doing what they do for the people, yet both sides lie.
        For example my congressman is a republican and he seems to be owned by the Monsanto crowd.
        One of my Senators is a democrat and he seems to be owned by the prison lobbyist.
        That's the kind of crap we really need to focus on.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6005893].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          Well Tim thanks for the info you've given us on the health care plan.
          I learned a bit more about it.
          It hasn't changed my mind to much about it, there are still things in it I like and don't like.

          To change the subject a little.
          We've been focused on the presidential race because that is the only one we all will vote on.
          But what about Congress and the Senate?
          That's where I see us needing the real change.
          It doesn't matter who we elect as president, as long as the congressmen and senators are still just corporate mouthpieces.
          When I write my congressman about something like labeling GE foods and his reply is straight off the Monsanto website, that bothers me.
          When the repubs. won't vote on something because it's a dem. plan, that bothers me.
          When the dems. do the same, that bothers me.
          Both sides claim they are doing what they do for the people, yet both sides lie.
          For example my congressman is a republican and he seems to be owned by the Monsanto crowd.
          One of my Senators is a democrat and he seems to be owned by the prison lobbyist.
          That's the kind of crap we really need to focus on.

          I hear you Thom.

          There's plenty of corruption to go around.


          But IMHO, plenty can still get done.


          Since IMHO, both parties are polar opposites in attitudes, what they propose and what they actually pass into legislation,


          ... people should do their homework and discover the vast difference between the two parties.

          And then make a choice between the two.

          On a national level, parties normally vote the part line on all major decisions and policy directions.

          Especially since 2000.

          The Ben Franklin approach to solving problems would surely come in handy for the average American seeking to make an informed choice.


          Some folks like the gridlock approach which is fine when the country is flying high and the economic situation is great.

          But...

          Gridlock is certainly not going to get this country out of the mess we're in now.

          Gridlock is not going to help this country's middle class get back to the top of all the middle classes on the planet.

          Not gana do it because you can't get anything done.

          Gridlock sucks out loud.


          All The Best!!

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006055].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    So what I am getting from Tim's last post is I need to purchase a supplemental and/or Medicare Advantage plan to have my anti-rejection drugs to remain covered.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006030].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      I'm not sure about that Kim. From what I can tell, if you are getting the drugs through medicare now, there shouldn't be any limits to the benefits. I'm not as familiar as you about these things, but I did find this:

      "Generally, Original Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. However, Medicare does cover some drugs in certain cases such as immunosuppressive drugs for transplant patients and some oral anti-cancer drugs."

      So, are you getting the "immunosuppressive" drugs? If so, it would seem to me there shouldn't be any limits because it's through Medicare.

      https://questions.medicare.gov/faq.php

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      So what I am getting from Tim's last post is I need to purchase a supplemental and/or Medicare Advantage plan to have my anti-rejection drugs to remain covered.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006849].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Will the ACA be struck down by SCOTUS??

    I heard a guy who was the Solicitor General ( the person that argues cases at the Supreme court for an admin )

    Under Reagan say...

    It will be a 8-1 decision to upload the law with CT being the only justice in decent.


    Another guy who clerked for Justice Kennedy said something to the effect of...

    - There are 4 solid votes to uphold.

    - All that is needed is for one other justice of the 5 remaining - to vote with them and the law stands.


    Why?

    Both said...

    Thanks to the commerce clause of the constitution, that basically says that congress shall have the power to regulate commerce between the states...

    The SCOTUS has no Constitutional grounds whatsoever to strike down the law that was passed by a majority in the house and 60 senators.


    They also said if states can mandate folks by car insurance the fed gov can mandate that people purchase health insurance.

    Interesting.


    But, after Bush V Gore and especially after the Citizen's United ruling I'm not sure what to expect form this court.


    I personally can't wait until their decision is rendered in June or July of this year.


    Any thoughts, predictions???



    What do you want to happen??? and what do you think will happen??


    All The Best!


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006255].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "The SCOTUS has no Constitutional grounds whatsoever to strike down the law that was passed by a majority in the house and 60 senators."

    Actually that isn't true.
    The Supreme Court's responsibility is to determine the legality of laws passed based on the constitution,not based on if it was passed by a majority or not.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006328].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      "The SCOTUS has no Constitutional grounds whatsoever to strike down the law that was passed by a majority in the house and 60 senators."

      Actually that isn't true.

      The Supreme Court's responsibility is to determine the legality of laws passed based on the constitution,not based on if it was passed by a majority or not.

      True.


      What I should have written was...


      Because of the "commerce clause" in the Constitution...


      The two legal experts I sited say...

      ...The SCOTUS has no "Constitutional grounds" whatsoever to strike down the law that was passed by a majority in the house and 60 senators."


      According to most Constitutional experts that is the case.


      Here's the commerce clause...


      The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).

      The clause states that...

      ... the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."


      Any thoughts, predictions???


      What do you want to happen??? What do you think will happen??


      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006408].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      ... people should do their homework and discover the vast difference between the two parties.

      And then make a choice between the two.

      On a national level, parties normally vote the part line on all major decisions and policy directions.
      The first sentence I agree with.

      The second I do not.
      People should go into every election focused on what the candidates say and have done. Make your choice based on the candidate and not on the party.
      Both sides have some real idiots just like both sides have some smart people.
      It's up to us to decide, based on the candidate which they are and then vote for the smart one regardless of the party they belong to.
      Your third sentence I agree with, and there in lies the problem.
      We don't need politicians that vote party lines, we need politicians that vote based on the policy or bill before them. If it's a good bill vote for it, if it isn't vote against it.
      Thanks to the commerce clause of the constitution, that basically says that congress shall have the power to regulate commerce between the states...

      The SCOTUS has no Constitutional grounds whatsoever to strike down the law that was passed by a majority in the house and 60 senators.
      Yeah congress sure did figure out how to manipulate that amendment to their advantage. The original intent was to regulate foreign trade and prevent the states from imposing tariffs on goods traveling between states.

      The SCOTUS purpose is to review the law and determine if it is constitutional or not. It will depend largely on how they interpret the law and if they decide it is constitutional or not.
      But as one judge said, "What's next, mandating cell phones so everyone can make an emergency call?'.
      They also said if states can mandate folks by car insurance the fed gov can mandate that people purchase health insurance.
      Really you can't compare this to car insurance and anyone that does, doesn't know what they are talking about.
      First car insurance is required at a state level, not federal.

      Second not all states require car insurance, or at least they didn't the last I checked. In fact New Hampshire and Wisconsin didn't as of 2010.

      Third in the states that do require it, it is not required by everyone. Just those that choose to drive.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006516].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        The first sentence I agree with.

        The second I do not.
        People should go into every election focused on what the candidates say and have done. Make your choice based on the candidate and not on the party.
        Both sides have some real idiots just like both sides have some smart people.
        It's up to us to decide, based on the candidate which they are and then vote for the smart one regardless of the party they belong to.
        Your third sentence I agree with, and there in lies the problem.
        We don't need politicians that vote party lines, we need politicians that vote based on the policy or bill before them. If it's a good bill vote for it, if it isn't vote against it.

        Yeah congress sure did figure out how to manipulate that amendment to their advantage. The original intent was to regulate foreign trade and prevent the states from imposing tariffs on goods traveling between states.

        The SCOTUS purpose is to review the law and determine if it is constitutional or not. It will depend largely on how they interpret the law and if they decide it is constitutional or not.
        But as one judge said, "What's next, mandating cell phones so everyone can make an emergency call?'.

        Really you can't compare this to car insurance and anyone that does, doesn't know what they are talking about.
        First car insurance is required at a state level, not federal.

        Second not all states require car insurance, or at least they didn't the last I checked. In fact New Hampshire and Wisconsin didn't as of 2010.

        Third in the states that do require it, it is not required by everyone. Just those that choose to drive.

        I said...


        ... people should do their homework and discover the vast difference between the two parties.

        And then make a choice between the two.

        On a national level, parties normally vote the part line on all major decisions and policy directions.


        You said...

        The first sentence I agree with.

        The second I do not.

        People should go into every election focused on what the candidates say and have done.

        Make your choice based on the candidate and not on the party.

        Both sides have some real idiots just like both sides have some smart people.
        It's up to us to decide, based on the candidate which they are and then vote for the smart one regardless of the party they belong to.

        Your third sentence I agree with, and there in lies the problem.

        We don't need politicians that vote party lines, we need politicians that vote based on the policy or bill before them. If it's a good bill vote for it, if it isn't vote against it.

        Thom,

        In 21st century America...

        National pols are going to vote the party line.

        The odd bird may differ on a small side issue here and there but they will vote the party line 90% of the time on all major legislation.

        You can be the odd bird if they like, but odd birds don't rise within the party as they will be viewed as non team players.


        So it seems to make a lot of sense for voters to also consider...


        ... the attitudes, policies and general direction of the party the person belongs to.


        You said...

        We don't need politicians that vote party lines, we need politicians that vote based on the policy or bill before them.

        If it's a good bill vote for it, if it isn't vote against it.


        I say...

        Amen and that's basically the way it was from the 1950's even up until 2000.

        But...

        Since 2000 the national parties have been clearly partisan in their proposals and especially their voting patterns...


        ...and there no good reason to expect things to change anytime soon.



        IMHO...


        In today's America when you vote for the person you also vote for the party he/she represents.


        All The Best!!


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006740].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          I said...


          ... people should do their homework and discover the vast difference between the two parties.

          And then make a choice between the two.

          On a national level, parties normally vote the part line on all major decisions and policy directions.


          You said...

          The first sentence I agree with.

          The second I do not.

          People should go into every election focused on what the candidates say and have done.

          Make your choice based on the candidate and not on the party.

          Both sides have some real idiots just like both sides have some smart people.
          It's up to us to decide, based on the candidate which they are and then vote for the smart one regardless of the party they belong to.

          Your third sentence I agree with, and there in lies the problem.

          We don't need politicians that vote party lines, we need politicians that vote based on the policy or bill before them. If it's a good bill vote for it, if it isn't vote against it.

          Thom,

          In 21st century America...

          National pols are going to vote the party line.

          The odd bird may differ on a small side issue here and there but they will vote the party line 90% of the time on all major legislation.

          You can be the odd bird if they like, but odd birds don't rise within the party as they will be viewed as non team players.


          So it seems to make a lot of sense for voters to also consider...


          ... the attitudes, policies and general direction of the party the person belongs to.


          You said...

          We don't need politicians that vote party lines, we need politicians that vote based on the policy or bill before them.

          If it's a good bill vote for it, if it isn't vote against it.


          I say...

          Amen and that's basically the way it was from the 1950's even up until 2000.

          But...

          Since 2000 the national parties have been clearly partisan in their proposals and especially their voting patterns...


          ...and there no good reason to expect things to change anytime soon.



          IMHO...


          In today's America when you vote for the person you also vote for the party he/she represents.


          All The Best!!


          TL
          I agree it does seem to be more of an issue in the last 12 years or so.
          I think we both see what the problem is, we just have different ways of addressing it.
          By the way, have you ever read the original democratic party platform?
          I think you'll agree that they are not the same party as they where.
          1. That the Federal Government is one of limited power, derived solely from the Constitution; and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006901].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            I want to be fair here TL, because the republican party isn't the same either.
            If either one of them where like that now I'd probably belong to one of them
            "16. That a railroad to the Pacific ocean is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily overland mail should be promptly established."
            Republican Party National Platform, 1860
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006987].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              I want to be fair here TL, because the republican party isn't the same either.


              If either one of them where like that now I'd probably belong to one of them

              Sure they're not.


              both parties have swapped and switched and have gone back and forth with their attitudes - over the years.


              When the dems were created by Andrew Jackson circa 1820, they were known as the people's party to fight against corporate power and the wealthy.

              But look at their platform of 1856.

              IMHO it's a total reversal.


              IMHO...

              Lincoln and the republicans of the late 1850's become the so-called progressive party in this country...

              ... and claimed that they were for the common man and national projects while the dems had become the party of the wealthy and of corporate power totally opposite of where they were when they had been founded by Jackson.

              After the civil war... ( especially the 1880's )


              The parties both continued to go back and forth between philosophies, sometimes being what we would call "centrist" or left or right.


              And now we're back to vast differences in attitudes and policies between the two major parties.


              The modern day republicans are close to the dems of 1856.

              Democratic Party Platforms: Democratic Party Platform of 1856


              And the modern day dems are closer to the republicans of 1860 - that being progressive.

              Republican Party National Platform, 1860


              The only thing they seem to agree on now is internal anti-terrorism stuff.


              All The Best!!


              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6007202].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post



                The modern day republicans are close to the dems of 1856.

                Democratic Party Platforms: Democratic Party Platform of 1856


                And the modern day dems are closer to the republicans of 1860 - that being progressive.

                Republican Party National Platform, 1860


                The only thing they seem to agree on now is internal anti-terrorism stuff.


                All The Best!!


                TL
                That's why I posted those two links
                It could be said both parties tend to flip flop

                But ya know TL the real problem isn't the parties, it's the American people.
                Not enough people actually look at the people they elect and fewer still stay in contact with their reps after they are elected.

                I tend to stay in touch with my state and fed. reps., a lot.
                I let them know what I think when they do something I support as well as something I don't support.
                I ask how they stand on issues I feel are important and if I don't agree with their reply I try to start a debate with them on the issue.
                I don't know how much of what I say they listen to, but I know that they know someone is watching them that votes.
                That's something I think all voters should do. After all you wouldn't hire a worker for your business and not try to guide them in the direction you want your business to go in. Why hire a politician and just let them do what they want with no guidance from their bosses.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6007552].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                  That's why I posted those two links
                  It could be said both parties tend to flip flop

                  But ya know TL the real problem isn't the parties, it's the American people.
                  Not enough people actually look at the people they elect and fewer still stay in contact with their reps after they are elected.

                  I tend to stay in touch with my state and fed. reps., a lot.
                  I let them know what I think when they do something I support as well as something I don't support.
                  I ask how they stand on issues I feel are important and if I don't agree with their reply I try to start a debate with them on the issue.
                  I don't know how much of what I say they listen to, but I know that they know someone is watching them that votes.
                  That's something I think all voters should do. After all you wouldn't hire a worker for your business and not try to guide them in the direction you want your business to go in. Why hire a politician and just let them do what they want with no guidance from their bosses.
                  Yea the American people could do a much better job as voters.

                  My reps are on the same page as me on major issues and direction for the nation.

                  All The Best!!

                  TL
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6007965].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                Sure they're not.


                both parties have swapped and switched and have gone back and forth with their attitudes - over the years.


                When the dems were created by Andrew Jackson circa 1820, they were known as the people's party to fight against corporate power and the wealthy.

                But look at their platform of 1856.

                IMHO it's a total reversal.


                IMHO...

                Lincoln and the republicans of the late 1850's become the so-called progressive party in this country...

                ... and claimed that they were for the common man and national projects while the dems had become the party of the wealthy and of corporate power totally opposite of where they were when they had been founded by Jackson.

                After the civil war... ( especially the 1880's )


                The parties both continued to go back and forth between philosophies, sometimes being what we would call "centrist" or left or right.


                And now we're back to vast differences in attitudes and policies between the two major parties.


                The modern day republicans are close to the dems of 1856.

                Democratic Party Platforms: Democratic Party Platform of 1856


                And the modern day dems are closer to the republicans of 1860 - that being progressive.

                Republican Party National Platform, 1860


                The only thing they seem to agree on now is internal anti-terrorism stuff.


                All The Best!!


                TL
                Oh TL.... Did you notice 7-9 of the 1860 republican platform?

                How about 3,4(and most items below it)on the 1856 democrat platform.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6009373].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Tim,

    Thanks for your clarification on the RP health plan and the possible 100% reimbursement question I had.

    I should have known.

    If there are also individual health insurance accounts in the plan for folks to save up money into the accounts...

    .. then the plan can not and does not prevent providers from...

    ... dumping folks who have an expensive problem and run out of money in their accounts etc.


    As you know this is a biggie for me as at least 600K American families - who had insurance, are filing for bankruptcy each year due to a health problem.

    This needs to stop IMHO.


    Thanks,

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6006984].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Tim, yes, anti-rejection are the same as "immunosuppressive",they supress my immune systen so I am now much more succeptable to almost everything.
    I have been told,but no one can verify,that the government will only pay for them for 18 months after the transplant. I'll be researching it more.
    Estimated monthly costs of them are around $1200 a month,just for them,which doesnt include the other 10-15 prescriptions I also have to take every day now.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6007409].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Tim, yes, anti-rejection are the same as "immunosuppressive",they supress my immune systen so I am now much more succeptable to almost everything.
      I have been told,but no one can verify,that the government will only pay for them for 18 months after the transplant. I'll be researching it more.
      Estimated monthly costs of them are around $1200 a month,just for them,which doesnt include the other 10-15 prescriptions I also have to take every day now.
      As you know, my mother was in an old folks home. They stopped paying for HER care! Besides, the average cost has to be less than $600/month to ensure all promises are kept. At $1200, you cost TWICE the $600!

      Don't think YOU are exempt! SOMETHING has to give.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6009410].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Oh Steve, I know I am not exepmt. Ironically I actually received my medicare statement for the first quarter today.I might take a pic and post it tomorrow.
    These are just the two main anti rejection drugs though:
    Prograf: $946.58
    Tacrolimus $1075.29
    That's one months worth.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6009744].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Oh Steve, I know I am not exepmt. Ironically I actually received my medicare statement for the first quarter today.I might take a pic and post it tomorrow.
      These are just the two main anti rejection drugs though:
      Prograf: $946.58
      Tacrolimus $1075.29
      That's one months worth.
      Well, the GOOD news is that the insurance companies may only pay like $900 for that. Still, they may do to you what they did to my mother. Well, my mother was on medicare, but you get the message. I wish someone would figure out what causes alzheimers and STOP IT! It seems like EVERYONE is getting it.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6010370].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        TL, here's an interesting article for you.
        The site kind of backs what I was saying about focusing on the candidates instead of the parties.
        Ron Paul #2 in NH … Democratic Primary! | Democrats for Ron Paul
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6013818].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          TL, here's an interesting article for you.
          The site kind of backs what I was saying about focusing on the candidates instead of the parties.
          Ron Paul #2 in NH … Democratic Primary! | Democrats for Ron Paul

          Paul is certainly the odd bird out.

          Very interesting and puzzling.

          Perhaps some people should switch party affiliation or do the dems of New Hampshire allow anyone regardless of part affiliation to participate??


          Oh, it was a write in vote.

          First, nearly twenty-three hundred New Hampshire voters got out and drove to a polling station, knowing they were going to cast a write-in vote, knowing that it was in a primary where no delegates could be assigned to write-in votes, but as a straight protest vote.


          Perhaps the son of Paul would be a good VP pick for Romney since his dad seems to appeal to many types of voters across many parties.


          All The Best!!


          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6014166].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            Paul is certainly the odd bird out.

            Very interesting and puzzling.

            Perhaps some people should switch party affiliation or do the dems of New Hampshire allow anyone regardless of part affiliation to participate??


            Oh, it was a write in vote.

            First, nearly twenty-three hundred New Hampshire voters got out and drove to a polling station, knowing they were going to cast a write-in vote, knowing that it was in a primary where no delegates could be assigned to write-in votes, but as a straight protest vote.


            Perhaps the son of Paul would be a good VP pick for Romney since his dad seems to appeal to many types of voters across many parties.


            All The Best!!


            TL
            I try to follow the RP campaign as much as possible.
            If the media wasn't blacking him out, you would see the actual support he really has.
            You don't see any other candidate drawing support across party lines.
            I'd like to see him run as an independent more so then a republican, but he's smarter at this then I am
            Both parties seem to think he would take voters away from the other party and they are both right. Plus he would take all the independent vote.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6014559].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I write in Ron Paul last election and will this election.
    A write in vote should have the same weight as any other.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6014188].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I write in ROn Paul last election and will this election.

      A write in vote should have the same weight as any other.

      The party has the right to set the rules any way they want.

      When you vote for Ron Paul in the general election ( if you can ) ...

      ...then your vote will count.


      I hope that is the case as conventional wisdom is that RP will pull 10X more votes away from Romney than Obama.


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6014225].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    The real election is what I am talking about,not any "party" elections.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6014248].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      The real election is what I am talking about,not any "party" elections.

      As I was saying I hope all RP write ins count in the general election - especially in the 12 or so swing states.


      Even if they don't count, please cast them anyway as a protest.


      Al Gore, the dems and the nation are still smarting from the passion of Ralf Naders' followers.


      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6014291].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    If all Ron Paul write in votes count then we won't have to worry about obama OR Romney.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6014314].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      If all Ron Paul write in votes count then we won't have to worry about obama OR Romney.
      Too bad we can't write-in and write-OUT at the same time...
      Signature
      Professional Googler
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6014328].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Dave Patterson View Post

        Too bad we can't write-in and write-OUT at the same time...

        If you wrote-out that would be trampling on others right to vote for who they want.

        That's a big no-no with RP.

        All The Best!!


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6014358].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KimW
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          If you wrote-out that would be trampling on others right to vote for who they want.

          That's a big no-no with RP.

          All The Best!!


          TL
          I think you misunderstood. I took that to mean on our own ballots.
          Signature

          Read A Post.
          Subscribe to a Newsletter
          KimWinfrey.Com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6014527].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by KimW View Post

            I think you misunderstood. I took that to mean on our own ballots.


            I've heard of some dirty election day tricks and if allowed that would be one of the dirtiest of them all.


            I get it now thanks!


            Remember RP called Rick Santorium a fake?


            Well, this guy says Ron Paul is a fake Libertarian.

            See why here in this short video... ( scroll down a bit )

            Lawrence O’Donnell Blasts Ron Paul As ‘Fake Libertarian’ | Mediaite
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6014564].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              I've heard of some dirty election day tricks and if allowed that would be one of the dirtiest of them all.


              I get it now thanks!


              Remember RP called Rick Santorium a fake?


              Well, this guy says Ron Paul is a fake Libertarian.

              See why here in this short video... ( scroll down a bit )

              Lawrence O'Donnell Blasts Ron Paul As 'Fake Libertarian' | Mediaite
              Another one taking things out of context, O'Donnell that is.
              When Ron Paul talks about his unyielding opposition to a woman's right to choose when Ron Paul says the government should prevent all abortions -- the standard Republican party line -- the libertarian lovers of Ron Paul simply do not hear him.
              They don't seem to notice that "fake libertarian" Ron Paul takes the most anti-libertarian positions on women's reproductive rights. The "fake libertarian" does not dare say a word that violates the Republican party line on abortion.
              He never said that. He doesn't condone abortions and as an OB/GYN he understands the issue.
              What he wants the federal govt. to do is stay out of it and let the states decide on weather they will allow abortions in their state or not. That's where he follows that pesky document called the Constitution
              I don't know if you noticed, but RP doesn't go out and "read the rules" on what a libertarian is or what a republican is and then follow them to a T.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6015091].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                Another one taking things out of context, O'Donnell that is.

                He never said that.


                He doesn't condone abortions and as an OB/GYN he understands the issue.


                What he wants the federal govt. to do is stay out of it and let the states decide on weather they will allow abortions in their state or not.

                That's where he follows that pesky document called the Constitution


                I don't know if you noticed, but RP doesn't go out and "read the rules" on what a libertarian is or what a republican is and then follow them to a T.
                Oh, I think it's safe to say that RP would deny women the right to choose - if he could.


                He is quoted as saying...

                "Abortion is murder." (Apr 2008)

                "Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution." (Apr 2008)

                "Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement." (Feb 2008)

                "Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty." (Feb 2008)


                All are RP quotes gleaned from the net.


                Well, he's not going to get much of the female vote with that position - if they find out his position.


                A womens' right to choose is a serious privacy issue and it would be null and void in probably half the states - if the states had their way.


                The problem with states rights is...

                ... that sometimes the states can and do discriminate against a group of people in the state that also happen to be citizens of these U.S. and that's where the feds can, should and do draw the line and make the states do the right thing.


                That pesky little document you referred to also gives the feds the power to 'jump in"...

                ... and prevent the states from discriminating against groups in this society.


                Just like if a state wanted to allow signs all over the place that said "______ not allowed" and/or the state clearly discriminates against another group of it's citizens.

                RP is all for allowing the states to decide on stuff like that also.


                How do I know?


                In another interview...

                He said he would have voted against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 because it infringes on the rights of business owners to serve whom they please.



                Sex Without Marriage Is Immoral???


                RP also seems to have a problem with marriage-less sex and also sex that does not want to create babies.


                He said... ( when talking about contraceptives ) ( and on that video )


                "The immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pill"

                I say...

                The immorality?


                So in RP's mind...

                ... a person is immoral because they want to have sex with their girlfriend.



                All The Best!!

                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6016143].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  TL instead of reading articles on RP, go to youtube and watch all the videos there of him. You can find what he says of all those issues there.
                  I tend to believe the words coming directly from his mouth more so then an article.
                  And like I said it doesn't matter what his views on abortion is, he won't interfere with state decisions or a womens decision, just because he disagrees with it.
                  As for having a tough time getting womens vote, again OB/GYN.
                  In all his years practicing medicine he can get plenty of females to set the record straight.
                  It's the same with people saying he wants to legalize all drugs.
                  What he wants to do is end the war on drugs, again taking the feds out of it.
                  Will it still be illegal to smuggle drugs into the country, yes it will.
                  But if a state wants to legalize a drug they can, but I also don't ever see a state making anything but cannabis legal. Crack, coke, and the others will stay as illegal as they are now.
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6016588].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    TL instead of reading articles on RP, go to youtube and watch all the videos there of him. You can find what he says of all those issues there.
                    I tend to believe the words coming directly from his mouth more so then an article.
                    And like I said it doesn't matter what his views on abortion is, he won't interfere with state decisions or a womens decision, just because he disagrees with it.
                    As for having a tough time getting womens vote, again OB/GYN.
                    In all his years practicing medicine he can get plenty of females to set the record straight.
                    It's the same with people saying he wants to legalize all drugs.
                    What he wants to do is end the war on drugs, again taking the feds out of it.
                    Will it still be illegal to smuggle drugs into the country, yes it will.
                    But if a state wants to legalize a drug they can, but I also don't ever see a state making anything but cannabis legal. Crack, coke, and the others will stay as illegal as they are now.

                    Thom, it's still safe to say that RP...


                    - Would restrict a woman's right to choose if he could and/or leave it up to the states which is the same as allowing someone to restrict a woman's right to choose since many state would if they could.


                    - Has a problem with pre-maritial sex since he made it clear in that video above that he believes it's immoral.


                    These are very strange positions to take for a libertarian IMHO.


                    But that's OK since everyone has a right to their own opinion and no candidate is perfect.


                    And I agree, that hard drugs should not be legalized.


                    I'm just happy that you and Kim have not given up on our electoral process and we can engage in polite discourse.



                    All The Best!!

                    TL
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6020744].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      Thom, it's still safe to say that RP...


                      - Would restrict a woman's right to choose if he could and/or leave it up to the states which is the same as allowing someone to restrict a woman's right to choose since many state would if they could.


                      - Has a problem with pre-maritial sex since he made it clear in that video above that he believes it's immoral.


                      These are very strange positions to take for a libertarian IMHO.


                      But that's OK since everyone has a right to their own opinion and no candidate is perfect.


                      And I agree, that hard drugs should not be legalized.


                      I'm just happy that you and Kim have not given up on our electoral process and we can engage in polite discourse.



                      All The Best!!

                      TL
                      But you see TL according to our Constitution, things like that are suppose to be left up to the states.

                      I can't think of a better process or form of government then the one we have. I may not agree with the direction it has taken and I do want to change that, but I want to do it according to the process we have in place.
                      I do have a strong dislike for big government, but I also understand that we need a government.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6020895].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        But you see TL according to our Constitution, things like that are suppose to be left up to the states.

                        I can't think of a better process or form of government then the one we have. I may not agree with the direction it has taken and I do want to change that, but I want to do it according to the process we have in place.

                        I do have a strong dislike for big government, but I also understand that we need a government.
                        Thom,

                        The supreme court in 1973? ( Roe V. Wade ) determined that abortion is a privacy right that must be protected - across the entire country...


                        ... so therefore a national law is necessary.


                        That's why something like a women's right to choose is not left up to the states because some states would have the ability to take away that right and some of them would.


                        National standards in regard to rights and treatment of U.S. citizens are necessary.


                        States have the right to make laws and handle their business in ways that are consistent with the spirit and especially the effect of national laws.

                        But...

                        States do not have the right to contradict US law.

                        Someday the SCOTUS may change it's mind about a woman's right to choose but I think that law is settled.


                        All The Best!!

                        TL
                        Signature

                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6021023].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                          Thom,

                          The supreme court in 1973? ( Roe V. Wade ) determined that abortion is a privacy right that must be protected - across the entire country...


                          ... so therefore a national law is necessary.


                          That's why something like a women's right to choose is not left up to the states because some states would have the ability to take away that right and some of them would.


                          National standards in regard to rights and treatment of U.S. citizens are necessary.


                          States have the right to make laws and handle their business in ways that are consistent with the spirit and especially the effect of national laws.

                          But...

                          States do not have the right to contradict US law.

                          Someday the SCOTUS may change it's mind about a woman's right to choose but I think that law is settled.


                          All The Best!!

                          TL
                          I know that TL.
                          And though it may sound like a contradiction to what I've been saying, I agree that the federal government should enact some laws to give blanket protection to all Americans. But those laws should still be based on the Constitution. It is also still up to the states to decide if they will fund those abortions, not the feds. That is where the problem comes in with the federal govt. being involved with the abortion issue.
                          All the feds. should do is say that a womans right to have an abortion is protected under the constitution.
                          It's the feds. funding things like planned parenthood, school lunch programs, education, and the such that they need to get away from.
                          Read this article and then tell me how you feel about the feds. providing lunch for kids.
                          Pink Slime For School Lunch: Government Buying 7 Million Pounds Of Ammonia-Treated Meat For Meals
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6021156].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                            I know that TL.
                            And though it may sound like a contradiction to what I've been saying, I agree that the federal government should enact some laws to give blanket protection to all Americans.

                            But those laws should still be based on the Constitution. It is also still up to the states to decide if they will fund those abortions, not the feds.

                            That is where the problem comes in with the federal govt. being involved with the abortion issue.


                            All the feds. should do is say that a womans right to have an abortion is protected under the constitution.

                            It's the feds. funding things like planned parenthood, school lunch programs, education, and the such that they need to get away from.

                            Read this article and then tell me how you feel about the feds. providing lunch for kids.
                            Pink Slime For School Lunch: Government Buying 7 Million Pounds Of Ammonia-Treated Meat For Meals

                            Of course all laws should be based on the constitution.


                            And the constitution sets up the SCOTUS to determine what is and what is not constitutional.


                            I'm not saying and will never say...

                            ...the federal gov is always right in what it plans for the nation.

                            That stuff in the pink slime stuff is outrages and we can do much better.


                            Fed Funding Of Abortions:

                            No one is funding those abortions except the people that want them - not the fed gov not Planned Parenthood...

                            ... and certainly not the states that have a problem with it.

                            Perhaps states that are friendly towards abortions are doing it but no one is forcing them to do it.

                            The national "Hyde Amendment" makes sure our national tax dollars are not used for abortions since...

                            ... that would be taking the national tax money of someone who does not agree with abortion and using it for abortions.


                            Regarding PP:

                            97% of all Planned Parenthood services have noting to do with abortion.

                            The other 3% is not providing money for abortion but only counselling regarding abortion.

                            ( no matter what the wikipedia article and opponents of PP says - IMHO )

                            PP helps hundreds of thousands of women each year protect their health and receives about 200 million yearly from the fed gov. and operates a budget of about 1 billion.


                            And IMHO, it a matter of opinion whether the federal gov should set national standards in regards to...

                            - educational standards:

                            - I think we should have national educational standards.

                            Providing school lunch? I don't know about that one.


                            But I do believe we need national...


                            - Anti Pollution Standards:

                            - Food quality control standards:


                            Can't think of anything else right now...


                            All The Best!!


                            TL
                            Signature

                            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6021460].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                              I never said anything bad about planned parenthood, all my daughters have used it for years and but just for abortions.
                              I've been a supporter of PP for years, but that doesn't mean I think the feds should fund it.
                              Same with education. Ever since the dept. of education started setting the standards for education, our education system has deteriorated.
                              Before they became powerful they could only suggest a course of education and the school districts and parents decided on what was taught.
                              Now you have teachers and principals helping students cheat on tests and fudging test scores so they can get their funding.
                              Food safety isn't any different. Keep in mind it was the USDA that bought all that pink slime to feed to our kids. Was that to benefit our kids or benefit the companies selling the slime.
                              Then there's the FDA. Look at the dangers of prescription drugs to start.
                              That whole industry is based on profits and the FDA is on board.
                              Look at G.M.O.'s, the FDA doesn't do any research on their safety, they just except the research done by the companies producing them.
                              Same thing the USDA does.

                              Again turn that all over to the states to regulate. Let the feds step in if the states are doing something detrimental, or in the case of Monsanto threating to sue Vermont if they pass the GMO labeling bill.
                              Signature

                              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                              Getting old ain't for sissy's
                              As you are I was, as I am you will be
                              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6021773].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                I never said anything bad about planned parenthood, all my daughters have used it for years and but just for abortions.
                                I've been a supporter of PP for years, but that doesn't mean I think the feds should fund it.
                                Same with education. Ever since the dept. of education started setting the standards for education, our education system has deteriorated.
                                Before they became powerful they could only suggest a course of education and the school districts and parents decided on what was taught.
                                Now you have teachers and principals helping students cheat on tests and fudging test scores so they can get their funding.
                                Food safety isn't any different. Keep in mind it was the USDA that bought all that pink slime to feed to our kids. Was that to benefit our kids or benefit the companies selling the slime.
                                Then there's the FDA. Look at the dangers of prescription drugs to start.
                                That whole industry is based on profits and the FDA is on board.
                                Look at G.M.O.'s, the FDA doesn't do any research on their safety, they just except the research done by the companies producing them.
                                Same thing the USDA does.

                                Again turn that all over to the states to regulate.

                                Let the feds step in if the states are doing something detrimental, or in the case of Monsanto threating to sue Vermont if they pass the GMO labeling bill.

                                Thom,


                                I can't vouch for many of the federal agencies and programs over the last 12 years but before 2000 most of them were doing a pretty good job.


                                Before leaving a lot of stuff up to the states ( that IMHO, should have national standards )...

                                ...I'd like to give a feds another opportunity to do the right things since...


                                ... I know attitudes have not been uniform across administrations and the fed gov has been a serious force for good in our nation in the past.


                                Another problem with leaving lots of things ( that IMHO, should have national standards ) ...

                                ... up to the states is you'll get a patchwork of laws and standards across the nation - some good, some bad and some horrible for US citizens.


                                I know we disagree on the states right stuff so we'll have to agree to disagree.


                                Monsanto sure does have a lot of nerve and I can't wait to see what happens.


                                All The Best!!

                                TL
                                Signature

                                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6023005].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    What it seems most people have forgotten is that whoever wins the election is suppose do do what is best for the country and its citizens,not just follow his party line, no matter what his political and personal opinions are.

    The Office is for keeping America on track, not any person's or party's own agenda.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6020832].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      What it seems most people have forgotten is that whoever wins the election is suppose do do what is best for the country and its citizens,not just follow his party line, no matter what his political and personal opinions are.

      The Office is for keeping America on track, not any person's or party's own agenda.

      I hear you Kim.


      If a party's platform is in line with what's best for America then it's OK and also if the plan they have for the nation is a lot better than what others are offering.


      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6020911].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I hear you Kim.


        If a party's platform is in line with what's best for America then it's OK and also if the plan they have for the nation is a lot better than what others are offering.


        All The Best!!

        TL
        But those are individual opinions and of course mob mentality. Neither party's line is substantially better than the other.
        Almost always the best ideas and plans come from taking opposing opinions and working them together to a compromise.
        And both parties actually have <shudder> a responsibility to work together for the betterment of America.
        All politicians do nowadays is play on the publics emotions and try to put FUD into the public's heart.
        The ability to do critical thinking should be added as a condition of being an elected official.( I know it never will be though). We live in a Cult Of Personality,not an age of reason.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6021179].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          But those are individual opinions and of course mob mentality. Neither party's line is substantially better than the other.

          Almost always the best ideas and plans come from taking opposing opinions and working them together to a compromise.

          And both parties actually have <shudder> a responsibility to work together for the betterment of America.

          All politicians do nowadays is play on the publics emotions and try to put FUD into the public's heart.

          The ability to do critical thinking should be added as a condition of being an elected official.( I know it never will be though).

          We live in a Cult Of Personality,not an age of reason.

          Kim, if you are contending (on the national level)...


          ...that there are no "substantial" differences in the two major parties...


          - Approach to governing:

          - Platform:

          - Attitudes:

          - Actual Laws they propose:

          - Actual law they pass:

          - Vision for the future of the country:


          IMHO, you have not done your homework.

          The diffs between the two parties could not be more stark.



          All The Best!!

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6022290].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            Kim, if you are contending (on the national level)...


            ...that there are no "substantial" differences in the two major parties...


            - Approach to governing:

            - Platform:

            - Attitudes:

            - Actual Laws they propose:

            - Actual law they pass:

            - Vision for the future of the country:


            IMHO, you have not done your homework.

            The diffs between the two parties could not be more stark.



            All The Best!!

            TL


            Not at all, what I am contending is that both parties have a LEGAL and MORAL responsibility to work together on the problems and come to a workable compromise that benefits ALL American citizens,not just one party or the other. THAT IS THEIR JOB. THAT IS WHY THE SYSTEM WAS CREATED THE WAY IT WAS.

            AND all of them seem to have forgotten that THAT is their job....there job is NOT to ONLY promote their party platform,it is to create a better America.

            And you can "suggest" I have not done my homework all you want,but anyone that reads my posts can tell I do.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6022351].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

              Not at all, what I am contending is that both parties have a LEGAL and MORAL responsibility to work together on the problems and come to a workable compromise that benefits ALL American citizens,not just one party or the other. THAT IS THEIR JOB. THAT IS WHY THE SYSTEM WAS CREATED THE WAY IT WAS.

              AND all of them seem to have forgotten that THAT is their job....there job is NOT to ONLY promote their party platform,it is to create a better America.

              And you can "suggest" I have not done my homework all you want,but anyone that reads my posts can tell I do.
              Oh, OK, my mistake.

              I thought you were contending that there are no major policy differences between the two major parties.

              Actually, since Washington was the consensus choice as president initially there were no political parties.

              But as soon as he assumed the presidency, naturally differences in what to do and how to do it began to emerge and thus the parties were born.

              The first major arguments IMHO were...

              - Strong central/national gov or weak?

              - Assumption:

              Should the federal gov assume the Revolutionary war debts of the individual states or not?


              Working Together:

              We had a great tradition of folks working for the national good from 1952 when Ike was POTUS perhaps until 2000.


              Even as contentious as things were in the 1990's with a dem president and a GOP house and senate - both parties came together to produce a economic boom that...


              - created 22 million jobs.

              - solved our yearly budget problems to produce the only 2 years of a balanced budget in the last 40 years.

              - Created a fed gov. yearly budget surplus of 235 billion.


              Then IMHO, party became more important than country for most pols and parties and for some more than others.


              All The Best!!

              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6022501].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Here's a pretty good article on "states rights" over at wikepedia going over the history of this contentious issue in our nation.

    Lots of good info!

    States' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    All The Best!!

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6021658].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I wish they would fix the damn THANKS button. I get like 4 or 5 a day max it seems.
    Thom, that was a direct to the point post.
    THANKS!
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6021812].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DWaters
    Since the 2 major parties have lots more money than any other candidates or parties then those two parties will always produce the 2 finalists.

    Imagine if we had 5 (for example) parties, all with equal resources...... our elections and our candidates would be a lot different.
    Signature
    How I really Make Money With Amazon

    Want to get rich with top rated FREE Super Affiliate Training?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6021823].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by DWaters View Post

      Since the 2 major parties have lots more money than any other candidates or parties then those two parties will always produce the 2 finalists.

      Imagine if we had 5 (for example) parties, all with equal resources...... our elections and our candidates would be a lot different.

      Are you paying attention to this years contenders?
      Contrary to the media, RP is a force to be reckoned with.
      AND he is being funded mostly by the general public,unlike any other candidate.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6021902].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Domonkoz
    Unlike Europe, who views Socialism as just another political platform, Americans view it as an evil force.

    My uncle said it best while on a visit from the Netherlands to visit us in New York. He was talking with a feverish Right-winger and the old-timer asked what my uncles political affiliation was.

    My uncle responded,
    "Well in the Netherlands I'm considered to be a sort of independent moderate."

    To which the old-timer asked, "Well what do they consider you here?"

    My uncle replied, "Here? Here I'm considered a f@#*in Communist."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6022361].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Domonkoz View Post

      Unlike Europe, who views Socialism as just another political platform, Americans view it as an evil force.

      My uncle said it best while on a visit from the Netherlands to visit us in New York. He was talking with a feverish Right-winger and the old-timer asked what my uncles political affiliation was.

      My uncle responded,
      "Well in the Netherlands I'm considered to be a sort of independent moderate."

      To which the old-timer asked, "Well what do they consider you here?"

      My uncle replied, "Here? Here I'm considered a f@#*in Communist."
      That's funny!

      Speaking of commies, GOP rep from FL says there may be dozens of commies in the dem house...

      Allen West: I've 'Heard' 80 House Democrats Are Communist Party Members (UPDATE)
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6022603].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      If he were still around, Reagan would be called a socialist. It's ridiculous.
      Originally Posted by Domonkoz View Post

      Unlike Europe, who views Socialism as just another political platform, Americans view it as an evil force.

      My uncle said it best while on a visit from the Netherlands to visit us in New York. He was talking with a feverish Right-winger and the old-timer asked what my uncles political affiliation was.

      My uncle responded,
      "Well in the Netherlands I'm considered to be a sort of independent moderate."

      To which the old-timer asked, "Well what do they consider you here?"

      My uncle replied, "Here? Here I'm considered a f@#*in Communist."
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6026167].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        If he were still around, Reagan would be called a socialist. It's ridiculous.
        By whom, exactly?
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6060653].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

          By whom, exactly?
          Exactly? haha. It was a hypothetical statement I made. Let's just say from the same people who throw that term so loosely, and incorrectly, around these days. I think you know what I mean. People called Clinton a socialist and it could be argued, and has been, that Reagan was more liberal than Clinton.

          Ron Paul may be one of those who would call Reagan a socialist. He certainly wasn't a big fan of his. Here's a couple quotes about Reagan from Paul:

          President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it.

          Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism.

          Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion.

          Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagan’s urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive “lie detector” tests.

          Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has “sent hither swarms” of tax gatherers “to harass our people and eat out their substance.” His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagan’s new tax “reform” gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste.

          Knowing this administration’s record, I wasn’t surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind....

          “I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy,”
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6063475].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Ya know Tim, I never understood the whole Reagan thing.
            For one his 'trickle down economics' baffled me.
            Then there's all that stuff you quoted RP as saying.
            I don't get why he was considered a great president.

            Clinton on the other hand I liked.
            I didn't agree with all his policies and decisions, but over all I thought he did a good job.
            His wife on the other hand:rolleyes:
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6063875].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Just want to say thanks to all who are participating here.

    Why? Because most of what I know about politics I have learned right here in the Worrier Forum.

    Why? Because ever since I got to voting age I have thought the whole process was a farce and a lie and I can't be bothered to play the game where our 'vote' is just lip service - 'they' will do whatever they want - and we get to live with it.

    ... and I still feel the same way.

    That is my vote - (a vote of no confidence = I don't vote.)

    Pretty dumb most flag-waving Americans would agree! Don't bother telling me it is me that is allowing 'them' to do whatever they want by not voting - I still believe what I believe. hard headed.

    Now I am slightly interested in my health care options and a few other issues that I can't do anything about - and it is very interesting watching this debate and I am learning something.

    So again, thank you my talking heads, pundits and fellow worriers.

    Yours truly,

    Waiting for the end of human government.


    Jesus for President!
    yesterday, today, tomorrow and always!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6023559].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      Just want to say thanks to all who are participating here.

      Why? Because most of what I know about politics I have learned right here in the Worrier Forum.

      Why? Because ever since I got to voting age I have thought the whole process was a farce and a lie and I can't be bothered to play the game where our 'vote' is just lip service - 'they' will do whatever they want - and we get to live with it.

      ... and I still feel the same way.

      That is my vote - I don't vote.

      Pretty dumb most flag-waving Americans would agree! Don't bother telling me it is me that is allowing 'them' to do whatever they want by not voting - I still believe what I believe. hard headed.

      Now I am slightly interested in my health care options and a few other issues that I can't do anything about - and it is very interesting watching this debate and I am learning something.

      So again, thank you my talking heads, pundits and fellow worriers.


      Jesus for President yesterday, today, tomorrow and always!

      Pat,


      I'm sorry to hear you feel this way and have given up on our democracy.

      There was a time in this country ( 1950-1980 ) when there really wasn't a big diff in what the two major parties proposed for the nation.

      But now...

      Your vote would make a difference as anyone paying attention understands the vast differences in the plans of the two major parties.


      Since you're a lady, I'll outline a few major diffs when it comes to only females...


      - One party wants to restrict a woman's right to contraception and also abortion and the other believes a woman has a right to make the choice for herself.

      - One party has passed legislation making it easier for a woman to sue their employer for pay discrimination while the other was near unanimous in their opposition to the law.

      It's called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

      You may be a self employed person but the law could and should mean lots more compensation for most women of the country who have jobs.

      Woman you know and care about.


      - Through the American Recovery Act,...

      ... one party issued more than 2,300 microloans and invested more than $3 billion in 12,000 grants to women-owned small businesses.


      - One party passed legislation that health insurance providers can not charge women more than men for health coverage anymore - starting in 2014.

      Right now, about 25 states allow it and would continue to allow it.

      - One party has placed 1 female on the Supreme Court and the other has placed a total of 3 with 2 placed in the last 3 years.

      The court now has 3 woman out of the 9 justices.

      - One party has had a female speaker of the house - 3rd in line to the presidency and the other has never come close.


      Since the two major parties are so different in their policies, IMHO it does make a huge difference who gets control of the national gov and now the state govs also. - especially in 21st century America.



      All The Best!!


      TL


      Ps. Speaking of Jesus, I have a hard time believing that Jesus would belong to one of the major parties.

      He may opt to become an independent but I can't believe he'd join one of the parties because of their set of attitudes and policies.
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6023843].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Patrician
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post



        Ps. Speaking of Jesus, I have a hard time believing that Jesus would belong to one of the major parties.

        He may opt to become an independent but I can't believe he'd join one of the parties because of their set of attitudes and policies.
        Agree TL - independent! He would take the good from both sides and shine the bad on (or shine on the bad). JUST LIKE WE SHOULD.

        No sin is bigger than HE is.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6024269].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Patrician
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Pat,

        I'm sorry to hear you feel this way and have given up on our democracy.
        TL
        It is a beautiful concept and I love it but it isn't now and has not been for a very long time 'of the people, by the people and for the people'. Therefore I call it a lie.

        I didn't give up on our democracy. I never believed it was true from these points forward:

        #1 Kennedy was killed and I knew from that day on not to believe what I was being told was true because it wasn't - I didn't know how I knew that but I did. (and it isn't)

        #2 I had a dream several years later (decades ago) that is as real to me now as it was then.

        I was in a voting booth and just sweating and full of anxiety about which lever to pull and what 'road sign' to follow - go left, go right, not a through road, dead end, etc. (what to glean from all the double-speak).

        Well somehow I got through it and came out to this bunch of snickering old ladies - ha ha she doesn't know the booth is not plugged into anything. (just an exercise in futility).

        p.s.s. I am glad about all the women's rights stuff - but to be honest I see it as just another special interest group. I am more interested in PEOPLE and their rights -

        -- but I get it that all injustices as to inequality should be rectified and shame on us that there ever was ANY KIND of inequality .

        ... particularly UNDER THE GUISE OF 'DEMOCRACY'.

        Thanks again.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6024369].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Both parties used the public's money to bailout big business corporations yet let those same corporations foreclose and homeowners and forced literally millions of people to become homeless and live on the streets.
    And are still letting them.
    The middle class has almost disappeared,now we have basically two classes, the rich and the poor.
    The in between is almost non existent.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6023935].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Pat,
    Several moments made me give up for a while, but because of what's going on in America now,I just had to get re-involved.
    Some of these I can name right off the bat:
    Kennedy's assassination(s).
    Kent State
    Chicago Convention demonstrations and the police violence that was not only allowed,but encouraged.
    Nixon,Watergate,and "I am not a crook" Sorry Dude, yes you were.
    The decline in America and it's core values.
    My children,who are not children anymore,will never see the real America and its orginal values.
    My only hope is that there are enough people,young and old, that start waking up so that maybe my grandchildren will.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6024455].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Well we got to do something and real soon.
      Just learned the governments credit rating has been downgraded again.
      Interesting I haven't heard it mentioned on the news much if at all.
      Considering the value of our currency is based on the faith and credit of the government, that's not a good thing.
      Also considering this is the second time it's happened in the last year, that doesn't bode well for the current administration.
      It may have been the smallest credit agency that rates our credit that went first, but they are also the ones that went first last year and Standards and Poor followed suit a couple weeks later.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6024669].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    And what's more amazing is those rating our country's credit are the ones our country bailed out with our money. :rolleyes:

    And are giving themselves huge bonuses again this year.
    I guess as long as they get theirs,the rest don't matter.

    ( I hadn't heard that yet Thom,but I am not surprised).
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6024918].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Since the subject is taxes...


    Why do most national legislators on one side of the isle refuse to raise taxes on anyone for any reason?


    Taxpayer Protection Pledge - what is it??


    Who is Grover Norquist and why is he important to the tax debate?


    Grover Norquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6057653].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I hate when I fix a typo I lose the Thanks people have given my post.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6058499].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Only until you hit the refresh button or until you go to another thread and then return.

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6058510].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

        Only until you hit the refresh button or until you go to another thread and then return.

        Terra
        Let me check that out, I'll be right back!!

        EDIT: Well damn, ya learn something new every day!
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6058514].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          You're welcome!

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6058527].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Brown and grey.


    Both are colors but they are not the same.



    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6059777].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    The last 30 years of income distribution in the USA...








    ( Source: Mother Jones )
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6059840].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Patrician
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      The last 30 years of income distribution in the USA...



      ( Source: Mother Jones )
      This is really chilling - and anybody that says it looks good for anybody but the top maybe 1-5% needs to get their head out of their posterior.

      I would say this just about sums it up how trillions disappeared from your 'average joe's' pensions and retirement savings accounts through all recessions and particularly in the last 'near' recession - the one where then they bailed out the same companies that lost the money for all the joe citizens - which sent more trillions up to the top of the pile. (not to mention all the lost real estate)

      Yes - this is a very apt graphical representation of just that little bit of history.

      Put this together with allegations of 'stock market manipulation' and 'insider trading' or 'preferential treatment' - and you have the real story - naturally even if you could prove it, it wouldn't change anything.

      (I don't think it has all that much to do with 'salaries' which may not have risen, may have dropped somewhat -- however in many cases ceased altogether. - you are talking 'small potatoes' when compared to the DISAPPEARANCE OF TRILLIONS and then the TRILLIONS AWARDED as a punishment for a job well done (bail out).

      The fact that this has not created total anarchy is a testament to what good sheep we are.

      (hey staying out of jail has to be worth something, yes?)

      baaaaahhhhh!
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6064806].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

        This is really chilling - and anybody that says it looks good for anybody but the top maybe 1-5% needs to get their head out of their posterior.

        I would say this just about sums it up how trillions disappeared from your 'average joe's' pensions and retirement savings accounts through all recessions and particularly in the last 'near' recession - the one where then they bailed out the same companies that lost the money for all the joe citizens - which sent more trillions up to the top of the pile. (not to mention all the lost real estate)

        Yes - this is a very apt graphical representation of just that little bit of history.

        Put this together with allegations of 'stock market manipulation' and 'insider trading' or 'preferential treatment' - and you have the real story - naturally even if you could prove it, it wouldn't change anything.

        (I don't think it has all that much to do with 'salaries' which may not have risen, may have dropped somewhat -- however in many cases ceased altogether. - you are talking 'small potatoes' when compared to the DISAPPEARANCE OF TRILLIONS and then the TRILLIONS AWARDED as a punishment for a job well done (bail out).

        The fact that this has not created total anarchy is a testament to what good sheep we are.

        (hey staying out of jail has to be worth something, yes?)

        baaaaahhhhh!

        From 1950-1980 - even into the late 1990's the American standard of living was the envy of the world.


        It's not anymore and for good reason.


        - Notice from the chart how the income of the 1% starts to rise right about 1980 when we began to cut the top tax rates from 70% down to only 28%.


        - Then it starts to work it's way back down in the 1990's - until about 2000.


        - But then it starts to shoot up again about the year 2000.


        - Most people feel the Clinton years were decent years for the country and the people of the country.

        - Folks still felt good about their future and that of their kids and decent jobs were plentiful.

        - We solved our federal gov fiscal problems as Clinton handed Bush2 a very nice yearly surplus.

        - Then we had what will arguably be one of the worst admins in our history especially as far as financial management is concerned, which also ended with the worst financial crash and situation since the great depression in the 1930's.


        Americans still believe in the political process.


        We were stunned by the crash and at how bad it got and how fast it got bad but we believe in the political process and have yet to give up on it.


        IMHO, it's way too soon in the historic situation to give up just yet.


        We're only 3 1/2 years into what's going to be a slow, ugly cleanup/restoration process -

        ...of our economy.


        As long as we have the collective political wisdom to put the right people in power - the 21st century can still be an American century IMHO.


        As a matter of fact I have confidence it's going to happen.


        All The Best!!


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6065120].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          This is going to be shocking, but I am going to have to disagree with you TL. I don't see the top 1% line going down in the 90s. In fact, most of the 90s it skyrocketed according to this graph. It does take a turn and go down from about 1999 to 2001, but I think that has more to do with the Dot Com bubble bursting and the 2001 recession.

          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post



          - Notice from the chart how the income of the 1% starts to rise right about 1980 when we began to cut the top tax rates from 70% down to only 28%.


          - Then it starts to work it's way back down in the 1990's - until about 2000.


          - But then it starts to shoot up again about the year 2000.

          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6065196].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            This is going to be shocking, but I am going to have to disagree with you TL. I don't see the top 1% line going down in the 90s. In fact, most of the 90s it skyrocketed according to this graph. It does take a turn and go down from about 1999 to 2001, but I think that has more to do with the Dot Com bubble bursting and the 2001 recession.
            Interesting thing about that graph that ****NOBODY**** mentioned! It shows the richest people as having the most UNSTABLE wealth! It ALSO stops just BEFORE the 2008 drop!

            The reason is PROBABLY because the real low end workers get laid off in moderately hard times, and are more likely to ride things out. The REALLY rich invest heavily and are ALSO subject to the stock market. Ones like I am tend to be a bit more stable than the other two groups. SURE, I am not doing as well as the 1%. I am ALSO not staying up at night worrying if a $1,000,000 loan will get called.

            And WHY SHOULDN'T I in a risky and needed job where I may have to work long hours for NOTHING get paid 35% more than someone that is not that way.

            ANOTHER thing, this graph is BIASED! VERY few that make a LOT of money have done NOTHING to earn it, but MANY that make little have done NOTHING! Still others are overpaid as it is. I knew several people once that spoke all day smoking cigarettes and cared for NOTHING as he money was pilfered from the government.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6065676].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Why do you assume in this quote and in others I have seen you make, that those in the bottom of the income tiers do NOTHING and are at the bottom by CHOICE? No one here has suggested that those at the top tier are not hard workers and don't deserve to do well. However, it isn't just hard work that made the rich do so amazingly well the last few decades and everyone else struggle. There ARE reasons!

              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post


              ANOTHER thing, this graph is BIASED! VERY few that make a LOT of money have done NOTHING to earn it, but MANY that make little have done NOTHING!
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6065834].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Why do you assume in this quote and in others I have seen you make, that those in the bottom of the income tiers do NOTHING and are at the bottom by CHOICE? No one here has suggested that those at the top tier are not hard workers and don't deserve to do well. However, it isn't just hard work that made the rich do so amazingly well the last few decades and everyone else struggle. There ARE reasons!
                I said MANY! It isn't an assumption! I have met a LOT that are that way, and seen others. Sorry, it is NO assumption! Of course there ARE poor that work VERY hard. I can't deny that. But many DON'T! Is it MOST? I don't know. But it is STILL a LARGE number.

                And YEAH, some rich got there by inheritance, and did nothing. I STRONGLY doubt it is most. And it IS a small number. HECK, some that got there by doing nothing give away a lot, etc...

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066241].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  I said MANY! It isn't an assumption! I have met a LOT that are that way, and seen others. Sorry, it is NO assumption! Of course there ARE poor that work VERY hard. I can't deny that. But many DON'T! Is it MOST? I don't know. But it is STILL a LARGE number.

                  And YEAH, some rich got there by inheritance, and did nothing. I STRONGLY doubt it is most. And it IS a small number. HECK, some that got there by doing nothing give away a lot, etc...

                  Steve
                  USB Bank in Switzerland, I know, turned over the names of at least 45,000 American taxpayers info...and that's just one bank.

                  How many of those inherited their wealth I couldn't say. I personally know two of the people that were arrested by the Feds (of 7 total in NYC in 2011) doing what they've ALWAYS done to keep their wealth. (Which WAS inherited)

                  Investing it and profiting (nothing wrong with that), but then hiding it and lying about it.
                  Signature
                  Professional Googler
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066407].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by Dave Patterson View Post

                    USB Bank in Switzerland, I know, turned over the names of at least 45,000 American taxpayers info...and that's just one bank.

                    How many of those inherited their wealth I couldn't say. I personally know two of the people that were arrested by the Feds (of 7 total in NYC in 2011) doing what they've ALWAYS done to keep their wealth. (Which WAS inherited)

                    Investing it and profiting (nothing wrong with that), but then hiding it and lying about it.
                    The IRS wants to basically STEAL a lot of money, and people have known that money is worthless for about 100 years! YEP, next year is the 100th anniversary! MY, how time flies, eh!? And people have had a fear of commodities stolen or at least about 79 years! They have been VERY afraid for over 22 years! I subscribed to a magazine whos major benefit was listing banks that could provide services, and the ones that were failing left and right. So OF COURSE they put money in safe banks. WHY? TWO REASONS!

                    1. SAFER MONEY!
                    2. NO CONFISCATION!

                    For MANY, tax is not the real reason, though it IS a type of confiscation! NOW, if you earn less than $100K, pay ALL tax and NEVER ask for or get a refund, AND, when ask by killers where your kids are FREELY tell them EVERYTHING, and advertise ALL your private info, MAYBE you have a point in YOUR mind. OTHERWISE? You're a hypocrite.

                    Steve

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066563].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            This is going to be shocking, but I am going to have to disagree with you TL. I don't see the top 1% line going down in the 90s. In fact, most of the 90s it skyrocketed according to this graph. It does take a turn and go down from about 1999 to 2001, but I think that has more to do with the Dot Com bubble bursting and the 2001 recession.

            Not sure what I was looking at or how but...

            I stand corrected!


            All The Best!!


            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066453].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    LB,

    Considering how many are in the lowest quintile, and there by CHOICE, this actually looks pretty good for them! Discounting inflation, the lowest quintile has held STEADY over 30 years! AMAZING! People like me are supposedly like 15% better off. The rich supposedly are like 125% better. Over THIRTY years? WOW! Let's put that in perspective. I heard that a guy about 40 years ago was selling shares in a venture he had for about $20 a pop. Incidentally, it has NEVER paid a dividend, and the longer you hold the stock, the lower the taxes are likely to be. You pay taxes ONLY after a sale! You can sell as little as 1/30th! So how much are they worth today? $119525.00! MAN do I wish I bought them in 1999, or was it 1987, when they were like $8000. The guy's name, of course, was warren buffett! BTW in 1980 $17 bought a share of stock. That would become, as I recall, about 8 today. They have had a LOT of bad luck lately, so today they are only worth about $4640!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6059927].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Rumor...

    I heard that if Americans were being paid in line with our historic productivity and for our actual productivity...

    ...the average salary ( not including benes ) would be at least 70K per year.

    I wonder if that is true?


    All The Best!!

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6060174].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Rumor...

      I heard that if Americans were being paid in line with our historic productivity and for our actual productivity...

      ...the average salary ( not including benes ) would be at least 70K per year.

      I wonder if that is true?


      All The Best!!

      TL
      Benefits used to be *****HIGHER*****! Pensions were COMMON! They had INDUCEMENTS to STAY with a company. AND, if the 43% were paid as they were prior to 1929, they would be LUCKY to get one PENNY over $20K in TODAYS dollars! So OBVIOUSLY, you believe that the average SKILLED american worker should get over $100K! That $20K would come from CHARITY, NOT the government! The US as a NATION is not as productive on a per capita basis, and probably not for the WHOLE, as it was even 40 years ago. We used to be a LEADER in SO much! TODAY, we rank like 30th AT BEST!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6065573].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6064787].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    'hope springs eternal' - I hope you are right TL.

    if we have just a 'mustard seed' size faith, 'all things are possible with God'.

    (especially if you are young enough to wait it out - however the massive loss to retirement funds was mostly to older people who saved all their lives and are now farming out at 70 for a part time gig rather than retiring.)

    Some things you can fix - rationalize - etc.

    ... and some things not.

    and there should be some justice for these victims.

    but there won't.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6065146].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I'm not taking sides but I think it is a very fair assumption that a lot in the top percentages actually inherited their money and position.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6065902].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JazzOscar
      Does someone have an idea why my totally harmless posts in this thread seem to be gone?
      Signature

      Oscar Toft

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6065989].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by JazzOscar View Post

        Does someone have an idea why my totally harmless posts in this thread seem to be gone?
        You must have been super busy catching up for when you were gone. I went back 5 pages of your posts and didn't see one in this thread,not even the one I just quoted.
        So the answer is no I don't have a clue
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066001].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JazzOscar
          Funny.

          The other posts I've done the last few days seem to be there.
          Signature

          Oscar Toft

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066068].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by JazzOscar View Post

        Does someone have an idea why my totally harmless posts in this thread seem to be gone?
        It may just be a forum glitch Oscar.
        I've been having posts disappear and reappear often the last couple of days.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066148].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JazzOscar
          Think I'll go for what Thom say.

          I've been very inactive for a while, so page 5 and 2009 may in fact be correct
          Signature

          Oscar Toft

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066195].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I'm not taking sides but I think it is a very fair assumption that a lot in the top percentages actually inherited their money and position.
      Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Wozniak, Steve Jobs, Sam walton, Harland sanders, Ross perot, Michael dell are among many that DIDN'T.

      Granted, waltons kids, the hilton kids, the Jenner/kardashian kids, etc... are among those that did. I feel no better about that than YOU do! I saw the episode where one of the kardashian kids was VERY irate and acting like a BRAT because her mother prevented her from spending more than $8000 one DAY on her credit card because she didn't come home. BOO HOO! I STILL consider $8000 a lot of money. Yeah, I like that NO better than you! But HEY, even POOR people sometimes inherit a lot of money. And they often act NO better!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066294].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I only find the last two you just made listed within the past 5 pages,and by page 5 the dates of posts are 2009!
    It appears more than 1 is missing. Strange indeed.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066118].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I actually considered what Thom said too.
    The forum has actually been flaky for months lately it seems.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066209].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jrpventures
    I sure wish Ron Paul would have been the guy but don't know if the country is ready for the tough medicine he's pushing even though it's the most responsible medicine
    Signature

    Read the rules -- no affiliate links allowed.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066310].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Is it really? He wants to cut $1 trillion in the first year. Would that be the best thing to do in such a fragile economy? Many think just slight cuts now would send us back into a recession and huge cuts would put us into a depression, which would lower the revenue collected by the US, thus defeating the purpose of the cuts.

      Originally Posted by jrpventures View Post

      I sure wish Ron Paul would have been the guy but don't know if the country is ready for the tough medicine he's pushing even though it's the most responsible medicine
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066429].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Is it really? He wants to cut $1 trillion in the first year. Would that be the best thing to do in such a fragile economy? Many think just slight cuts now would send us back into a recession and huge cuts would put us into a depression, which would lower the revenue collected by the US, thus defeating the purpose of the cuts.
        We've got folks in government running around the country throwing 850k parties with OUR money under the guise of "official" business...

        And that's just ONE "Dept. of" that happened to get caught...

        I'll bet 1 trillion in WASTE will be easy, and that won't have any ill effects on our economy.
        Signature
        Professional Googler
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066474].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Is it really? He wants to cut $1 trillion in the first year. Would that be the best thing to do in such a fragile economy? Many think just slight cuts now would send us back into a recession and huge cuts would put us into a depression, which would lower the revenue collected by the US, thus defeating the purpose of the cuts.
        Tim let me ask you this.
        If your expenses are more then your income, do you cut your expenses, or do you go further in debt.
        Doing a massive budget cut would put more money in the pockets of the consumers which would be a good thing for this economy.
        A strong economy isn't based on the government going further in debt.
        It's based on consumer spending.
        I believe I posted the link earlier here, but we just had another downgrade in our credit rating by one of the reporting agencies. The reason was because we're not doing anything to address our debt and are continuing to add to it. Here I found the link and a quote from it.
        "For the first time since WWII, US debt exceeds 100 percent," analysts said, predicting that would rise to 106 percent by the end of the year, calling that an "inflection point."
        US credit rating downgraded, again - Yahoo! News
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066477].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          A massive cut in the budget and federal agencies doesn't put money into people's pockets. A tax cut does, such as the payroll tax given to tens of millions the last year or so. However, a tax cut goes against reducing the deficit and actually adds to it. Spending cuts take money out of consumer's pockets for the most part. That's why "non partisan" groups such as Simpson-Bowles ( National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform ) suggest a combination of revenue increases and spending cuts. Most of the cuts suggested by this commission were spread out over years.

          By the way, one thing, among a few others, I think the current admin made mistake on was not embracing the Simpson-Bowles proposal, which although had some things that I don't agree with by a long shot, did approach the problem seriously and with a certain bi-partisan spirit. It was a pretty decent framework to work from and could have been improved. For example, why not increase the Social Security Wage Base above the current $110,000 instead of raising the retirement age? This to me makes more sense but I rarely hear anyone talking about it. The Wage Base is the income where social security tax stops. So, someone making a $million a year doesn't pay SS tax on almost 90% of their income while some making $110,000 and below pay 100%!!!

          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          Doing a massive budget cut would put more money in the pockets of the consumers which would be a good thing for this economy.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066578].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            A massive cut in the budget and federal agencies doesn't put money into people's pockets. A tax cut does, such as the payroll tax given to tens of millions the last year or so. However, a tax cut goes against reducing the deficit and actually adds to it.
            You cut a trillion out of the budget and that creates a huge tax cut to the people which puts more money in their pocket to spend.
            That helps the economy.
            Sure a tax cut goes against reducing the deficit when the budget stays out of control like it is.

            What about the second credit downgrade we just received?
            Simple common sense says we can't continue on the current path.
            Remember this.
            ""For the first time since WWII, US debt exceeds 100 percent," analysts said, predicting that would rise to 106 percent by the end of the year, calling that an "inflection point."
            Definition of 'Inflection Point'

            An event that results in a significant change in the progress of a company, industry, sector, economy or geopolitical situation. An inflection point can be considered a turning point after which a dramatic change, with either positive or negative results, is expected to result. Companies, industries, sectors and economies are dynamic and constantly evolving. Inflection points are more significant than the small day-to-day progress that is made and the effects of the change are often well-known and widespread.


            So with our debt continuing to raise, I don't see how it will be a good thing when we reach the inflection point.
            Like it or not neither Obama or Romney have a plan that will prevent that.

            And again RP isn't about getting rid of all regulations, just the regulations that are useless and preventing our country from moving forward.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6069026].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              You cut a trillion out of the budget and that creates a huge tax cut to the people which puts more money in their pocket to spend.
              That helps the economy.
              Sure a tax cut goes against reducing the deficit when the budget stays out of control like it is.

              What about the second credit downgrade we just received?
              Simple common sense says we can't continue on the current path.
              Remember this.
              ""For the first time since WWII, US debt exceeds 100 percent," analysts said, predicting that would rise to 106 percent by the end of the year, calling that an "inflection point."

              So with our debt continuing to raise, I don't see how it will be a good thing when we reach the inflection point.
              Like it or not neither Obama or Romney have a plan that will prevent that.

              And again RP isn't about getting rid of all regulations, just the regulations that are useless and preventing our country from moving forward.

              Does Mr. Paul specify these cuts???

              I'd love to know.


              All The Best!!


              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6069065].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                Does Mr. Paul specify these cuts???

                I'd love to know.


                All The Best!!


                TL
                Here you go TL.
                Ron Paul’s Bold Plan to Restore America, Save $1 Trillion & Balance the Budget
                By the way, why is everyone ignoring the second credit rating downgrade:confused:
                Seems to me that having two downgrades under the current pres. first term is significant. Especially when both the congress and the president haven't done anything about the first one yet.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6069270].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                  Here you go TL.
                  Ron Paul’s Bold Plan to Restore America, Save $1 Trillion & Balance the Budget
                  By the way, why is everyone ignoring the second credit rating downgrade:confused:
                  Seems to me that having two downgrades under the current pres. first term is significant. Especially when both the congress and the president haven't done anything about the first one yet.

                  It was the folks on the other side of the isle that took a routine matter...

                  ( such as paying for the debts that we have already incurred/increasing the debt limit )...


                  ...and turned it into a high stakes game of chicken - that lead to the downgrade.


                  In the end the POTUS had to blink and give in to the other side of the isle since they held the full faith and credit of the USA in their hands and seemed quite willing to trash it.

                  Once again, whether we had a lot of debt or a little, raising the debt ceiling has always been a routine matter... ( for debt we've already incurred )

                  ... and some people took advantage of the situation to try to hold the nation "hostage" ...

                  ...to get stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with the debt ceiling.

                  In the absence of a good bargain for dealing with our long term debt - the agencies downgraded it.

                  BTW...

                  Some people believe it was an attempt by S&P to regain the credibility lost by their role in the housing market meltdown that prompted them to do what they did.

                  BTW...


                  The credit rating agencies may have downgraded our debt but financial entities around the world can't seem to get enough of it and we have no problem finding buyers.

                  It's still the most valued debt on the planet.

                  IMHO...

                  That's why it's not a big deal.

                  All The Best!!

                  TL
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6069416].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    [quoteIt's still the most valued debt on the planet.

                    IMHO...

                    That's why it's not a big deal.

                    All The Best!!

                    TL ][/quote]
                    So you think other country's buying up our debt is a good thing?
                    How is that not a big deal.
                    If your credit rating was lowered would that not be a big deal to you?
                    Just being in debt like we are is a big deal.
                    By the way what is Obama's plan for getting us out of this mess, or does he think it isn't a big deal also.
                    Can you show me his new plan to restore America, cause his current one certainly isn't working.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6069454].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                      [quoteIt's still the most valued debt on the planet.

                      IMHO...

                      That's why it's not a big deal.

                      All The Best!!

                      TL ]

                      Thom, you said...

                      So you think other country's buying up our debt is a good thing?

                      How is that not a big deal.

                      If your credit rating was lowered would that not be a big deal to you?

                      Just being in debt like we are is a big deal.

                      By the way what is Obama's plan for getting us out of this mess, or does he think it isn't a big deal also.

                      Can you show me his new plan to restore America, cause his current one certainly isn't working.





                      Thom,

                      Of course I'd rather we had no real debt at all.

                      From Dave's slideshow...

                      - In all, the Treasury ( our fed gov ) owes foreigners and foreign governments $4.514 trillion dollars.

                      - But Americans own most of their own country's $14,342,909,569,328.74 of the debt.

                      We owe most of the debt to ourselves.

                      - I don't think we're paying a lot more in interest to folks that buy our debt than we were before the downgrade.

                      Remember our debt is the most sought after debt on the planet.


                      BTW...


                      People who believe we are a couple years away from a Greek like default, believe in the...


                      ... "hatchet" method of dealing with our long term fiscal problems as I see Mr. Paul and you do.


                      Verses...


                      People who like myself believe we have time to IMHO, "responsibly" work our way out of this mess we're in...


                      ...prefer the "scalpel" method.



                      It's the scalpel vs. the hatchet! ( LOL! )



                      All The Best!!

                      TL
                      Signature

                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6069550].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Cutting the budget doesn't create a tax cut. That's two separate things.

              I'm definitely concerned about downgrades and the deficit, that's why I mentioned the Simpson-Bowles commission and proposal.

              Something that is interesting that has gone practically unnoticed is how the federal, state and local governments have shrunk in size the last three or so years. Government isn't growing.

              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              You cut a trillion out of the budget and that creates a huge tax cut to the people which puts more money in their pocket to spend.
              That helps the economy.
              Sure a tax cut goes against reducing the deficit when the budget stays out of control like it is.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6070269].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Cutting the budget doesn't create a tax cut. That's two separate things.

                I'm definitely concerned about downgrades and the deficit, that's why I mentioned the Simpson-Bowles commission and proposal.

                Something that is interesting that has gone practically unnoticed is how the federal, state and local governments have shrunk in size the last three or so years. Government isn't growing.


                Hey Tim,

                I think that big uptick was when the Censes workers were hired.

                What do you think??

                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6070534].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Cutting the budget doesn't create a tax cut. That's two separate things.

                I'm definitely concerned about downgrades and the deficit, that's why I mentioned the Simpson-Bowles commission and proposal.

                Something that is interesting that has gone practically unnoticed is how the federal, state and local governments have shrunk in size the last three or so years. Government isn't growing.

                Interesting graph. Who made that up?
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6071110].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                  Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million - Washington Times

                  Federal payroll was extremely high in 2010 - and many of the reductions are not due to cutting size of govt but to privatizing jobs previously falling under "govt worker" such as TSA screeners.

                  So - those jobs are not under the category of "govt employee" but the companies are contracted and paid by the govt. The cost is still there - but the "number" appears smaller.

                  Apples and oranges?
                  Signature
                  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                  ***
                  One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
                  what it is instead of what you think it should be.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6071244].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                    Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million - Washington Times

                    Federal payroll was extremely high in 2010 - and many of the reductions are not due to cutting size of govt but to privatizing jobs previously falling under "govt worker" such as TSA screeners.

                    So - those jobs are not under the category of "govt employee" but the companies are contracted and paid by the govt. The cost is still there - but the "number" appears smaller.

                    Apples and oranges?
                    Tim's chart says the total number of fed, state and local employees nationwide, are down - not the federal government which this above story points to.


                    There are about half million less total gov employees in contrast to what the number was in Jan 2009.

                    All The Best!!

                    TL
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6071380].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      Tim's chart says the total number of fed, state and local employees nationwide, are down - not the federal government which this above story points to.


                      There are about half million less total gov employees in contrast to what the number was in Jan 2009.

                      All The Best!!

                      TL
                      So are you saying the reason for the number of employees dropping is because they where laid off?
                      If that was the case wouldn't that cause the unemployment numbers to be raising? I mean back in 2010 O bragged about the numbers falling until it was pointed out that they fell because of all the census workers hired.
                      Couple more questions for you TL.
                      What would you cut with your little scalpel that would make significant budget reductions?
                      How is the citizens of the US being responsible for the majority of the governments debt a good thing?
                      What happens if we can't pay it back?
                      What is our collateral?
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6071629].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post



                        So are you saying the reason for the number of employees dropping is because they where laid off?


                        If that was the case wouldn't that cause the unemployment numbers to be raising?

                        I mean back in 2010 O bragged about the numbers falling until it was pointed out that they fell because of all the census workers hired.


                        Couple more questions for you TL.

                        What would you cut with your little scalpel that would make significant budget reductions?


                        How is the citizens of the US being responsible for the majority of the governments debt a good thing?


                        What happens if we can't pay it back?


                        What is our collateral?

                        1: Yes state and local employees were laid off because of the recession.

                        Much of that happened very early in the recession but the stimulus helped retain some of them but not enough.


                        Thom said...

                        What would you cut with your little scalpel that would make significant budget reductions?

                        I say...


                        No much now, except defense spending, serious waste in our discretionary spending and the added bonus of the wars ending.


                        Thom said...


                        How is the citizens of the US being responsible for the majority of the governments debt a good thing?


                        I say...

                        I never said it was and will never say it is.


                        I'm not in love with running up the national debt but if I had my way we're going to have to live with it...

                        ... until we turn the corner on the yearly deficit and then we can start to deal with the national debt.


                        It will take another 10 years at least to turn that corner I mentioned.


                        For sure the debt is enormous but IMHO it is still manageable.


                        If we can't pay it back we default.


                        We have nothing as collateral except our supposed ability to repay.


                        Thom, We believe a mixture of responsible cuts, growth and revenue raising ( tax increases on those that can afford it ) is the key.

                        This is a balanced approach.

                        For example...

                        - When we get the economy clicking again the feds will collect another 7-800 bill per year in revenue.

                        - Collecting taxes from the wealthy and corps and Wall Street can add another 2-300 billion in revenue to the feds.


                        That's at least 1 trillion extra for the fed gov.

                        - Right now the deficit for fiscal 2011 is projected to be 1.3 by the CBO.

                        - Add in some strategic cuts to defense and discretionary spending and we're close to a balanced budget again as we were in 1999-2001.


                        This admin is about responsibly cutting as much as possible from...

                        - discretionary spending

                        - defense

                        - whereever else if possible


                        For example, the ACA takes 50 billion a year from over payments to health care providers to help fund the ACA.


                        But leave the benefits of SS and Medicare and Medicare alone and find other ways to strengthen those programs other than...

                        - upping the retirement age and/or cutting benefits for our elderly.


                        Thom,

                        You believe we're a few short years, if that, from a Greek style default - if we continue as we are...


                        By contrast...

                        ...I believe we have at least 10 years or so to turn this thing around and we can do so without IMHO, ripping up our social safety net, forgetting about making investments for our future and throwing ourselves to the wolves - Mel Gibson style.


                        I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.


                        All The Best!


                        TL
                        Signature

                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6072104].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                          1: Yes state and local employees were laid off because of the recession.

                          Much of that happened very early in the recession but the stimulus helped retain some of them but not enough.


                          Thom said...

                          What would you cut with your little scalpel that would make significant budget reductions?

                          I say...


                          No much now, except defense spending, serious waste in our discretionary spending and the added bonus of the wars ending.


                          Thom said...


                          How is the citizens of the US being responsible for the majority of the governments debt a good thing?


                          I say...

                          I never said it was and will never say it is.


                          I'm not in love with running up the national debt but if I had my way we're going to have to live with it...

                          ... until we turn the corner on the yearly deficit and then we can start to deal with the national debt.


                          It will take another 10 years at least to turn that cornet I mentioned.


                          For sure the debt is enormous but IMHO it is still manageable.


                          If we can't pay it back we default.


                          We have nothing as collateral except our supposed ability to repay.


                          Thom, We believe a mixture of responsible cuts, growth and revenue raising ( tax increases on those that can afford it ) is the key.

                          This is a balanced approach.

                          For example...

                          - When we get the economy clicking again the feds will collect another 7-800 bill per year in revenue.

                          - Collecting taxes from the wealthy and corps and Wall Street can add another 2-300 billion in revenue to the feds.


                          That's at least 1 trillion extra for the fed gov.

                          - Right now the deficit for fiscal 2011 is projected to be 1.3 by the CBO.

                          - Add in some strategic cuts to defense and discretionary spending and we're close to a balanced budget again as we were in 1999-2001.


                          This admin is about responsibly cutting as much as possible from...

                          - discretionary spending

                          - defense

                          - whereever else if possible


                          For example, the ACA takes 50 billion a year from over payments to health care providers to help fund the ACA.


                          But leave the benefits of SS and Medicare and Medicare alone and find other ways to strengthen those programs other than...

                          - upping the retirement age and/or cutting benefits for our elderly.


                          Thom,

                          You believe we're a few short years, if that, from a Greek style default - if we continue as we are...


                          By contrast...

                          ...I believe we have at least 10 years or so to turn this thing around and we can do so without IMHO, ripping up our social safety net, forgetting about making investments for our future and throwing ourselves to the wolves - Mel Gibson style.


                          I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.


                          All The Best!


                          TL
                          Yep you did
                          I don't agree with you, but you don't agree with me so we're even there.
                          What's with all the Mel Gibson references?
                          And by the way RP predicted pretty much everything that has happened in the last 10 years, 10 years ago.
                          So if you don't mind I'll stick with someone who has a better grasp of our current situation then you or I ever will.
                          Most of what I've read say that Obamas cuts are small and timid, but I guess you feel small and timid are ok.
                          By the way, we are the collateral. Try not paying your taxes which is our individual payments on the debt and see where you end up.

                          If you noticed in the RP plan he calls for more money to go into S.S., Medicare, and veterans benefits over the next 4 years.
                          The depts. he listed as cutting are useless anyways
                          You can't make small token cuts in some departments while raising spending in others and think it will fix the budget problem.
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6072241].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                            Yep you did
                            I don't agree with you, but you don't agree with me so we're even there.
                            What's with all the Mel Gibson references?
                            And by the way RP predicted pretty much everything that has happened in the last 10 years, 10 years ago.

                            So if you don't mind I'll stick with someone who has a better grasp of our current situation then you or I ever will.

                            Most of what I've read say that Obamas cuts are small and timid, but I guess you feel small and timid are ok.

                            By the way, we are the collateral.

                            Try not paying your taxes which is our individual payments on the debt and see where you end up.

                            If you noticed in the RP plan he calls for more money to go into S.S., Medicare, and veterans benefits over the next 4 years.

                            The depts. he listed as cutting are useless anyways.

                            You can't make small token cuts in some departments while raising spending in others and think it will fix the budget problem.

                            I heard of RP 30 years ago and he's a MD. not an economics graduate.

                            As far as him predicting what's happening now, I say even a broken clock can be right at least twice a day.

                            If you run up the debt, there's going to be a budget/debt crisis. Wow!

                            IMHO,

                            He's therefore, just like everyone else who's heard this or that and has then decided on what to believe in as far as economic theory is concerned.

                            He's a big fan of Ayn Rand, I think he even named his son after and the son is some kind of right-wing character.

                            She believes that an individual's needs are supreme over the society - I don't- IMHO, there must be balance between the two.

                            You may call O's cuts timid but we call them strategic and responsible ...

                            ...since we don't want to go "Mel Gibson in The Patriot wild" on or own population. ( see video above )

                            All The Best!!

                            TL
                            Signature

                            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6072469].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                              I heard of RP 30 years ago and he's a MD. not an economics graduate.

                              As far as him predicting what's happening now, I say even a broken clock can be right at least twice a day.

                              If you run up the debt, there's going to be a budget/debt crisis. Wow!

                              IMHO,

                              He's therefore, just like everyone else who's heard this or that and has then decided on what to believe in as far as economic theory is concerned.

                              He's a big fan of Ayn Rand, I think he even named his son after and the son is some kind of right-wing character.

                              She believes that an individual's needs are supreme over the society - I don't- IMHO, there must be balance between the two.

                              You may call O's cuts timid but we call them strategic and responsible ...

                              ...since we don't want to go "Mel Gibson in The Patriot wild" on or own population. ( see video above )

                              All The Best!!

                              TL
                              Ah TL he got everything right including the housing bubble, the turmoil we have caused in the mid-east, the war in Afghanistan, the current economy.
                              So it was a lot more then "even a broke clock is right at least twice a day".
                              Yes he is a Doctor, but he has also been in congress for what 30 years? He has studied economics for almost that long.
                              What's Obamas credentials? That's right he's a lawyer.
                              How many years has Obama studied economics? Lets see, he studied political science at Columbia and got a law degree from Harvard, then became an activist.
                              So from what I can see he has less experience with economics then Paul does.
                              So how can you discredit Paul for not having a degree in economics when Obama doesn't have one either?
                              Signature

                              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                              Getting old ain't for sissy's
                              As you are I was, as I am you will be
                              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6072878].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author KimW
                              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                              I heard of RP 30 years ago and he's a MD. not an economics graduate.

                              As far as him predicting what's happening now, I say even a broken clock can be right at least twice a day.

                              If you run up the debt, there's going to be a budget/debt crisis. Wow!

                              IMHO,

                              He's therefore, just like everyone else who's heard this or that and has then decided on what to believe in as far as economic theory is concerned.

                              He's a big fan of Ayn Rand, I think he even named his son after and the son is some kind of right-wing character.

                              She believes that an individual's needs are supreme over the society - I don't- IMHO, there must be balance between the two.

                              You may call O's cuts timid but we call them strategic and responsible ...

                              ...since we don't want to go "Mel Gibson in The Patriot wild" on or own population. ( see video above )

                              All The Best!!

                              TL
                              To answer your long post in a word, No, your incorrect.
                              Maybe he isn't an economics graduate,but then again you aren't either,yet you feel you can speak intelligently about it ,why cant he?

                              And what's this reteric about a broken clock? He hasn't been right "twice a day" he's been right for years,and sadly speaking to deaf ears,the same ears that are suppose to be protecting American interests and citizens! And a lot of the time the same ears that you defend.

                              Actually, the fact is He saw it and spoke out about it. Everyone else didn't.
                              And while YOU may want to call "o's cuts strategic and responsible, I call them too little too late,
                              Signature

                              Read A Post.
                              Subscribe to a Newsletter
                              KimWinfrey.Com

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6072943].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                                I don't see how anyone can argue financial expertise - when there has not been a budget passed in the Senate in three years. It's a requirement - and it's not been met.

                                Won't be this year either as it's been tabled...till after the election. I can't run my house without a budget - how can you run a country that way? In ever increasing deficits - that's how.
                                Signature
                                Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                                ***
                                One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
                                what it is instead of what you think it should be.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075479].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                                  I don't see how anyone can argue financial expertise - when there has not been a budget passed in the Senate in three years. It's a requirement - and it's not been met.


                                  Won't be this year either as it's been tabled...till after the election.

                                  I can't run my house without a budget - how can you run a country that way?

                                  In ever increasing deficits - that's how.

                                  If you have no budget at all or your budget does not resemble the current reality then the requirement has not been met.


                                  The Budget of the United States Government is the President's "proposal"...

                                  ... to the U.S. Congress which recommends...

                                  ... funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1.



                                  The meme that Obama has not passed a budget in 1,000 days sounds alarming to some folk and is a very interesting "talking point"...


                                  ... but only for those with an agenda, the uninformed or mislead.


                                  ... are apt to repeat the meme - ...

                                  ...thinking it points to some type of serious fiscal irresponsibility on Obama's and/or the dems part.


                                  It's just a technicality.


                                  The nation still has a definitive financial road map as to how we allocate our money and our financial resources.


                                  Guess what??

                                  The country is running on the base budget of 2010 since that was the last budget passed.

                                  From the Daily Beast...

                                  Does Congress


                                  The political reality since the last budget was passed:

                                  Since 2011 the repub lead house is not going to pass any Obama budget - absolutely no way no how.

                                  Plus, since the senate is split something like 53-47 and you need 60 votes to pass anything major -...


                                  ... no Obama type of budget is gong to pass in the senate either.


                                  I think everyone who's been paying attention can agree on that.


                                  Those are facts.


                                  But guess what???


                                  The nation still has a financial road map/plan - and that is another fact.


                                  It's the 2010 US budget.


                                  Spending levels for all our programs are already set and have been set since the 2010 budget was passed.


                                  So we're not even close to flying blind as far as the budget is concerned...

                                  ... as you have inferred.


                                  BTW...

                                  Any household budget will remain basically the same unless there are some major new items to add or subtract.


                                  All The Best!!

                                  TL
                                  Signature

                                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6078140].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                                To answer your long post in a word, No, your incorrect.
                                Maybe he isn't an economics graduate,but then again you aren't either,yet you feel you can speak intelligently about it ,why cant he?

                                And what's this reteric about a broken clock? He hasn't been right "twice a day" he's been right for years,and sadly speaking to deaf ears,the same ears that are suppose to be protecting American interests and citizens! And a lot of the time the same ears that you defend.

                                Actually, the fact is He saw it and spoke out about it. Everyone else didn't.
                                And while YOU may want to call "o's cuts strategic and responsible, I call them too little too late,
                                I LOVE IT! A LOT of the problems were CAUSED by "economics graduates". I LOVE the interview where a guy stated the problem AND the solution, and the idiot "reporter" said "SIR, are you an economics graduate?" In a SNIDE tone. And he said "YEP, WITH HONORS from...". It shut her RIGHT UP! The first doctors, scientists, etc... were NOT college graduates! Do you thin Einstein studied the stuff he is famous for? NOPE!
                                '
                                And MOST people that make a certain amount of money DO have to ration it! Do you think *I* always go screaming for a raise if I were to come up short? HECK NO!

                                WHAT is so hard to understand? It is a SIMPLE formula! RESERVE=REVENUE-EXPENSES! SOMEONE in government MUST know that RIDICULOUSLY simple formula! They keep trying to inflate revenue. OFTEN through CREDIT! You can NOT do that forever! It is impossible. MOST usually cut back on expenses, but the US government just keeps increasing them.

                                Steve
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6076736].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Cutting the budget doesn't create a tax cut. That's two separate things.

                I'm definitely concerned about downgrades and the deficit, that's why I mentioned the Simpson-Bowles commission and proposal.

                Something that is interesting that has gone practically unnoticed is how the federal, state and local governments have shrunk in size the last three or so years. Government isn't growing.

                Interesting you should bring this up! And Creating a budget SURPLUS doesn't mean you have anymore money! ESPECIALLY not in the government when you have assumptions made about rules you ASSUME will be passed!

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6076760].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by jrpventures View Post

        I sure wish Ron Paul would have been the guy but don't know if the country is ready for the tough medicine he's pushing even though it's the most responsible medicine
        Why does everyone think Ron Paul is out of the picture? He isn't.

        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Is it really? He wants to cut $1 trillion in the first year. Would that be the best thing to do in such a fragile economy? Many think just slight cuts now would send us back into a recession and huge cuts would put us into a depression, which would lower the revenue collected by the US, thus defeating the purpose of the cuts.
        Tim, are the many that think it will send the country back into a recession the same many that got BILLIONS of taxpayer money to stay in business then turned around and started forcing people out of their houses and making them homeless and putting them on the roles of unemployment?
        I'm just asking if these are the same experts.

        By the way, most of his cuts are based on cutting government agencies,so while it would maybe lower revenue,it would also cut the government budget .
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066547].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Any economists who were in favor of loosening regulations and laws on getting home loans and other investments, such as the repeal of Glass Steagal, shouldn't be listened to. However, those were decisions made by politicians for the most part, for reasons other than economists saying they were great ideas. By the way, the repeal of Glass Steagal is something Steve refers to often, and I agree completely, and it happened under Clinton.

          Originally Posted by KimW View Post




          Tim, are the many that think it will send the country back into a recession the same many that got BILLIONS of taxpayer money to stay in business then turned around and started forcing people out of their houses and making them homeless and putting them on the roles of unemployment?
          I'm just asking if these are the same experts.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066673].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Any economists who were in favor of loosening regulations and laws on getting home loans and other investments, such as the repeal of Glass Steagal, shouldn't be listened to. However, those were decisions made by politicians for the most part, for reasons other than economists saying they were great ideas. By the way, the repeal of Glass Steagal is something Steve refers to often, and I agree completely, and it happened under Clinton.

            Its late now but I will also research the information in this post you made. In my opinion though it was not the loosening of regulations that caused the situation,its the greedy banks and other organizations that did.
            While some feel affordable housing should be a right, I think there is a moral responsibility for corporations to be honest and ethical.
            I know, a very unrealistic viewpoint in this day and age where both traits are diminishing.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066768].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Steve,
    All the IRS is is a government license to steal.
    Until a decade or so they were also the only organization to be able to charge loan shark rates of interest,then the government opened that up to all the corporations,which is now why we see credit card companies and car financing companies and mortgage companies charging rates that literally are impossible to ever actually pay any of the principal off with.

    Between the IRS and the fact that the government lets big business defraud us are major reasons we are in the economic crisis we are in.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066609].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      But Ron Paul is against the government getting involved in regulating banks, mortgage companies, financial institutions, etc... He says he wants to repeal the one very weak piece of legislature that was passed after the bailouts to try to regulate these corporations somewhat. He also is, I'm pretty sure, for repealing the Credit Card Act of 2011 which did the following:

      * 45-day notice if the terms of your card change.
      * No rate increases in the first year.
      * Payment dates must be the same every month.
      * Statements must be delivered at least 21 days before the due date, and the statement must be explicit about late fees and other consequences of late payment.
      * Fees cannot exceed 25% of the initial credit limit on the card, and over-limit fees aren't allowed.

      So, should the government get involved or not? Should there be rules and regulations or not? Is the government some evil force or something we can actually control that can be of great benefit to us as citizens? These are important questions when considering a strict libertarian platform.

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      then the government opened that up to all the corporations,which is now why we see credit card companies and car financing companies and mortgage companies charging rates that literally are impossible to ever actually pay any of the principal off with.

      Between the IRS and the fact that the government lets big business defraud us are major reasons we are in the economic crisis we are in.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066714].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        But Ron Paul is against the government getting involved in regulating banks, mortgage companies, financial institutions, etc... He says he wants to repeal the one very weak piece of legislature that was passed after the bailouts to try to regulate these corporations somewhat. He also is, I'm pretty sure, for repealing the Credit Card Act of 2011 which did the following:

        * 45-day notice if the terms of your card change.
        * No rate increases in the first year.
        * Payment dates must be the same every month.
        * Statements must be delivered at least 21 days before the due date, and the statement must be explicit about late fees and other consequences of late payment.
        * Fees cannot exceed 25% of the initial credit limit on the card, and over-limit fees aren't allowed.

        So, should the government get involved or not? Should there be rules and regulations or not? Is the government some evil force or something we can actually control that can be of great benefit to us as citizens? These are important questions when considering a strict libertarian platform.
        You forgot the important part. Ron Paul wants to kick the FED to the curb. You wouldn't need all those regulations if you had real money again. So get rid of the cause of the problems and let the economy work as it was first intended to instead of keeping a criminal economy going and continuing to pass effete regulations.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075851].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          If you have any of that fake money you don't want Sal, go ahead and send it over to me.
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          You wouldn't need all those regulations if you had real money again.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6075882].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            If you have any of that fake money you don't want Sal, go ahead and send it over to me.
            She would probably, and so would I, be willing to pay you the monopoly money, if you gave us REAL money.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082322].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          You forgot the important part. Ron Paul wants to kick the FED to the curb. You wouldn't need all those regulations if you had real money again. So get rid of the cause of the problems and let the economy work as it was first intended to instead of keeping a criminal economy going and continuing to pass effete regulations.

          That's definitely one thing I like about RP.


          If we ever get rid of the fed will there be credit cards???


          And if so, will there be abuses??


          I think so.


          IMHO...


          So therefore some corrective measures would probably have to be taken.


          All The Best!!


          TL


          BTW...

          Sir Mark Of Britannia has a pretty cool thread that you may have not noticed.

          http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...r-country.html
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6077509].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Tim,
    You may be right, I'll look into it more. While I support most of what he advocates, in no way do I say I am for everything he believes in.
    And I cartainly believe that government has a responsibility to the citizens to make sure we are treated properly, but the current system,and not I said system,not administration, has not done that for decades now.
    If voting for someone like Ron Paul will help us get America back on track,I'm all over it.
    I know longer wish to be a citizen/pawn of The United Corporations of the United States.

    Edit, by the way, the credit card act is such a farce.There is no real bite in it. It doesn't stop any of the companies from raping its customer with outrageous interest rates.

    I had to decalre bankruptcy a few years back because of my mdeical expenses. I am now getting all the offers saying they will give me a card with the "low" rate of 19.99% to start,but if I miss a payment date it goes up to an APR of 29.99%. Thankfully they include a Business Reply Envelope. with tier mailings,which,from my experiences from working at the PO for 10 years I know they basically pay twice the regular cost of mailing something to get it back when it is returned.
    Anyway, when I get those offers now, I take a sharpie, circle the interests rates with it and write in big letters:
    "You have got to be F**king kidding me!".
    I then stick it back in the envelope they so nicely provided and send it back.
    And yes, it does give me a little bit of satisfaction.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066730].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      I agree. It was weak, but still barely passed. By the way, the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009 passed by a vote of 357 yes to 70 no in the house. Ron Paul was a no. Why? Because he doesn't think it's the government's business to get involved in the free market. He has the libertarian viewpoint that if a company screws you you can stop using their services and pay what you owe, sue them and... nothing. That's it. Oh, and through the free market people will find out the company screws people and you should find out on your own that they are a bad company and not choose to do business with them. No regulation by the government at all.

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Edit, by the way, the credit card act is such a farce.There is no real bite in it. It doesn't stop any of the companies from raping its customer with outrageous interest rates.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066875].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        I agree. It was weak, but still barely passed. By the way, the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009 passed by a vote of 357 yes to 70 no in the house. Ron Paul was a no. Why? Because he doesn't think it's the government's business to get involved in the free market.
        I'm not surprised there.
        in the past 40-50 years the country changed in that back then,dredit cards were used only for large purchases.
        Then,I believe it was in the 60s, they literally gave them to college students .No applying or anything, you want a card? here.
        At that point the country started changing from a nantion of saving up for what you needed or wanted to an instant gratification country where people started living way beyond their means.
        In some ways that itself could be considered the xause of our economic breakdown,imo.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066892].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Yep. The history of the credit card industry is interesting. My mother, who grew up in the years of the depression and world war 2 always talks about how easily people use credit cards as if they actually had the money they were spending. Some people are predicting the credit card bubble to burst next.

          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          I'm not surprised there.
          in the past 40-50 years the country changed in that back then,dredit cards were used only for large purchases.
          Then,I believe it was in the 60s, they literally gave them to college students .No applying or anything, you want a card? here.
          At that point the country started changing from a antion of saving up for what you needed or wanted to an instant gratification country where people started living way beyond their means.
          In some ways that itself could be considered the xause of our economic breakdown,imo.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066982].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Yep. The history of the credit card industry is interesting. My mother, who grew up in the years of the depression and world war 2 always talks about how easily people use credit cards as if they actually had the money they were spending. Some people are predicting the credit card bubble to burst next.

            Tim,

            Did you hear about NJ Gov. Christie getting caught lying about the costs of another tunnel between NJ & NY?

            He wildly overestimated the costs to NJ by leaps and bounds and claimed NJ couldn't handle the potential cost overruns when the truth is the feds would have paid for 70% of the project.


            IMHO, he simply wanted to be another Repub gov to turn down a badly needed infrastructure project because of ideological reasons and...

            ... would have lost his "anti-gov-getting-involved" repub tough guy cred if he'd have OK'd the project.


            I believe he's trying to position himself for 2016 and the anti-fed-gov crowd would have never forgiven him if he had OK'd the project.


            I'm glad he got caught red handed by this new GAO report.


            Tim, I seriously don't know how we're going to become an 21st century middle class, economic power with people who have his mentality in power.


            All The Best!!

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6067823].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        I agree. It was weak, but still barely passed. By the way, the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009 passed by a vote of 357 yes to 70 no in the house.

        Ron Paul was a no. Why?

        Because he doesn't think it's the government's business to get involved in the free market.

        He has the libertarian viewpoint that if a company screws you you can stop using their services and pay what you owe, sue them and... nothing.

        That's it.

        Oh, and through the free market people will find out the company screws people and you should find out on your own that they are a bad company and not choose to do business with them.

        No regulation by the government at all.



        The new credit card law does save people money and will prevent prior abuses.


        I really like the benefit that a cc company must give me 45 days notice before they jack up my rate instead of them just doing it.


        This gives people plenty time to find a cheaper rate and can actually save people money.


        Here's another bene of the law... ( see rest of them above )

        The legislation would make card companies apply payments to balances with the highest interest rates first.

        Increasing a consumer’s rate on existing balances based on late payments to another lender, ...

        ...a practice known as “universal default” would be prohibited.


        - It also bans fees for paying by phone or over the Internet - this saves folks money!


        - The law also forces the cc companies to actually show the consumers on their bill, exactly how they could save money by paying extra each month - instead of just the minimum payment.

        Some people are taking advantage of this new info and are paying a little bit extra ( about 20% ) and saving thousands of bucks in the process.


        This new law ends prior abuses and actually saves people money.



        All The Best!!


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6068669].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Haha. That's great!
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I had to decalre bankruptcy a few years back because of my mdeical expenses. I am now getting all the offers saying they will give me a card with the "low" rate of 19.99% to start,but if I miss a payment date it goes up to an APR of 29.99%. Thankfully they include a Business Reply Envelope. with tier mailings,which,from my experiences from working at the PO for 10 years I know they basically pay twice the regular cost of mailing something to get it back when it is returned.
      Anyway, when I get those offers now, I take a sharpie, circle the interests rates with it and write in big letters:
      "You have got to be F**king kidding me!".
      I then stick it back in the envelope they so nicely provided and send it back.
      And yes, it does give me a little bit of satisfaction.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6066942].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
    Signature
    Professional Googler
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6069459].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Hey Tim,

    I checked out the RP budget and discovered that...


    Thom and RP prefer the hatchet method of fixing our financial probs.


    IMHO,

    here's what the "hatchet method" of dealing with our fiscal probs will do to the nation except verses the video ...

    ...we would be turning on ourselves in a self-inflicted/multilation frenzy - IMHO.

    skip to 2:22 of the video...

    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6070466].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Hey Tim, Thom and RP prefer the hatchet method of fixing our financial probs.


      IMHO,

      here's what the "hatchet method" of dealing with our fiscal probs will do to the nation...

      skip to 2:22 of the video...

      Mel Gibson vs England Incredible scene The Patriot - YouTube
      Hey...I noticed he kept going after guys in red coats.

      Isn't that profiling?
      Signature
      Professional Googler
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6070482].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Hey Tim,

      I checked out the RP budget and discovered that...


      Thom and RP prefer the hatchet method of fixing our financial probs.


      IMHO,

      here's what the "hatchet method" of dealing with our fiscal probs will do to the nation except verses the video ...

      ...we would be turning on ourselves in a self-inflicted/multilation frenzy - IMHO.

      skip to 2:22 of the video...

      Mel Gibson vs England Incredible scene The Patriot - YouTube
      ALL the british wanted to do was be the IRS! SERIOUSLY! They fancied themselves to be the IRS and when the US said NO, tey came to collect! THAT is why we had "THE BOSTON TEA PARTY". Interesting that you should pick a film about the SAME situation that we have now! But THEN transportation was slower and they were abroad and they came in brightly colored suits with guns.

      Of course, along the line, TODAY, you still meet uniformed people with guns.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6076803].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        ALL the british wanted to do was be the IRS! SERIOUSLY! They fancied themselves to be the IRS and when the US said NO, tey came to collect! THAT is why we had "THE BOSTON TEA PARTY". Interesting that you should pick a film about the SAME situation that we have now! But THEN transportation was slower and they were abroad and they came in brightly colored suits with guns.

        Of course, along the line, TODAY, you still meet uniformed people with guns.

        Steve
        Yea that's good accurate take on the situation in the film.


        BTW...

        Mark has a great thread, why not check it out and chime in?


        http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...r-country.html

        All The Best!!

        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6077448].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6072569].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Guess what TL,
    Back in the dark ages,in the years of lore, people actually lived and lived well without credit cards.
    I don't have any credit cards at all.

    If you think they are a necessary evil, you might want to check this out:
    Dave Ramsey Homepage - daveramsey.com
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6077828].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Guess what TL,
      Back in the dark ages,in the years of lore, people actually lived and lived well without credit cards.
      I don't have any credit cards at all.

      If you think they are a necessary evil, you might want to check this out:
      Dave Ramsey Homepage - daveramsey.com
      I don't have any myself Kim.
      It was a tough lesson to learn, but after I finally realized their only purpose was to create debt I dumped them.
      Now I don't have a bunch of useless crap around and I don't have those monthly c.c. bills to deal with.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6078061].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        I don't have any myself Kim.
        It was a tough lesson to learn, but after I finally realized their only purpose was to create debt I dumped them.
        Now I don't have a bunch of useless crap around and I don't have those monthly c.c. bills to deal with.
        Me three!

        I REFUSE to fall back into that trap!
        Signature
        Professional Googler
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6078101].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Guess what TL,
      Back in the dark ages,in the years of lore, people actually lived and lived well without credit cards.
      I don't have any credit cards at all.

      If you think they are a necessary evil, you might want to check this out:
      Dave Ramsey Homepage - daveramsey.com

      I hear you Kim.

      Handle your finances.


      Different strokes for different folks but the trouble with CC's are most people get into trouble is they are available.


      IMHO...

      They can be used strategically.


      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6078198].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I hear you Kim.

        Handle your finances.


        Different strokes for different folks but the trouble with CC's are most people get into trouble is they are available.


        IMHO...

        They can be used strategically.


        All The Best!!

        TL
        Exactly right, They were not taught and no one is currently teaching our youth fiscal responsibility.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6078347].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          He's a big fan of Ayn Rand, I think he even named his son after and the son is some kind of right-wing character.
          By the way TL, you're wrong on this also.
          "Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand"".Rand Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
          His full name is Randal Howard Paul.
          Also Ron is a fan of her (Ayn Rand) book Atlas Shrugged, but feels her political views are to radical.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6078527].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            By the way TL, you're wrong on this also.
            "Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand"".Rand Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            His full name is Randal Howard Paul.
            Also Ron is a fan of her (Ayn Rand) book Atlas Shrugged, but feels her political views are to radical.

            Sure thing Thom.

            All The Best!


            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6078707].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Sure thing Thom.

              All The Best!


              TL
              Just setting the record straight TL.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6078731].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Here's an interesting poll for you TL.
                Political.com
                Seems RP polls rather good with democrats.
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6079593].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                  Here's an interesting poll for you TL.
                  Political.com
                  Seems RP polls rather good with democrats.

                  Very interesting but when was the poll started?

                  I have a hard time believing anyone paying attention thinks RP will win the GOP nomination now- especially since Santorum is out of the race.


                  I think the more real democrats get to know RP the less likely they are to have a favorable view of him in total.

                  - His anti-war stand

                  - Tame/destroy the fed

                  - legalize weed


                  Great positions!

                  IMHO, I think there should be a cut-off age for president.

                  If you're going to be over 70 when you first enter the WH, you shouldn't be president.

                  The 40th POTUS was senile during his second term.

                  I remember him getting "brain lock" when a reporter asked him a question - while...

                  ... walking with the FLOTUS and she had whisper in his ear and then he repeated what everyone heard her say back to the reporter.


                  All The Best!!

                  TL
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6080376].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author KimW
                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    Very interesting but when was the poll started?

                    What difference does that make, is there a time limit on polls?

                    I have a hard time believing anyone paying attention thinks RP will win the GOP nomination now- especially since Santorum is out of the race.

                    I have a hard time believing anyone actually paying attention is counting Ron Paul out of the race.


                    I think the more real democrats get to know RP the less likely they are to have a favorable view of him in total.

                    So, he appeals only to fake democrats? What exactly do you mean "real democrats"?

                    - His anti-war stand

                    Most real democrats are against war.

                    - Tame/destroy the fed

                    I'm sure many politicians have an issue with this,not just the real democrats,after all,it's their job security for both parties.

                    - legalize weed

                    Legalize or decriminalize? There is a difference. I have seen him say what a waste the war on drugs is (and it is a waste) but I never heard Ron Paul say "Let's legalize it Now!" But again,I see more real democrats for decriminalation than republicans. Why, if we actually emptied those jailed for non violent crimes such as smoking a joint,we might actually be able to close some prisons instead of overcrowding them and needing to open more.


                    Great positions!

                    Yes! For the most part they are great positions,especially for anyone that wants us to become the great nation we once were!

                    IMHO, I think there should be a cut-off age for president.

                    If you're going to be over 70 when you first enter the WH, you shouldn't be president.

                    So, you are for age discrimination?

                    The 40th POTUS was senile during his second term.

                    Many would disagree with that statement.

                    I remember him getting "brain lock" when a reporter asked him a question - while...

                    ... walking with the FLOTUS and she had whisper in his ear and then he repeated what everyone heard her say back to the reporter.

                    I'm sure there must be a video or articles of that monumental moment,can you post anything about it? I'd love to see it.


                    All The Best!!

                    TL
                    I know this sounds like a broken record,but it happened last election and it is happening this election.
                    The media is doing a Ron Paul blackout but that doesn't change that his popularity is growing every day. And it's because people are tired of both parties doing what they are doing to America.

                    Do you have any ideahow much money his grass roots efforts have been raising compared to the two mainstream parties who are being funded by the corporate interests?
                    Signature

                    Read A Post.
                    Subscribe to a Newsletter
                    KimWinfrey.Com

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6080584].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                      I know this sounds like a broken record,but it happened last election and it is happening this election.

                      The media is doing a Ron Paul blackout but that doesn't change that his popularity is growing every day.

                      And it's because people are tired of both parties doing what they are doing to America.

                      Do you have any ideahow much money his grass roots efforts have been raising compared to the two mainstream parties who are being funded by the corporate interests?

                      OK Sir Kim,

                      What will you do when RP does not get the nomination and does not become president??




                      LOL!


                      All The Best!!

                      TL
                      Signature

                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6080714].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
                        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                        OK Sir Kim,

                        What will you do when RP does not get the nomination and does not become president??


                        Join Sal and her friends??????????????


                        LOL!


                        All The Best!!

                        TL
                        We are Sals friends.
                        Signature
                        Professional Googler
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6080768].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author KimW
                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                          OK Sir Kim,

                          Well TL, since you are The Liberator and you are calling me Sir,I guess you promoted me, Thank You!!

                          What will you do when RP does not get the nomination and does not become president??

                          What will I do, what many of us are going to do,vote for him anyway. That should be no surprise to you at all. What are you going to do if your candidate loses, are you going to accept it gracefully?


                          Join Sal and her friends??????????????


                          LOL!

                          I'm not sure what you are LOLing (is that a real word?) about. I can't join Sal and her friends because I am already a member. And proud of the company I keep.

                          All The Best!!

                          TL
                          Originally Posted by Dave Patterson View Post

                          We are Sals friends.
                          As Dave said,we are already friends.
                          For some reason ,answering this made me think of this song, buy one of the best blue eyes soul bands ever.

                          Signature

                          Read A Post.
                          Subscribe to a Newsletter
                          KimWinfrey.Com

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6080818].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                            Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                            As Dave said,we are already friends.
                            For some reason ,answering this made me think of this song, buy one of the best blue eyes soul bands ever.

                            The Rascals People-Got to be Free (Original) - YouTube

                            I shouldn't have mentioned Sal.

                            I'm sorry.


                            All The Best!!


                            TL
                            Signature

                            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6080982].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                          Originally Posted by Dave Patterson View Post

                          We are Sals friends.

                          Could you add something to this thread other than snippy remarks??

                          Maybe talk about a policy position or something???


                          TL
                          Signature

                          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6081052].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    Very interesting but when was the poll started?

                    I have a hard time believing anyone paying attention thinks RP will win the GOP nomination now- especially since Santorum is out of the race.


                    I think the more real democrats get to know RP the less likely they are to have a favorable view of him in total.

                    - His anti-war stand

                    - Tame/destroy the fed

                    - legalize weed


                    Great positions!

                    IMHO, I think there should be a cut-off age for president.

                    If you're going to be over 70 when you first enter the WH, you shouldn't be president.

                    The 40th POTUS was senile during his second term.

                    I remember him getting "brain lock" when a reporter asked him a question - while...

                    ... walking with the FLOTUS and she had whisper in his ear and then he repeated what everyone heard her say back to the reporter.


                    All The Best!!

                    TL
                    So democrats aren't against ending non-constitutional wars? Interesting.
                    AS usual you're wrong about him wanting to legalize weed.
                    He wants to end the war on drugs, but it will be up t o the states (as it should be) to make any of them legal or not.
                    In case you haven't noticed the war on drugs has been a bigger failure then alcohol prohibition was.
                    Funny before I thought you where against the fed. yourself, change your mind?
                    As far as this
                    I have a hard time believing anyone paying attention thinks RP will win the GOP nomination now- especially since Santorum is out of the race.
                    Now there is a coalition forming of RP and Santorum supporters and it's working out pretty well.
                    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/04/1...egates-to-rnc/

                    So you think now that age and experience should disqualify you from running for president?
                    Cause that's what you are saying with your over 70 remark.
                    Here's a better one.
                    If you are a lawyer who taught constitutional law and still don't know how the constitution and the three branches of government work together, then you shouldn't be allowed to run.

                    By the way that poll is recent and still on running.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6080890].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                      So democrats aren't against ending non-constitutional wars? Interesting.
                      AS usual you're wrong about him wanting to legalize weed.
                      He wants to end the war on drugs, but it will be up t o the states (as it should be) to make any of them legal or not.
                      In case you haven't noticed the war on drugs has been a bigger failure then alcohol prohibition was.
                      Funny before I thought you where against the fed. yourself, change your mind?
                      As far as this
                      Now there is a coalition forming of RP and Santorum supporters and it's working out pretty well.
                      http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/04/1...egates-to-rnc/

                      So you think now that age and experience should disqualify you from running for president?
                      Cause that's what you are saying with your over 70 remark.
                      Here's a better one.


                      If you are a lawyer who taught constitutional law and still don't know how the constitution and the three branches of government work together, then you shouldn't be allowed to run.

                      By the way that poll is recent and still on running.
                      - I'm saying his positions on those 3 subjects are OK - not the opposite.

                      ( it's a mis-understanding )

                      - Yes I think age should disqualify someone for POTUS.

                      - No real dem would never select RP over BO and I seriously doubt registered dems would do that.

                      That is another question I noticed.

                      Do you have some type of instance of the POTUS not understanding the constitution and how the
                      3 branches run????


                      All The Best!!

                      TL
                      Signature

                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6080970].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                        - I'm saying his positions on those 3 subjects are OK - not the opposite.

                        ( it's a mis-understanding )

                        - Yes I think age should disqualify someone for POTUS.

                        - No real dem would never select RP over BO and I seriously doubt registered dems would do that.

                        That is another question I noticed.

                        Do you have some type of instance of the POTUS not understanding the constitution and how the
                        3 branches run????


                        All The Best!!

                        TL
                        Sorry I miss-understood you and thank you for clarifying it.
                        You realize your age thing is discrimination, right?
                        We already have laws in place protecting seniors from just that sort of thinking.
                        As for his (POTUS) understanding of the constitution.
                        What he really said the first time (before he tried to clean it up), was the supreme court can't find his individual mandate unconstitutional because it was approved by a majority in the house and senate. When that is one of the purposes of the supreme court to protect an individuals rights under the constitution from the majority.
                        His sending planes into Libya was unconstitutional because all acts of war have to be voted on by congress. Instead he got permission from the U.N.
                        The wording to the NDAA bill which he had added that gives the president (through the military) the authority to detain any U.S. citizen indefinitely who is suspected of being a terrorist, without a trial until the 'war on terror' ends is unconstitutional and before an appellate court now.
                        His appointment of Cordray is questionable as he used a short recess to put him in as head of a new consumer watchdog agency (of course expanding the size of government). The kicker there is the tactics the republicans used to block the appointment are exactly the same as the tactics Harry Reid(D) used to block Bush appointments. But now the democrats are crying foal.

                        Considering the website democrats for Ron Paul, that poll I showed you and, and the general consensus of every democrat I've talked to on the streets. There isn't that many "real democrats" left.
                        And to be honest if being a real democrat or a real republican means voting for you parties candidate no matter what, I'm glad and proud that I am neither.
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6081343].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                          Sorry I miss-understood you and thank you for clarifying it.
                          You realize your age thing is discrimination, right?

                          We already have laws in place protecting seniors from just that sort of thinking.

                          As for his (POTUS) understanding of the constitution.

                          What he really said the first time (before he tried to clean it up), was the supreme court can't find his individual mandate unconstitutional because it was approved by a majority in the house and senate.

                          When that is one of the purposes of the supreme court to protect an individuals rights under the constitution from the majority.


                          His sending planes into Libya was unconstitutional because all acts of war have to be voted on by congress.

                          Instead he got permission from the U.N.


                          The wording to the NDAA bill which he had added that gives the president (through the military) the authority to detain any U.S. citizen indefinitely who is suspected of being a terrorist, without a trial until the 'war on terror' ends is unconstitutional and before an appellate court now.

                          His appointment of Cordray is questionable as he used a short recess to put him in as head of a new consumer watchdog agency.

                          (of course expanding the size of government).

                          The kicker there is the tactics the republicans used to block the appointment are exactly the same as the tactics Harry Reid(D) used to block Bush appointments.

                          But now the democrats are crying foul.

                          Considering the website democrats for Ron Paul, that poll I showed you and, and the general consensus of every democrat I've talked to on the streets.

                          There isn't that many "real democrats" left.


                          And to be honest if being a real democrat or a real republican means voting for you parties candidate no matter what, I'm glad and proud that I am neither.
                          As far as age dis is concerned...

                          - Can someone fly a commercial plane after the age of 65?

                          I don't think so and if so, it also should be stopped.

                          Is there any age limit you would agree to??

                          Military Action:

                          - Actually the pres can conduct any military action he wants to for 60 days, but he then has to have approval from congress to continue it.

                          Permission from the UN?

                          He simply built a consensus on what to do about Libya and then a UN coalition went on and did it.

                          Who wants to act unilaterally unless they really have to and the stuff about the UN telling us what to do is a crock of _________.


                          NDAA:

                          That provision for "detaining US citizens" was inserted into the defense authorization bill and we'll see what happens to that in court.


                          I'm not happy about it either.


                          Appointment of Cordray:

                          Recess appointments are made all the time.

                          I think we need a consumer watchdog agency specially designed to watch Wall Street and financial institutions, like a hawk - after what they've done.

                          Speaking Of Blocking Appointments:

                          Obama's judicial appointments are being blocked at a record rate and even Chief Justice Roberts commented that it's hurting the courts across the USA.


                          What's Real Democrat?


                          IMHO...


                          Real democrats believe in...

                          - The Fed Gov can be and has been very helpful and is not the enemy of the nation.

                          - Protecting our elderly via SS & Medicare:

                          - Infrastructure Projects: To keep it up to date:

                          - Promoting the General Welfare:

                          - A Social safety net:

                          - A non belligerent foreign policy:

                          - Helping our students pay for school and helping the society become more educated:

                          - Protecting our citizens from vulture companies and industries:

                          - Protecting our environment:

                          - The middle class is the backbone of this society:

                          - The more you make the more you donate to the cause: ( tax policy )

                          - National standards for important stuff that affect us all.

                          In other words we generally don't trust the states to do the right thing for, to and with our citizens.


                          IMHO...

                          If a person does not or no longer believes in 90% of the above then they are not a real democrat - period.


                          The party is in line with my values and the type of country I'd like to live in and when the party gets out of line with my values, that's when I'm headed for the door.

                          All The Best!!


                          TL
                          Signature

                          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082242].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                            As far as age dis is concerned...

                            - Can someone fly a commercial plane after the age of 65?

                            I don't think so and if so, it also should be stopped.

                            Is there any age limit you would agree to??

                            Military Action:

                            - Actually the pres can conduct any military action he wants to for 60 days, but he then has to have approval from congress to continue it.

                            Permission from the UN?

                            He simply built a consensus on what to do about Libya and then a UN coalition went on and did it.

                            Who wants to act unilaterally unless they really have to and the stuff about the UN telling us what to do is a crock of _________.


                            NDAA:

                            That provision for "detaining US citizens" was inserted into the defense authorization bill and we'll see what happens to that in court.


                            I'm not happy about it either.


                            Appointment of Cordray:

                            Recess appointments are made all the time.

                            I think we need a consumer watchdog agency specially designed to watch Wall Street and financial institutions, like a hawk - after what they've done.

                            Speaking Of Blocking Appointments:

                            Obama's judicial appointments are being blocked at a record rate and even Chief Justice Roberts commented that it's hurting the courts across the USA.


                            What's Real Democrat?


                            IMHO...


                            Real democrats believe in...

                            - Gov can be and has been very helpful and is not the enemy of the nation.

                            - Protecting our elderly via SS & Medicare:

                            - Infrastructure Projects: To keep it up to date:

                            - Promoting the General Welfare:

                            - A Social safety net:

                            - A non belligerent foreign policy:

                            - Helping our students pay for school and helping the society become more educated:

                            - Protecting our citizens from vulture companies and industries:

                            - Protecting our environment:

                            - The middle class is the backbone of this society:

                            - The more you make the more you donate to the cause: ( tax policy )

                            - National standards for important stuff that affect us all.

                            In other words we generally don't trust the states to do the right thing for, to and with our citizens.


                            IMHO...

                            If a person does not or no longer believes in 90% of the above then they are not a real democrat - period.


                            The party is in line with my values and the type of country I'd like to live in and when the party gets out of line with my values, that's when I'm headed for the door.

                            All The Best!!


                            TL
                            No there should not be upper age limits.
                            Testing yes, age limits no
                            And yes you can still fly a plane if you're older then 65..
                            Everything you said about Military Action is unconstitutional, period.
                            There is nothing in the constitution giving the president permission to go to war for 60 days first. So where did you get that from?
                            In other words we generally don't trust the states to do the right thing for, to and with our citizens.
                            Yet the constitution does and protects the states in doing so.
                            So in a sense a real democrat picks and chooses which parts of the constitution they want to follow?
                            Signature

                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082323].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  OK, that can't be a very accurate poll. "Which Republican candidate do you support for the GOP nomination?" 90% for Paul??!! haha. Hey, if he was this popular I would think he could muster just one primary win or caucus win.

                  A few years ago I had a couple political poll sites. One was called USA Presidential Poll. I made up the polls myself and posted them and whoever came to the site could vote. One poll was going pretty well, then apparently someone at a right wing forum posted the link to my poll and about 5,000 people came to cast a vote for the GOP candidate within a week. That's how non controlled polls work. They don't show a true representation of what an actual percentage of the population thinks.

                  That poll you posted shows 2029 Republicans prefer Paul compared to 46 for Romney! :/

                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                  Here's an interesting poll for you TL.
                  Political.com
                  Seems RP polls rather good with democrats.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6081769].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    OK, that can't be a very accurate poll. "Which Republican candidate do you support for the GOP nomination?" 90% for Paul??!! haha. Hey, if he was this popular I would think he could muster just one primary win or caucus win.

                    A few years ago I had a couple political poll sites. One was called USA Presidential Poll. I made up the polls myself and posted them and whoever came to the site could vote. One poll was going pretty well, then apparently someone at a right wing forum posted the link to my poll and about 5,000 people came to cast a vote for the GOP candidate within a week. That's how non controlled polls work. They don't show a true representation of what an actual percentage of the population thinks.

                    That poll you posted shows 2029 Republicans prefer Paul compared to 46 for Romney! :/
                    I was expecting that. Of course if the poll showed the opposite results you guys would of been all over it.
                    And apparently you missed my link about the Paul-Santorum coalition.
                    Ron Paul Wins Minnesota, Colorado Delegates to RNC*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign CommitteeRon Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
                    And you do know the Republican primaries aren't even half over right?
                    Plus most of the delegates in the states that had primaries haven't been assigned yet.
                    Paul may not win the popularity polls, but in the delegate area where it counts he has a solid plan and is picking up delegates.
                    His supporters are steadily taking over the republican party, state by state.
                    I'll guarantee you by the time of the convention in Tampa there will be many more Paul supporters there then Romney supporters.
                    This could very well be the most interesting convention from either side ever.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6081924].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Why do people keep thinking the gov needs a budget? They can have money printed at will. When they need to pay any of it back they just use us. We are nothing but walking ATM machines to our leaders. They never cut money for what they want - they just take away the benefits we get from them taking our cash. People scream over welfare yet that money would get heisted anyhow - they use it for personal stuff and they use it for war, Pelosi used $29,000 for flowers yet we have people living in the streets. You can't keep expenses real on funny money or on real money when the only people that can walk into the door of being a rep are the elite with entitlement issues who feel it's everyone else's job to work for and serve them.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6080518].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I want to personally apologize the Sal for that remark.


    I should have not dragged her into this.


    That remark was uncalled for.


    Please accept my humblest apologies Sal.

    I have also sent you a PM.


    Sincerely,


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6081037].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Oh,I'm pretty sure I know what you meant,but you are welcome to explain it in case I am wrong about the comment.

    But I'm really waiting for you to address what I said in post 405.

    For instance,What is your definition of a real democrat?

    Thom already pointed out, as did I,your misstating Ron Paul's position on drugs.
    And your for age discrimination? I'm surprised at that.

    B ut let me comment on your last statements.
    ================================================== =============
    "- Yes I think age should disqualify someone for POTUS.

    Already addressed.Twice.

    - No real dem would never select RP over BO and I seriously doubt registered dems would do that.

    Again, what is a real dem? There are some states where you have to pick one of the two main parties. I'm not going to get my voter registration card out and check,but I would guess I am registered as a dem at the moment.
    Last time I pinched myself,I was real to boot. So I am probably both real and a registered dem. So you can bet many "real" ones will take RP over BO any day.


    That is another question I noticed.

    Do you have some type of instance of the POTUS not understanding the constitution and the 2 branches run????

    So you are saying that he is knowingly breaking the constitution he has sworn to uphold?
    But to answer your question yes.You could write a book about the many instances.
    But for now, let me mention a very recent one. Claiming the Supreme court cannot overturn the health plan because it was voted on by a majority of the other branches and signed by him. That shows either someone that doesn't understand the constitution and the other 2 branches,or a delusional individual. You tell me which it is.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6081084].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Oh,I'm pretty sure I know what you meant,but you are welcome to explain it in case I am wrong about the comment.

      But I'm really waiting for you to address what I said in post 405.

      For instance,What is your definition of a real democrat?

      Thom already pointed out, as did I,your misstating Ron Paul's position on drugs.
      And your for age discrimination? I'm surprised at that.

      B ut let me comment on your last statements.
      ================================================== =============
      "- Yes I think age should disqualify someone for POTUS.

      Already addressed.Twice.

      - No real dem would never select RP over BO and I seriously doubt registered dems would do that.

      Again, what is a real dem? There are some states where you have to pick one of the two main parties.

      I'm not going to get my voter registration card out and check,but I would guess I am registered as a dem at the moment.

      Last time I pinched myself,I was real to boot. So I am probably both real and a registered dem. So you can bet many "real" ones will take RP over BO any day.


      That is another question I noticed.

      Do you have some type of instance of the POTUS not understanding the constitution and the 2 branches run????

      So you are saying that he is knowingly breaking the constitution he has sworn to uphold?
      But to answer your question yes.You could write a book about the many instances.
      But for now, let me mention a very recent one.

      Claiming the Supreme court cannot overturn the health plan because it was voted on by a majority of the other branches and signed by him.

      That shows either someone that doesn't understand the constitution and the other 2 branches,or a delusional individual. You tell me which it is.

      Like I said a real dem.


      Someone who chooses to be a dem - not forced into it when they registered to vote.


      About the health care and the SCOTUS...

      He never said they can not overturn it or it would be illegal for them to overturn it.

      He basically said that he finds it hard to believe that they would overturn it in light of the fact that it was passed in the house and the senate with 60 votes and signed by a POTUS.

      And he said...

      He has faith that they will not overturn it.

      IMHO, thanks to the commerce clause of the constitution they really don't have a constitutional reason to overturn the law except that have the power to overturn the law.

      Congress has the power to regulate commerce between and within the states - period.

      IMHO, it would be pure politics and nothing more for them to overturn that law.


      Kim, believing the stuff you believe you couldn't possibly be a real dem because many of your policy positions are polar opposites of dem positions.

      And yes, anyone over 70 should not occupy the WH.

      I could not find the clip of Reagan getting brain lock but I remember it like it was yesterday.


      All The Best!!


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6081155].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Like I said a real dem.


        Someone who chooses to be a dem - not forced into it when they registered to vote.

        Alright,let me clarify. For the majority of my life I have been registered BY CHOICE as a dem and in the majority of the elections I have been able to vote in ,voted dem.
        But when the party changes from what a REAL DEM supports, one stops supporting the fake dem party. I hope that is clear enough. What is out their now is NOT the democratic party I grew up believing in and supporting.


        About the health care and the SCOTUS...

        He never said they can not overturn it or it would be illegal for them to overturn it.

        He basically said that he finds it hard to believe that they would overturn it in light of the fact that it was passed in the house and the senate with 60 votes and signed by a POTUS.

        And he said...

        He has faith that they will not overturn it.

        IMHO, thanks to the commerce clause of the constitution they really don't have a constitutional reason to overturn the law except that have the power to overturn the law.

        Congress has the power to regulate commerce between and within the states - period.

        IMHO, it would be pure politics and nothing more for them to overturn that law.


        Kim, believing the stuff you believe you couldn't possibly be a real dem because many of your policy positions are polar opposites of dem positions.

        And yes, anyone over 70 should not occupy the WH.

        I could not find the clip of Reagan getting brain lock but I remember it like it was yesterday.


        All The Best!!


        TL
        TL, and you can't determine what a REAL democrats it. Of course I already addressed that earlier too.
        You may think you are,but imo you are the one that cannot be a real democrat. But to each their own.
        By the way, here is the clip where he basically says the supreme court can't overturn a law passed by the majority of the other branches and signed by him.
        You may have to read between the lines a little, but you are able to do that I'm sure.

        Many have stated HOW the bill is illegal already. I don't even need to addess that.

        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6081238].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Is it Poll ID 60?
    I don't know if I am seeing the correct poll or not. It IS about Ron Paul, but and it does show some favorable results for him, but nothing like what your saying Tim.
    The poll I am seeing basically shows him mostly in second place in most of the results.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6081897].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Number 5. I don't see a poll ID number.
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Is it Poll ID 60?
      I don't know if I am seeing the correct poll or not. It IS about Ron Paul, but and it does show some favorable results for him, but nothing like what your saying Tim.
      The poll I am seeing basically shows him mostly in second place in most of the results.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6081913].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Number 5. I don't see a poll ID number.

        I am guessing your saying question 5? What I see shows RP dead last on that question. But the Poll ID number is in the URL bar www.political.com/blahblahblahPollID=60.

        EDIT: Duh, I was reading it wrong. You are right Tim.
        My bad.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082060].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Better start walking to that door then TL, cause the current democratic party does NOT have those goals.

    The current democratic party has actually helped destroy the middle class. You can try to deny it all you want but the facts speak for themselves.

    I'm glad the NDAA was mentioned though. Here is an excerpt from an email I received today:

    On July 1 of next year, a new law will take effect to protect Virginians against abuses of federal power. My Anti-NDAA Detention bill, HB 1160, overwhelmingly passed both houses yesterday afternoon. Together, you and I can claim this incredible victory for Virginia against an ever-encroaching federal government.

    Virginia is telling Congress “No Thanks,” to any participation in the unconstitutional “detention” of American citizens without trial, legal counsel, specific charges, or the right to face an accuser as authorized under the 2012 Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama this past December.

    This victory would not have been possible without strong grass-roots support for my bill from Virginians of all political backgrounds and persuasions. I want to thank the many liberty-minded citizens across Virginia who took the time to write letters, send emails and make phone calls to the Governor and Assembly members.
    And I am proud of the Assembly’s response.

    Virginia is the first state to pass a law which places a legal bar between all state agencies and any federal effort to use Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA to suspend habeas corpus rights which go back centuries. I hope that Virginia's enactment of HB 1160 will be replicated in other states. States still have a significant role and duty to resist federal overreach. In the words of the Richmond Times Dispatch editorial in support of HB 1160, "Congress and the President should be made aware that their contempt for fundamental constitutional rights does not sit well with the American public."

    P.S. If you want to do more to stop bad laws like NDAA -- While my bill HB 1160 was successful in getting Virginia to withdraw its consent from such detentions, wouldn't it be so much better to see the entire program repealed? I could never have gotten HB 1160 through the General Assembly without you.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082326].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Better start walking to that door then TL, cause the current democratic party does NOT have those goals.

      The current democratic party has actually helped destroy the middle class. You can try to deny it all you want but the facts speak for themselves.

      I'm glad the NDAA was mentioned though. Here is an excerpt from an email I received today:

      On July 1 of next year, a new law will take effect to protect Virginians against abuses of federal power. My Anti-NDAA Detention bill, HB 1160, overwhelmingly passed both houses yesterday afternoon. Together, you and I can claim this incredible victory for Virginia against an ever-encroaching federal government.

      Virginia is telling Congress "No Thanks," to any participation in the unconstitutional "detention" of American citizens without trial, legal counsel, specific charges, or the right to face an accuser as authorized under the 2012 Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama this past December.

      This victory would not have been possible without strong grass-roots support for my bill from Virginians of all political backgrounds and persuasions. I want to thank the many liberty-minded citizens across Virginia who took the time to write letters, send emails and make phone calls to the Governor and Assembly members.
      And I am proud of the Assembly's response.

      Virginia is the first state to pass a law which places a legal bar between all state agencies and any federal effort to use Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA to suspend habeas corpus rights which go back centuries. I hope that Virginia's enactment of HB 1160 will be replicated in other states. States still have a significant role and duty to resist federal overreach. In the words of the Richmond Times Dispatch editorial in support of HB 1160, "Congress and the President should be made aware that their contempt for fundamental constitutional rights does not sit well with the American public."

      P.S. If you want to do more to stop bad laws like NDAA -- While my bill HB 1160 was successful in getting Virginia to withdraw its consent from such detentions, wouldn't it be so much better to see the entire program repealed? I could never have gotten HB 1160 through the General Assembly without you.
      Oh Virginia...

      Looking out for the Constitutional rights of Americans???

      Excuse me, but isn't Virginia...

      The land that tried to implement the "vaginal probe"?


      IMHO - one of the crazy states of the union and...

      A leader in the war on women.


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082528].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Oh Virginia...

        Looking out for the Constitutional rights of Americans???

        Excuse me, but isn't Virginia...

        The land that tried to implement the "vaginal probe"?


        IMHO - one of the crazy states of the union and...

        A leader in the war on women.


        TL
        TL, you really crack me up at times.

        This has to be one of your more nonsensical replies to date.

        Yes, it is obvious by the post that Virginia IS looking out for its citizens constitutional rights. Are you really that blind or just trying to create an antagonistic post?

        Do you want me to go find some of the ridiculously stupid things Maryland has tried to pass? It wouldn't be hard. By the way,the "vaginal probe" law didn't pass.

        Why? Because any idiot in the legislative body can introduce and try to get laws passed,but most of the time more intelligent minds win out over stupidity such as this. Oh,and other states have attempted to pass similar laws too and also failed. Of course,your insult isn't as effective if you put that fact in,is it?

        IMHO Maryland is one of the crazy states of the union and.....

        a leader on the war of women.

        (no, the above statement isn't true,but neither is what you said.
        Oh,by the way, a REAL DEMOCRAT would applaud the law that supports the American Constitution.)

        and lest we forget...

        All The Best!!
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082677].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          TL, you really crack me up at times.

          This has to be one of your more nonsensical replies to date.

          Yes, it is obvious by the post that Virginia IS looking out for its citizens constitutional rights. Are you really that blind or just trying to create an antagonistic post?

          Do you want me to go find some of the ridiculously stupid things Maryland has tried to pass? It wouldn't be hard. By the way,the "vaginal probe" law didn't pass.

          Why? Because any idiot in the legislative body can introduce and try to get laws passed,but most of the time more intelligent minds win out over stupidity such as this. Oh,and other states have attempted to pass similar laws too and also failed. Of course,your insult isn't as effective if you put that fact in,is it?

          IMHO Maryland is one of the crazy states of the union and.....

          a leader on the war of women.

          (no, the above statement isn't true,but neither is what you said.
          Oh,by the way, a REAL DEMOCRAT would applaud the law that supports the American Constitution.)

          and lest we forget...

          All The Best!!



          You're right, any idiot can offer legislation.



          But that law was passed by the VA GOP controlled legislature.


          And Gov. MacDonald said he would sign it - if passed.


          Your governor was actually going to sign that thing but...


          ... 10K women showed up on the Virginia capital steps to protest.



          He backed off but signed something similar that does not involve a...


          ... "vaginal prob".


          I'm not crazy about that NDAA stuff either and... ( so stop inferring I'm all for it )



          ( after the VP incident )


          ...the very thought of the GOP controlled state legislature in VA. being the great defender of the rights of man is a great big joke.



          All The Best!!

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083693].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            You're right, any idiot can offer legislation.



            But that law was passed by the VA GOP controlled legislature.

            No, it was not. It was passed by one part of the legislature.


            And Gov. MacDonald said he would sign it - if passed.

            Yes he did say that.After all, he is a politician.


            Your governor was actually going to sign that thing but...


            ... 10K women showed up on the Virginia capital steps to protest.

            Please back this statement up with facts. I searched for verification of your statement and can find absolutely none.



            He backed off but signed something similar that does not involve a...


            ... "vaginal prob".

            At the current time, there are at least 6 different states that have a law similar to the one he signed.


            I'm not crazy about that NDAA stuff either and... ( so stop inferring I'm all for it )

            I never did. I addressed your ridiculous claim that the law Virginia was passed was not trying to protect its citizens.
            But as usual you try to put slants on things that were never said.




            ( after the VP incident )


            ...the very thought of the GOP controlled state legislature in VA. being the great defender of the rights of man is a great big joke.



            The big joke here are your posts. I have been trying to be civil to you and discuss issues but you insist on being absolutely insulting,not only to me but to my friends. And that is why these threads get shut down.

            Most of us try to stick with facts and you spout your wild nonsense.




            All The Best!!

            TL
            As I have to point out in almost every post,you try to slant everything to your opinions and in doing so you have a great tendency to leave out a lot of actual facts in your post.

            The good thing about that is it is often extremely easy to prove your posts inaccurate.

            You have the nerve to claim to be a "real democrat",which of course is not the party's definition but one you have made up to fit your personal beliefs.

            If you would focus on,like a lot of us here do, wanting America to be a better place instead of spreading negative falsehoods that would certainly be a step in the right direction of being a "real democrat".

            Edit: The post above this one proves my point.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6084915].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

              As I have to point out in almost every post,you try to slant everything to your opinions and in doing so you have a great tendency to leave out a lot of actual facts in your post.

              The good thing about that is it is often extremely easy to prove your posts inaccurate.

              You have the nerve to claim to be a "real democrat",which of course is not the party's definition but one you have made up to fit your personal beliefs.

              If you would focus on,like a lot of us here do, wanting America to be a better place instead of spreading negative falsehoods that would certainly be a step in the right direction of being a "real democrat".

              Edit: The post above this one proves my point.

              Those values I listed are dem values whether you like it, or believe it or not.


              Mr. Mcdonald wanted to actually sign that bill and you know it.

              An extra zero was added by mistake to 1,000 when I spoke of the number of women that marched on the VA. capitol to protest that bill.

              Women protest anti-abortion legislation in Virginia | Fox News

              Plus unwanted negative national attention and his VP aspirations got the better of him.


              I stand by my comments on the VA legislature protecting the rights of man - especially after trying to pass that vaginal probe stuff.


              - - You said only one chamber passed the law but the article above says both of them passed it.


              From the article...

              "Both chambers have passed legislation that would force women seeking abortions to first undergo an ultrasound examination to determine a gestational age for the fetus.

              In the procedure, a wand-like device is inserted and used to send out sound waves."


              Oh, how much more "intrusive" can you get.


              You said...

              At the current time, there are at least 6 different states that have a law similar to the one he signed.


              I say...


              Just because other states are doing it does not mean VA has to do it.


              There are crazy GOP legislatures all over the nation.


              Yes, IMHO, VA is one of the states leading the war on women.

              All The Best!!

              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6084964].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author highhopes
                Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                As I have to point out in almost every post,you try to slant everything to your opinions and in doing so you have a great tendency to leave out a lot of actual facts in your post.

                The good thing about that is it is often extremely easy to prove your posts inaccurate.

                You have the nerve to claim to be a "real democrat",which of course is not the party's definition but one you have made up to fit your personal beliefs.

                If you would focus on,like a lot of us here do, wanting America to be a better place instead of spreading negative falsehoods that would certainly be a step in the right direction of being a "real democrat".

                Edit: The post above this one proves my point.
                Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                No, it is because until the last few pages it had been very civil is the probable reason. We already addressed that.
                If you have that big of an issue with it. Report the thread.




                As Steve (Season) said:
                "I guess you haven't been following. American political threads are the most likely to get shut down.

                Steve"
                Which is true.
                OK tell me this, all the political topics I have started to do with say a speaker in the house of commons, for instance about banks and finance have been deleted...THIS IS BEFORE ANYONE HAS ADDED A POST So how can anyone tell if the thread is going to uncivil?????????
                I can understand the thread being deleted if posts become too heated...bu they did not give it a chance, which tells me that there is a huge heap of bias on this forum.
                I wonder if this will be deleted for speaking how i find???
                Signature

                Ways to grow your online business. Earning online tips for the home worker and essential steps to take to earn money online.
                http://wwwtheearninghub.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085019].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  Those values I listed are dem values whether you like it, or believe it or not.
                  Yeah I checked the democrat website, you're close at least:rolleyes:
                  I burst out laughing when I read this on there.
                  For Democrats, changing politics in Washington means ensuring that government is open, transparent, and responsive to the needs of the people. President Obama has implemented the most sweeping ethics and transparency requirements in history, building on steps taken by Democrats to limit the influence of special interests and ensure that government is accountable to the people.
                  What a joke.
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085035].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    Yeah I checked the democrat website, you're close at least:rolleyes:
                    I burst out laughing when I read this on there.
                    What a joke.

                    I just burst out laughing too after reading your commentary.


                    Thom, do you have a song??


                    All The Best!!
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085062].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      I just burst out laughing too after reading your commentary.


                      Thom, do you have a song??


                      All The Best!!
                      Don't need a song TL.
                      Just because you can't defend your guy and have to resort to mocking mine with music videos, doesn't mean I have to stoop to that.
                      Why was my comment funny?
                      Don't tell me you actually believe that lie on their website?
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085166].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        Don't need a song TL.
                        Just because you can't defend your guy and have to resort to mocking mine with music videos, doesn't mean I have to stoop to that.

                        Why was my comment funny?

                        Don't tell me you actually believe that lie on their website?


                        I'm just trying to mix things up and have some fun with the songs.


                        If you can believe that RP is going to be #45 then I can believe it.


                        After everything that's happened in American politics, you comment was simply funny.


                        ...but it can also be argued that this admin has been the most open in recent US history.


                        Has anyone ever done this???


                        The Obama administration launched a centralized web platform for the public to view ethics data on Thursday, the latest step the administration has taken to make its records more accessible.

                        The website, http://www.ethics.gov

                        ...will publish White House visitor records, Office of Government Ethics travel reports, lobbying disclosure data, and Department of Justice Foreign Agents Registration Act data.

                        It will also publish Federal Election Commission individual contribution, candidate and committee reports.

                        "President Obama has consistently made clear that he will strive to lead the most open, transparent, and accountable government in history," the White House said.

                        Ethics.gov is part of a larger website, data.gov, that publishes other government information.

                        But of course anyone can say it's only window dressing right??

                        All The Best!!

                        TL
                        Signature

                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085255].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                          I'm just trying to mix things up and have some fun with the songs.


                          If you can believe that RP is going to be #45 then I can believe it.


                          After everything that's happened in American politics, you comment was simply funny.


                          ...but it can also be argued that this admin has been the most open in recent US history.


                          Has anyone ever done this???


                          The Obama administration launched a centralized web platform for the public to view ethics data on Thursday, the latest step the administration has taken to make its records more accessible.

                          The website, http://www.ethics.gov

                          ...will publish White House visitor records, Office of Government Ethics travel reports, lobbying disclosure data, and Department of Justice Foreign Agents Registration Act data.

                          It will also publish Federal Election Commission individual contribution, candidate and committee reports.

                          "President Obama has consistently made clear that he will strive to lead the most open, transparent, and accountable government in history," the White House said.

                          Ethics.gov is part of a larger website, data.gov, that publishes other government information.

                          But of course anyone can say it's only window dressing right??

                          All The Best!!

                          TL
                          On Thursday, isn't that like 3 years to late?
                          And yes it is just window dressing.
                          Just like his petition site at https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions
                          I've been active in numerous petitions there and everyone just received the standard canned reply. If it was about labeling gmo's it was the FDA's stance. Speaking of which, that was one of his campaign pledges to have foods containing gmo's labeled. As he said then Americans have the right to know what they are eating. Naturally he's totally ignored that pledge even though across all party lines in every poll taken over 90% of Americans want the labels.Obama's Broken Promise on GMO Food Labeling | Mother Jones
                          When he was running he knew this was an issue that effects every human being in this country, so he supported labeling. After he was elected, he threw us under the bus, just like he did with NDAA.
                          Considering the independent research out there showing the health hazards of eating these foods he's allowing Monsanto to poison all of us and the environment.
                          But hay he got his health care bill through so at least you will be able to get the diseases from eating gmo's treated.
                          I know you will reply that it isn't an important issue.
                          But isn't the health and safety of every human in America important?
                          Isn't protecting our environment important?

                          So you want a song I'll give you one.
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085485].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                            By the way TL his lying about labeling GMO's is just one example of why this is a joke.
                            For Democrats, changing politics in Washington means ensuring that government is open, transparent, and responsive to the needs of the people. President Obama has implemented the most sweeping ethics and transparency requirements in history, building on steps taken by Democrats to limit the influence of special interests and ensure that government is accountable to the people.
                            He's letting Monsanto, Dow, and that crowd influence him.
                            As for being accountable to the people, why does he refuse to explain his actions with this?
                            No one has been able to get him to say one word as to why he backed down from labeling.
                            The current petition at the white house site gathered 25,000 signatures in 5 days. It's been there 8 days now and has over 28,000 signatures. How much you want to bet he'll ignore this one just like he has every other one that has been there about GMO's
                            https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/support-mandatory-labeling-genetically-engineered-foods-gmos/nkWHZ2Vm
                            Signature

                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085697].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                            On Thursday, isn't that like 3 years to late?
                            And yes it is just window dressing.
                            Just like his petition site at https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions
                            I've been active in numerous petitions there and everyone just received the standard canned reply. If it was about labeling gmo's it was the FDA's stance. Speaking of which, that was one of his campaign pledges to have foods containing gmo's labeled. As he said then Americans have the right to know what they are eating. Naturally he's totally ignored that pledge even though across all party lines in every poll taken over 90% of Americans want the labels.Obama's Broken Promise on GMO Food Labeling | Mother Jones
                            When he was running he knew this was an issue that effects every human being in this country, so he supported labeling. After he was elected, he threw us under the bus, just like he did with NDAA.
                            Considering the independent research out there showing the health hazards of eating these foods he's allowing Monsanto to poison all of us and the environment.
                            But hay he got his health care bill through so at least you will be able to get the diseases from eating gmo's treated.
                            I know you will reply that it isn't an important issue.
                            But isn't the health and safety of every human in America important?
                            Isn't protecting our environment important?

                            So you want a song I'll give you one.
                            Paul Thorn "It's a Great Day to Whup Somebody's Ass" - YouTube

                            A critic of any admin can find lots of things they feel the admin should have addressed.

                            This is an important issue to me also and...

                            I can say is I hope he gets to it in his 2nd term and I will also add...

                            You don't think RP going to do anything about this prob do you??


                            How could he with his free market philosophy?

                            If I'm wrong please let me know.

                            All The Best!!

                            TL
                            Signature

                            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085732].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                              A critic of any admin can find lots of things they feel the admin should have addressed.

                              This is an important issue to me also and...

                              I can say is I hope he gets to it in his 2nd term and I will also add...

                              You don't think RP going to do anything about this prob do you??


                              How could he with his free market philosophy?

                              If I'm wrong please let me know.

                              All The Best!!

                              TL
                              Then maybe when he was campaigning he shouldn't of said it would be a priority in his first term.
                              Yes I do think RP would do something about labeling.
                              At the very least he would put a stop to Monsanto threatening to sue any state that has bills in legislation requiring labeling.
                              Signature

                              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                              Getting old ain't for sissy's
                              As you are I was, as I am you will be
                              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086314].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                Then maybe when he was campaigning he shouldn't of said it would be a priority in his first term.
                                Yes I do think RP would do something about labeling.
                                At the very least he would put a stop to Monsanto threatening to sue any state that has bills in legislation requiring labeling.
                                Why would he?

                                Doesn't that go against his free market philosophy of not interfering with the market place??

                                I don't get it.

                                I don't believe he would and I think you are engaging in wishful thinking - unless you can show me something different.


                                TL
                                Signature

                                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086343].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                  Why would he?

                                  Doesn't that go against his free market philosophy of not interfering with the market place??

                                  I don't get it.

                                  I don't believe he would and I think you are engaging in wishful thinking - unless you can show me something different.


                                  TL
                                  No it doesn't, in fact it's in line with the constitution in protecting state rights.
                                  Now how about you explain this. This video clip shows Obama when he was campaigning stating he would make labeling and country of origin a priority.

                                  You also claim your party and the president put the people over special interest groups so explain this appointment.
                                  As Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack was a leading advocate for Monsanto, genetic engineering, and factory farming. President Obama proudly lauded his new Agriculture Secretary for "promoting biotech."
                                  USDA Watch
                                  Signature

                                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086455].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                    No it doesn't, in fact it's in line with the constitution in protecting state rights.
                                    Now how about you explain this. This video clip shows Obama when he was campaigning stating he would make labeling and country of origin a priority.
                                    Obama Promises to Label GMOs - YouTube

                                    You also claim your party and the president put the people over special interest groups so explain this appointment.

                                    I'm dead in the water on this issue.


                                    Tim, where are you when I need you?


                                    Do you mind if I bring out the big guns on the lies of RP - that have been caught on video???


                                    TL
                                    Signature

                                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086756].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                      I'm dead in the water on this issue.


                                      Tim, where are you when I need you?


                                      Do you mind if I bring out the big guns on the lies of RP - that have been caught on video???


                                      TL
                                      If you can find them.
                                      But I'll warn you for every one lie you may find RP saying I can find 5 of O lying.
                                      How about instead you try defending your guy instead of attacking mine.
                                      OR is that to hard to do.
                                      Signature

                                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086774].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                        If you can find them.
                                        But I'll warn you for every one lie you may find RP saying I can find 5 of O lying.
                                        How about instead you try defending your guy instead of attacking mine.
                                        OR is that to hard to do.


                                        What you call it a lie, I can and will call a campaign promise yet fulfilled.

                                        His term is not over yet.


                                        But the thing is...


                                        You can not prove Obama knew he was lying when he said what he said in 2007.


                                        Even G.W. himself had his many critics and was attacked for not doing this or that in a timely manner.


                                        No POTUS is perfect but the relevant questions should be.


                                        - Did he improve the quality of life of the citizens during his term...

                                        - Did he do his best when it comes to protecting American lives.

                                        - Did he make a good faith effort considering the circumstances of his presidency?

                                        - Has the country made progress during his term?

                                        - Has he personally be-smudged the honor of the country?



                                        All The Best!!

                                        TL
                                        Signature

                                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087791].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                      I'm dead in the water on this issue.


                                      Tim, where are you when I need you?


                                      Do you mind if I bring out the big guns on the lies of RP - that have been caught on video???


                                      TL
                                      Still waiting on the videos.
                                      Signature

                                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087494].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                      Haha. Sometimes it ain't worth the effort TL. I mean, there are just a handful of us discussing and reading this here and I doubt anyone of us is going to change the mind of the others. The thread will likely get deleted or locked also, so why argue?

                                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                      I'm dead in the water on this issue.


                                      Tim, where are you when I need you?

                                      Signature
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087907].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                        Haha. Sometimes it ain't worth the effort TL. I mean, there are just a handful of us discussing and reading this here and I doubt anyone of us is going to change the mind of the others. The thread will likely get deleted or locked also, so why argue?
                                        Same reason I "mostly" stayed out. I think it's safe to say that those in this thread know where you and TL stand, and you know where Kim, Thom and I stand.

                                        You're still ok in my book, though
                                        Signature

                                        Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087917].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                          You know, I probably wouldn't have gotten into the discussion here except for the fact the thread was turning into a pro Paul thread. That was too tempting to stay out of because I'm not a fan of most of the man's politics. He's a nice guy though.

                                          You're ok in my book also Mike. All that winking has me worried though.
                                          Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                                          Same reason I "mostly" stayed out. I think it's safe to say that those in this thread know where you and TL stand, and you know where Kim, Thom and I stand.

                                          You're still ok in my book, though
                                          Signature
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087975].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                        Haha. Sometimes it ain't worth the effort TL. I mean, there are just a handful of us discussing and reading this here and I doubt anyone of us is going to change the mind of the others. The thread will likely get deleted or locked also, so why argue?


                                        Actually Tim I was using a well known Ali technique.

                                        Can you guess which one it was?


                                        And I stopped talking to Kim in this thread.


                                        All The Best!!


                                        TL
                                        Signature

                                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087988].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                          Actually Tim I was using a well known Ali technique.

                                          Can you guess which one it was?


                                          And I stopped talking to Kim in this thread.


                                          All The Best!!


                                          TL

                                          I think he only had one technique
                                          Signature

                                          Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088002].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author KimW
                                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                          Actually Tim I was using a well known Ali technique.

                                          Can you guess which one it was?


                                          And I stopped talking to Kim in this thread.


                                          All The Best!!


                                          TL

                                          LOL, Classic !

                                          And yes, Tim, who always talks intelligently and is not rude and degrading is ok in my book too.
                                          (no winks)
                                          Signature

                                          Read A Post.
                                          Subscribe to a Newsletter
                                          KimWinfrey.Com

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088012].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                            Well, I don't know about that. But thanks anyways and thanks for not winking.

                                            Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                                            And yes, Tim, who always talks intelligently and is not rude and degrading is ok in my book too.
                                            (no winks)
                                            Signature
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088049].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                                              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                              Well, I don't know about that. But thanks anyways and thanks for not winking.

                                              What - you no likey winks?

                                              Don't know how it's any worse than your but...ok.

                                              Oh, almost forgot:
                                              Signature

                                              Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088306].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                                What you call it a lie, I can and will call a campaign promise yet fulfilled.

                                                His term is not over yet.


                                                But the thing is...


                                                You can not prove Obama knew he was lying when he said what he said in 2007.

                                                It's what he did after that made it a lie. He could of been sincere in the beginning, but then special interests got in the way.
                                                Even G.W. himself had his many critics and was attacked for not doing this or that in a timely manner.


                                                No POTUS is perfect but the relevant questions should be.


                                                - Did he improve the quality of life of the citizens during his term...
                                                No we are still being fed poisons when labeling could of stopped that.
                                                - Did he do his best when it comes to protecting American lives.
                                                See above. Plus with NDAA I'd say that isn't protecting lives.
                                                - Did he make a good faith effort considering the circumstances of his presidency?
                                                Doubtful
                                                - Has the country made progress during his term?
                                                If by progress you mean putting us over 5 trillion in debt in just 3 years, yes.
                                                - Has he personally be-smudged the honor of the country?
                                                Not that I'm aware of, but he hasn't done the Constitution any favors.


                                                All The Best!!

                                                TL
                                                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                                Haha. Sometimes it ain't worth the effort TL. I mean, there are just a handful of us discussing and reading this here and I doubt anyone of us is going to change the mind of the others. The thread will likely get deleted or locked also, so why argue?
                                                Because it's fun and passes the time.
                                                I know I'll never change your's or TL's mind, and I know you both know you won't change mine.
                                                Judging by the way we go from arguing to agreeing I don't think any of us are taking this as serious as it appears.
                                                Signature

                                                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088376].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                                Haha. You like winking a wee bit too much Mike. Just messing with you. Wink wink nudge nudge

                                                Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                                                What - you no likey winks?

                                                Don't know how it's any worse than your but...ok.

                                                Oh, almost forgot:
                                                Signature
                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088610].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                                                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                                  Haha. You like winking a wee bit too much Mike. Just messing with you. Wink wink nudge nudge



                                                  Monty Python Nudge Nudge Wink Wink - YouTube

                                                  Well then it's a good thing we're not neighbors. I'd really make you nervous...

                                                  Signature

                                                  Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088750].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                          Smoke a dope?
                                          Err, I mean Rope a Dope.

                                          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                          Actually Tim I was using a well known Ali technique.

                                          Can you guess which one it was?


                                          And I stopped talking to Kim in this thread.


                                          All The Best!!


                                          TL
                                          Signature
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088013].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                            Smoke a dope?
                                            Err, I mean Rope a Dope.

                                            Maybe ... ( I can't say since I may have to use it again )

                                            - Roped a dope!

                                            - Stick and move.

                                            - Run like hell - like in the first Liston fight when he had something in his eyes.

                                            - Slug it out/toe to toe - like in the Frazier fights


                                            Anyways...,


                                            I have a question for you.

                                            RP fans like to say that he can't be brought.



                                            Do you have any thoughts on that??


                                            All The Best!!

                                            TL
                                            Signature

                                            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088092].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                              Well, he's a politician and will take money from anyone. Not sure if that means he can be bought. I've never seen anything to indicate Obama has been either though. He gets campaign donations from all over, but I can't say it affects his policy decisions. For example, some say Obama is owned by oil companies. Well, why is for getting rid of oil subsidies then? ( Something Paul voted against by the way. ).

                                              Maybe Paul doesn't have to be bought because he is all for the corporations already. He's anti regulation and pro free market laissez faire type capitalism.
                                              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post


                                              RP fans like the say that he can't be brought.



                                              Do you have any thoughts on that??

                                              Signature
                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088189].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                                Well, he's a politician and will take money from anyone. Not sure if that means he can be bought. I've never seen anything to indicate Obama has been either though. He gets campaign donations from all over, but I can't say it affects his policy decisions. For example, some say Obama is owned by oil companies. Well, why is for getting rid of oil subsidies then? ( Something Paul voted against by the way. ).

                                                Maybe Paul doesn't have to be bought because he is all for the corporations already. He's anti regulation and pro free market laissez faire type capitalism.
                                                Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Kos
                                                He never voted for oil subsidies or any others.
                                                PAUL: I've opposed this. I approach it from a state's rights position. What right does 49 states have to punish one state and say, "We're going to put our garbage in your state"? I think that's wrong. The government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing any form of energy. Nuclear energy is a good source of energy, but they still get subsidies. Then we as politicians and the bureaucrats get involved with which state's going to get stuck with the garbage. The more the free market handles this and the more you deal with property rights and no subsidies to any form of energy, the easier this problem would be solved.

                                                Q: Bush’s energy bill provided billions of dollars in tax breaks & subsidies to the oil companies with the goal of boosting domestic production at a time of record profits. Do you support that?

                                                A: I don’t think the profits is the issue. The profits are okay if they’re legitimately earned in a free market. What I object to are subsidies to big corporations when we subsidize them and give them R&D money. I don’t think that should be that way. They should take it out of the funds that they earn.
                                                Ron Paul on Energy & Oil
                                                Signature

                                                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088415].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                                  I believe it was oil tax breaks he voted against eliminating. I'll look it up later.
                                                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                                  Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Kos
                                                  He never voted for oil subsidies or any others.
                                                  Signature
                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088596].message }}
                                                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                                    I believe it was oil tax breaks he voted against eliminating. I'll look it up later.
                                                    Tim lets go in a different direction, for a moment.
                                                    What's your opinion of this election scenario that could be what we see in Nov.
                                                    Say Romney takes the nomination on the first vote and becomes the republican candidate. RP decides not to run as an Independent and seeing how Gary Johnson is the Libertarian candidate, you can only write RP in to vote for him, which would pretty much make it a protest vote even though almost all the RP supporters including myself say they will write him in.
                                                    So you end up with Obama, Romney, and Johnson.
                                                    I know you are a staunch Democrat and Obama supporter, but putting that aside do you think Romney has a chance?
                                                    I don't see Johnson playing into it much.
                                                    But I don't see Romney beating Obama.
                                                    I think it could be close, but I don't see R taking much of the independent vote. Johnson has a better chance of getting the independents I think.
                                                    Signature

                                                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088943].message }}
                                                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                                      I certainly see Romney as having a chance. A very good chance, especially if the unemployment rate goes back up or stops going down. Romney is a terrible candidate but the economy is still very fragile.

                                                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                                      Tim lets go in a different direction, for a moment.
                                                      What's your opinion of this election scenario that could be what we see in Nov.
                                                      Say Romney takes the nomination on the first vote and becomes the republican candidate. RP decides not to run as an Independent and seeing how Gary Johnson is the Libertarian candidate, you can only write RP in to vote for him, which would pretty much make it a protest vote even though almost all the RP supporters including myself say they will write him in.
                                                      So you end up with Obama, Romney, and Johnson.
                                                      I know you are a staunch Democrat and Obama supporter, but putting that aside do you think Romney has a chance?
                                                      I don't see Johnson playing into it much.
                                                      But I don't see Romney beating Obama.
                                                      I think it could be close, but I don't see R taking much of the independent vote. Johnson has a better chance of getting the independents I think.
                                                      Signature
                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6100648].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                                Well, he's a politician and will take money from anyone. Not sure if that means he can be bought. I've never seen anything to indicate Obama has been either though. He gets campaign donations from all over, but I can't say it affects his policy decisions. For example, some say Obama is owned by oil companies. Well, why is for getting rid of oil subsidies then? ( Something Paul voted against by the way. ).

                                                Maybe Paul doesn't have to be bought because he is all for the corporations already. He's anti regulation and pro free market laissez faire type capitalism.

                                                Exactly!


                                                If RP were POTUS and he had a repub house and 60 votes in the senate, how would life in America be???


                                                I'll take a stab at it OK?


                                                According to his website and everything I know about him...


                                                It's quite safe to say...


                                                - He wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and Wall Street will love that.


                                                - He'll probably repeal the Credit Card law and CC companies will return to their abusive ways without fear.


                                                - He'll repeal the Lilly Ledbetter Law that forces equal pay for equal work for the woman of our country.


                                                I'd love to see that stand for my daughter, nieces and all the females I know and don't even know.


                                                But, since it's gov intrusion...

                                                ...it'll probably be repealed under a RP Admin especially if he has the votes to do so.


                                                - He wants to repeal the ACA/ObamaCare and the health care companies will love that.


                                                It's safe to say that under Pauls' plans for health care in the USA...


                                                - The uninsured will stay uninsured but will continue to cost the average insured person at least $1,000 per year on average.


                                                - Health care companies will continue their ugly practice of dropping people when someone gets real sick and then has a big bill as they have done in the past...


                                                ...for about 600K American families each year who are forced to file for bankruptcy - because of an health issue.

                                                The sword of "financial doom"...

                                                ...will hoover over the average Americans' head who will fear a medical problem will do them in.


                                                BTW...

                                                The last thing a European is worried about is going bankrupt thanks to a medical problem.


                                                It would be nice to have that benefit.


                                                - Woman will continue to pay more than men for coverage when there is no real reason for the practice.


                                                Those are the main benefits we'll be losing there are a lot of nice small ones...

                                                ... such as...


                                                ... young people being able to stay on their parents plans until the age of 27.



                                                That will save lots of people lots of money.


                                                What a shame.



                                                Since he's against gov intrusion and a serious free marketer...


                                                - He'll also allow corporations to do just about anything they want to the American people in the name of the "freedom" the free market and personal responsibility.


                                                - He'd dismantle the EPA so the polluters will love him too.


                                                It's safe to say the above would happen in a RP admin - especially if he had the house and 60 votes in the senate.



                                                Yes Tim policies have effects but some people refuse to acknowledge even that fact.


                                                Tim,

                                                Maybe you can help me understand how anyone could be induced into supporting someone that has a set of policies like the above when the negative policies effects are clearly spelled out?


                                                All The Best!!

                                                TL
                                                Signature

                                                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092882].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                                                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                                  Exactly!


                                                  If RP were POTUS and he had a repub house and 60 votes in the senate, how would life in America be???


                                                  I'll take a stab at it OK?


                                                  According to his website and everything I know about him...


                                                  It's quite safe to say...


                                                  - He wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and Wall Street will love that.


                                                  - He'll probably repeal the Credit Card law and CC companies will return to their abusive ways without fear.


                                                  - He'll repeal the Lilly Ledbetter Law that forces equal pay for equal work for the woman of our country.


                                                  I'd love to see that stand for my daughter, nieces and all the females I know and don't even know.


                                                  But, since it's gov intrusion...

                                                  ...it'll probably be repealed under a RP Admin especially if he has the votes to do so.


                                                  - He wants to repeal the ACA/ObamaCare and the health care companies will love that.


                                                  It's safe to say that under Pauls' plans for health care in the USA...


                                                  - The uninsured will stay uninsured but will continue to cost the average insured person at least $1,000 per year on average.


                                                  - Health care companies will continue their ugly practice of dropping people when someone gets real sick and then has a big bill as they have done in the past...


                                                  ...for about 600K American families each year who are forced to file for bankruptcy - because of an health issue.

                                                  The sword of "financial doom"...

                                                  ...will hoover over the average Americans' head who will fear a medical problem will do them in.


                                                  BTW...

                                                  The last thing a European is worried about is going bankrupt thanks to a medical problem.


                                                  It would be nice to have that benefit.


                                                  - Woman will continue to pay more than men for coverage when there is no real reason for the practice.


                                                  Those are the main benefits we'll be losing there are a lot of nice small ones...

                                                  ... such as...


                                                  ... young people being able to stay on their parents plans until the age of 27.



                                                  That will save lots of people lots of money.


                                                  What a shame.



                                                  Since he's against gov intrusion and a serious free marketer...


                                                  - He'll also allow corporations to do just about anything they want to the American people in the name of the "freedom" the free market and personal responsibility.


                                                  - He'd dismantle the EPA so the polluters will love him too.


                                                  It's safe to say the above would happen in a RP admin - especially if he had the house and 60 votes in the senate.



                                                  Yes Tim policies have effects but some people refuse to acknowledge even that fact.


                                                  Tim,

                                                  Maybe you can help me understand how anyone could be induced into supporting someone that has a set of policies like the above when the negative policies effects are clearly spelled out?


                                                  All The Best!!

                                                  TL
                                                  Can you please provide links to your facts? I'd be interested to read about this if they are actually true. It's one thing to say "It's safe to say..." - it's quite another to KNOW because HE said it.

                                                  So... if you don't mind...

                                                  Thanks
                                                  Signature

                                                  Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092941].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author KimW
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        Don't need a song TL.
                        Just because you can't defend your guy and have to resort to mocking mine with music videos, doesn't mean I have to stoop to that.
                        Why was my comment funny?
                        Don't tell me you actually believe that lie on their website?
                        Thom,

                        You are right, he can't defend his guy.

                        But he is excellent at backpedalling.

                        But let an old man have some fun.
                        This one is for you TL:

                        Signature

                        Read A Post.
                        Subscribe to a Newsletter
                        KimWinfrey.Com

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085275].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                          Thom,

                          You are right, he can't defend his guy.

                          But he is excellent at backpedalling.

                          But let an old man have some fun.

                          This one is for you TL:

                          Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye - YouTube

                          That's the spirit but it was already used for #43.


                          TL
                          Signature

                          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085310].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author KimW
                  Originally Posted by highhopes View Post

                  OK tell me this, all the political topics I have started to do with say a speaker in the house of commons, for instance about banks and finance have been deleted...THIS IS BEFORE ANYONE HAS ADDED A POST So how can anyone tell if the thread is going to uncivil?????????
                  I can understand the thread being deleted if posts become too heated...bu they did not give it a chance, which tells me that there is a huge heap of bias on this forum.
                  I wonder if this will be deleted for speaking how i find???
                  I already told you I did not see your previous threads so I can't say why. I can tell you that if I had,I would not have reported it.I am very interested in these issues,American and other nations.
                  But again, I don't think it is bias. If anything I would say that maybe ,intentional or not, there was something in them inflammatory.

                  I only know one or two Mods,I don't know how many there are,but any of them can delete without the others approval.Maybe there is a UK Mod that is deleting your threads?

                  Edit: I actually think I know of at least one Mod that is from the UK,though my guess is that there is more than one.
                  If I had to make a guess it would be that they would be the ones deleting your threads,but that is just an opinion,I have no basis of fact for that.
                  Signature

                  Read A Post.
                  Subscribe to a Newsletter
                  KimWinfrey.Com

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085089].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                Those values I listed are dem values whether you like it, or believe it or not.

                As Thom Said, they are close,but no cigar.As I said, you like to twist them to your own desires.


                Mr. Mcdonald wanted to actually sign that bill and you know it.

                I never stated he didn't,which again shows how you like to twist things. I said he IS a politician and if he thinks that is what the voters wanted, of course he would sign it.He is actively vying to be Romney's VP choice.

                An extra zero was added by mistake to 1,000 when I spoke of the number of women that marched on the VA. capitol to protest that bill.

                To get 1,000 people is no big deal, to get 10,000 is.

                An extra zero makes a world of difference....would you have corrected it if you hadn't been called out on it? I don't think so.

                Women protest anti-abortion legislation in Virginia | Fox News

                Plus unwanted negative national attention and his VP aspirations got the better of him.

                Of course I mentioned that in this post and the previous one you are addressing.


                I stand by my comments on the VA legislature protecting the rights of man - especially after trying to pass that vaginal probe stuff.

                Again, At least 6 other states have passed similar laws to what Va passed. You like to bypass that information.


                - - You said only one chamber passed the law but the article above says both of them passed it.


                From the article...

                "Both chambers have passed legislation that would force women seeking abortions to first undergo an ultrasound examination to determine a gestational age for the fetus.

                In the procedure, a wand-like device is inserted and used to send out sound waves."

                Oh, how much more "intrusive" can you get.

                Which article are you quoting? The Fox one you posted a link to? First Fox news is known for "misbroadcasting the facts".
                Second, I can provide links to articles that dispute your statement that it passed both chambers.
                Either way, it is not a law I would have agreed with.


                You said...

                At the current time, there are at least 6 different states that have a law similar to the one he signed.


                I say...


                Just because other states are doing it does not mean VA has to do it.

                So again, you just want to slant your views to back up your silly negative comments about Virginia?


                There are crazy GOP legislatures all over the nation.

                Just as there are faux democrats all over the nation, pretty much evens things out.


                Yes, IMHO, VA is one of the states leading the war on women.

                And of course this being America you are welcome to your "humble opinion",luckily that doesn't make it factual.



                All The Best!!

                TL

                TL, you can call yourself a "real democrat" all you want. And as Thom said, you definition may be close. And I can call myself a "real democrat" too.
                I personally think I have more democratic values than you because you love to spread discontent and misinformation,while my goal is to help create a better America.

                Going by our country's forefather's I have no doubt they would say I am more in line with what they wanted this country to be.
                (Of course,being the "real democrat" you are going to disagree),but that's ok with me.

                All The Best!!
                Signature

                Read A Post.
                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                KimWinfrey.Com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085209].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Frankly, I don't think age should be a deciding factor. Some 7 year olds might as well be senile, and some over 90 are bright and quick. As for #40? If true, you are saying that others were just that much DUMBER! And if he is so much smarter, what is your point? The one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind is KING!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082366].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
      Entry into hostilities in Libya was absolutely ILLEGAL.

      The War Powers Resolution clearly states the circumstances in which the President of the United States can enter the USA into war.


      Section 2, subsection c of the legislation declares, “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

      (1) a declaration of war

      (2) specific statutory authorization, or

      (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

      The current and last 2 presidents have at some point ignored this simply stating they believe it to be UNconstitutional.
      Signature
      Professional Googler
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082461].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      There already is age discrimination in the constitution: The President must be 35, a Senator must be 30 and a congressman must be 25.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082543].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        There already is age discrimination in the constitution: The President must be 35, a Senator must be 30 and a congressman must be 25.
        Maybe those ages should be raised. At the time they were implemented most of them had matured to a more conservative nature.

        Now that we're living longer maturity seems to come much later...
        Signature
        Professional Googler
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082564].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Haha. I agree about the reaching maturity later part. I disagree that maturity = conservative.
          Originally Posted by Dave Patterson View Post

          Maybe those ages should be raised. At the time they were implemented most of them had matured to a more conservative nature.

          Now that we're living longer maturity seems to come much later...
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082688].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        There already is age discrimination in the constitution: The President must be 35, a Senator must be 30 and a congressman must be 25.
        Right a minimum age, there's also a minimum age to vote, drink, drive, join the military, etc.
        So does that make all those age discrimination also?
        Do you think a person shouldn't be allowed to vote after a certain age?
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082572].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          I think all those age limits are about reaching adulthood, 18 to 21. There's no more or less discrimination in having minimum arbitrary ages to become an elected official than there is to have maximum ages.

          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          Right a minimum age, there's also a minimum age to vote, drink, drive, join the military, etc.
          So does that make all those age discrimination also?
          Do you think a person shouldn't be allowed to vote after a certain age?
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082671].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            I think all those age limits are about reaching adulthood, 18 to 21. There's no more or less discrimination in having minimum arbitrary ages to become an elected official than there is to have maximum ages.
            So if your candidate was 70, and of sound mind and body, and you felt he was the best person for the job you wouldn't want him as president?
            Maybe we should do the same with congress. Right now the median age is 62. From what I can see, most of the old ones are democrats.
            Of course I'd love to see the old republicans go also
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082727].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Haha. You are right about the oldsters. Heck, remember the old KKK guy from Virginia Sen Bird, a Demorat. ( Sorry Kim. Not picking on Virginia ) On the other side was Strom Thurmond who was a Senator until almost 100.

              I'm just saying, you can't have it both ways. Either it's discrimination at a minimum and maximum age or it's not at either.

              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              So if your candidate was 70, and of sound mind and body, and you felt he was the best person for the job you wouldn't want him as president?
              Maybe we should do the same with congress. Right now the median age is 62. From what I can see, most of the old ones are democrats.
              Of course I'd love to see the old republicans go also
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082828].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Haha. You are right about the oldsters. Heck, remember the old KKK guy from Virginia Sen Bird, a Demorat. ( Sorry Kim. Not picking on Virginia ) On the other side was Strom Thurmond who was a Senator until almost 100.

                I'm just saying, you can't have it both ways. Either it's discrimination at a minimum and maximum age or it's not at either.
                Tim, you are speaking facts, I have no issues with that.
                Thurmond actually celebrated his 100th birthday in office I believe.I could be wrong.
                Thurmond fathered a biracial daughter which wasn't revealed til after his death.
                I can't find anything that outright says Byrd was a kkk member but I did find where it said his father,who was governor of Virginia for a while was so against segregation that he literally closed the school system down for a while.
                Those were sad days for America in general.
                Signature

                Read A Post.
                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                KimWinfrey.Com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082880].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Haha. You are right about the oldsters. Heck, remember the old KKK guy from Virginia Sen Bird, a Demorat. ( Sorry Kim. Not picking on Virginia ) On the other side was Strom Thurmond who was a Senator until almost 100.

                I'm just saying, you can't have it both ways. Either it's discrimination at a minimum and maximum age or it's not at either.
                I think it's less discrimination and more a common sense thing. I wouldn't want a 18 year old running for congress (lack of education, life experience, common sense in many cases) any more than I would want someone who is senile - whether 90, or 45.

                Near where I live, about 8 years ago there was a 21 year old who won a Mayoral election. He was a smart kid, but spent 4 years doing many things wrong and got voted out. But he stayed involved in the community, learned a lot, settled down (in other words, matured) and got himself re-elected (and is still in office). He's doing a much better job now. By the time he's 30, he'll be ready to run for a higher office.
                Signature

                Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082888].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Soooo Mike, are you in favor of age limits at both ends or not?
                  Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                  I think it's less discrimination and more a common sense thing. I wouldn't want a 18 year old running for congress (lack of education, life experience, common sense in many cases) any more than I would want someone who is senile - whether 90, or 45.

                  Near where I live, about 8 years ago there was a 21 year old who won a Mayoral election. He was a smart kid, but spent 4 years doing many things wrong and got voted out. But he stayed involved in the community, learned a lot, settled down (in other words, matured) and got himself re-elected (and is still in office). He's doing a much better job now. By the time he's 30, he'll be ready to run for a higher office.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082927].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    Heck, my mother who will be 87 this year, is smarter than a whip. Reads constantly and remembers the smallest details from the 30s and 40s. She even said McCain was too old. She just knows when people get older they do lose things. That's also as much common sense as saying at certain ages people mature. So, shouldn't the voters be the ones who ultimately decide if a candidate is either too young in that they are immature or too old in that they are loosing their capabilities?
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082964].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Soooo Mike, are you in favor of age limits at both ends or not?

                    I thought that was obvious, but I guess not...

                    I am in favor of mental capacity limitations.
                    Signature

                    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6084793].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Haha. You are right about the oldsters. Heck, remember the old KKK guy from Virginia Sen Bird, a Demorat. ( Sorry Kim. Not picking on Virginia ) On the other side was Strom Thurmond who was a Senator until almost 100.

                I'm just saying, you can't have it both ways. Either it's discrimination at a minimum and maximum age or it's not at either.
                That is funny Tim, because those where exactly the two I was thinking of when I mentioned congress
                I actually think they ought to give them all a few tests when they run for any office.
                1. Health
                2. Mental stability
                3. Common sense
                4. Logic
                5. Honesty
                Of course if we did that we would only have about 5 candidates in the country and three of those would probably be illegal immigrants
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082939].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Oh Byrd was in really bad shape the last few years. I remember him on the Senate floor, shaking like a leaf and struggling with his speech. It was hard to watch. He was right about the Iraq war though.

                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                  That is funny Tim, because those where exactly the two I was thinking of when I mentioned congress
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083027].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Heck, my mother who will be 87 this year, is smarter than a whip. Reads constantly and remembers the smallest details from the 30s and 40s. She even said McCain was too old. She just knows when people get older they do lose things. That's also as much common sense as saying at certain ages people mature. So, shouldn't the voters be the ones who ultimately decide if a candidate is either too young in that they are immature or too old in that they are loosing their capabilities?
                    My father was like that. He went through a brief period where all he could speak was German, but other then that he was as sharp as they come till he died at 86. He was born in 1895 so I got stories from him going back to the beginning of last century. It's funny now because my father was 58 when I was born, so now at 58 I know things about this area that many others don't. Things like Waterviliet(sp) used to be west Troy. And exactly which house belonged to May Faye the Madame who put Troy on the map
                    I agree the voters should decide.
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Oh Byrd was in really bad shape the last few years. I remember him on the Senate floor, shaking like a leaf and struggling with his speech. It was hard to watch. He was right about the Iraq war though.
                    Yes it was.
                    Strom was the scary one to me though.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083089].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KimW
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          There already is age discrimination in the constitution: The President must be 35, a Senator must be 30 and a congressman must be 25.
          That wasn't discrimination,that was the reality that they wanted an individual to have reached a certain level of maturity,to be able to make intelligent decisions,and that is how it should be.

          [QUOTE=ThomM;6082572]Right a minimum age, there's also a minimum age to vote, drink, drive, join the military, etc.
          So does that make all those age discrimination also?
          Do you think a person shouldn't be allowed to vote after a certain age?/QUOTE]

          My personal (unpopular) opinion is that every one of those age limits should be raised.


          Today is my mother's 88th birthday. She has lived through the great depression and numerous wars. Do any of you here feel she should not be able to vote?
          I'm seriously asking that question.
          Signature

          Read A Post.
          Subscribe to a Newsletter
          KimWinfrey.Com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082708].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
            [quote=KimW;6082708]That wasn't discrimination,that was the reality that they wanted an individual to have reached a certain level of maturity,to be able to make intelligent decisions,and that is how it should be.

            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            Right a minimum age, there's also a minimum age to vote, drink, drive, join the military, etc.
            So does that make all those age discrimination also?
            Do you think a person shouldn't be allowed to vote after a certain age?/QUOTE]

            My personal (unpopular) opinion is that every one of those age limits should be raised.


            Today is my mother's 66th birthday. She has lived through the great depression and numerous wars. Do any of you here feel she should not be able to vote?
            I'm seriously asking that question.
            And you're HOW old...?
            Signature
            Professional Googler
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082722].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author KimW
              [quote=Dave Patterson;6082722]
              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

              That wasn't discrimination,that was the reality that they wanted an individual to have reached a certain level of maturity,to be able to make intelligent decisions,and that is how it should be.



              And you're HOW old...?
              lol Dave, I just noticed my typo, today she is 88,not 66. I definitely don't want her to not get the credit she is due.
              Signature

              Read A Post.
              Subscribe to a Newsletter
              KimWinfrey.Com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6082787].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    TL - I appreciate the apology. You did, however, put me into this so I have this to say in return.

    At least MY friends and I don't have the embarrassment of having supported someone who actually has pulled THIS crap on a sovereign nation:


    Sorry -- I'm very proud to have not been fooled.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083450].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Sen Jeff Sessions: Big supporter of the Iraq war, even years later.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083609].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Sen Jeff Sessions: Big supporter of the Iraq war, even years later.


        Yea Tim, he's a real partisan sweetheart.

        He supported all the crazy economic stuff from the previous admin that exploded our national debt but now he's Mr. super deficit hawk.

        My kicker is that he voted against the stimulus knowing that without it the economy would have fallen off a very steep cliff and taken us into great depression part 2.

        The same could be said for most of the GOP senators that have served across both admins.

        A real gem of a gent.


        All The Best!!

        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083641].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      TL - I appreciate the apology. You did, however, put me into this so I have this to say in return.

      At least MY friends and I don't have the embarrassment of having supported someone who actually has pulled THIS crap on a sovereign nation:

      Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria - YouTube

      Sorry -- I'm very proud to have not been fooled.
      What is the point of this video??

      Anyone who thinks we need permission to protect ourselves is off their rocker.

      International diplomacy can be tricky and the admin does not want to run around acting unilaterally...

      ...but for Mr. Sessions to suggest that the UN would prevent us from actually protecting ourselves is quite silly which is something Mr. Sessions has been known to engage in before.

      All The Best!!


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083611].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    TL - do you really not get the implications of this one? Really? Congress does. So does the judiciary. Wasting my time bantering with dudes with absolutely 0 for political education is one of the reasons I mostly stayed out of this thread until you brought it to my attention that you had slammed me.

    Go back to sleep.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083665].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      TL - do you really not get the implications of this one? Really? Congress does. So does the judiciary. Wasting my time bantering with dudes with absolutely 0 for political education is one of the reasons I mostly stayed out of this thread until you brought it to my attention that you had slammed me.

      Go back to sleep.
      Perhaps you would be so kind as to spell it out for me.


      IMHO...

      Mr. Sessions is simply trying to score some political points period.


      Sal, have you given up on the American political process?????



      BTW...

      Mark has a great thread!

      http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...country-2.html




      All The Best!!


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083813].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author highhopes
        another political topic allowed to run and run, Why? No consistency in the forum, that`s why.
        Signature

        Ways to grow your online business. Earning online tips for the home worker and essential steps to take to earn money online.
        http://wwwtheearninghub.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083956].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author highhopes
          Perhaps it`s because it an American political thread, who knows?
          Signature

          Ways to grow your online business. Earning online tips for the home worker and essential steps to take to earn money online.
          http://wwwtheearninghub.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6083959].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by highhopes View Post

            Perhaps it`s because it an American political thread, who knows?
            I guess you haven't been following. American political threads are the ost likely to get shut down.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6084525].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by highhopes View Post

            another political topic allowed to run and run, Why? No consistency in the forum, that`s why.
            No, it is because until the last few pages it had been very civil is the probable reason. We already addressed that.
            If you have that big of an issue with it. Report the thread.


            Originally Posted by highhopes View Post

            Perhaps it`s because it an American political thread, who knows?
            As Steve (Season) said:
            "I guess you haven't been following. American political threads are the most likely to get shut down.

            Steve"
            Which is true.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6084938].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Perhaps you would be so kind as to spell it out for me.


        IMHO...

        Mr. Sessions is simply trying to score some political points period.


        Sal, have you given up on the American political process?????



        BTW...

        Mark has a great thread!

        http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...country-2.html




        All The Best!!


        TL
        The man is a bought and paid for bigot IMHO.

        Never much cared for him at all...
        Signature
        Professional Googler
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6084824].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    One of my favorite songs ever!



    It should be Obama's theme song since it is so spot on for our situation.


    All The Best!!

    TL


    Ps. I know the perfect song for the anti-Obama crowd.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6084761].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Songs that can relate to political situations...


    Ron Paul will be the 45th president of the U.S.


    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6084862].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Sorry RP fans but if you think RP is going to be #45...


    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085119].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Sorry RP fans but if you think RP is going to be #45...


      The Main Ingredient-Everybody Plays The Fool - YouTube
      Might as well look in the mirror while you play this.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085220].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by KimW View Post

        Might as well look in the mirror while you play this.


        Good one!!


        All The Best!!


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085230].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Don't have a clue what you mean it was used for #43. It isn't in post #43,I just checked.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085340].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Don't have a clue what you mean it was used for #43. It isn't in post #43,I just checked.

      President #43.

      The song was played on the national mall as #43 flew over it and even circled it, to finally leave for the great state of Texas.

      It was a hoot as it seemed like everyone was singing it and waving goodbye.


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085357].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Well then its a classic and deserving to be played again!!
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085368].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I hated both bush administration,they did so much damage to the country both domestically and abroad.
    obama is doing his best to equal if not surpass their heights of glory.

    "A critic of any admin can find lots of things they feel the admin should have addressed."


    Of course I find it interesting you use this line when you were a few short posts ago using the same tactic to try to discredit both myself and Virginia.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085785].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I hated both bush administration,they did so much damage to the country both domestically and abroad.
      obama is doing his best to equal if not surpass their heights of glory.

      "A critic of any admin can find lots of things they feel the admin should have addressed."


      Of course I find it interesting you use this line when you were a few short posts ago using the same tactic to try to discredit both myself and Virginia.


      You threw out the VA legislature as some sort of protector of liberty from the NDDA stuff but yet...


      Requiring women to do a vaginal probe just because they want an abortion is a serious intrusion of privacy and way beyond the pale.

      And part of the war...


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085823].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
        You know, when this thread first started, I said to myself, "fair question, but
        there is no way this thread is going to remain civil."

        Thank you to everybody who proved me right.

        I'm very disappointed in a lot of you.

        And this is why we have the rules we have here.

        To answer the OP's question, I could run for president if I want. I won't win, but
        I could run.

        To get a significant number of votes, you need money. There is no way around
        that. And I'm talking LOTS of money. And...you need backing.

        So, while technically the answer to your question is, yes, other parties or independents can run, but how effective they'll be is questionable.

        Hope that answers your question.

        As for the rest of this thread.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6085895].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Patrician
          Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post


          To get a significant number of votes, you need money. There is no way around that. And I'm talking LOTS of money. And...you need backing.
          Therein lies the RUB - and the RUBE - It should NOT BE ABOUT MONEY - Nor should ANY LEGISLATION - Lobbyists and all the backroom deals are what is so evil about the whole process nowadays.

          This includes money being the determinant factor in what drugs and chemicals are legal - and I am not referring to 'recreational' or 'illicit' I am talking about prescription and over the counter drugs that can KILL you just as sure as an OD by Homey on the street corner, and the chemicals literally killing the very life force through the air, soil and water. Too bad nobody rich will help with that.

          The whole thing is nothing but a mirage

          free country
          free market

          Ain't nothing free about it. We are bought and sold down the river.

          I thought there was once at least an initiative to limit campaign spending? No? I guess not. Just another fake bit of 'lip service' to mollify the sheep.

          (ok don't come and tell me about all the freedoms we do have - i know about those and do appreciate them as i see them dwindling away too -)

          The point is the 1% - they not only have all the wealth, they have all the power. So it really isn't about 'of the people, by the people and for the people' anymore at all except in the facade. It is 'of the money by the money and for the money'.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087428].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        You threw out the VA legislature as some sort of protector of liberty from the NDDA stuff but yet...


        First, YOU were the one that brought up the NDDA,not me. But no, I posted a FACTUAL statement that said Virginia citizens were being protected from the illegal actions of the president, BIG DIFFERENCE.

        Requiring women to do a vaginal probe just because they want an abortion is a serious intrusion of privacy and way beyond the pale.

        While I agree that is is improper and I would even say illegal and a violation of civil rights, you can say someone wanted to do this and someone wanted to do that but the facts are NONE OF IT HAPPENED.And again you are bringing up something that has already been both,proven a lie and discussed to death. First you post 10,000 women and then when I say prove it you say,oh,I had one too many zeros.....what a joke.

        And part of the war...

        As far as your "war" why don't you worry more about the highly illegal wars our country is currently fighting?
        Because the fact is the war against women both in Virginia and in the country is happening in your mind.



        TL
        I'm beginning to think you may have been an Olympic swimmer in a previous life because you are a master of the backstroke.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086095].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Steven,
    I'm sorry you feel that way,because for the most part this thread has been extremely civil.
    If someone is civil to me I am civil back, as I think you know.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086114].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Steven,
      I'm sorry you feel that way,because for the most part this thread has been extremely civil.
      If someone is civil to me I am civil back, as I think you know.
      Kim, I'm not blaming you at all. The people who have derailed this thread know
      who they are.

      I'll leave it at that.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086534].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Kim said...

    Because the fact is the war against women both in Virginia and in the country is happening in your mind.

    I say...

    This is going to be fun!!

    I'll start off with...

    - Lisa Murkowski Becomes Third Republican Senator To Criticize GOP’s War On Women:

    She said...

    “It makes no sense to make this attack on women,” ...

    ...she said at a local Chamber of Commerce luncheon.


    “If you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”

    She also said...

    Murkowski — who recently said she regretted her vote for the anti-woman Blunt amendment — promised to fight for Planned Parenthood funding and...

    ... also spoke out against Rush Limbaugh’s attack of Sandra Fluke, adding, ...

    ...“To have those kind of slurs against a woman … you had candidates who want to be our president not say, ‘That’s wrong. That’s offensive.’ ...

    ...They did not condemn the rhetoric.”

    Murkowski Becomes Third Republican Senator To Criticize GOP's War On Women | ThinkProgress


    Here's an article from Politico regarding the war...

    Opinion: Foul play: War on women is real - Sen. Barbara Boxer - POLITICO.com

    And...

    House Republicans have introduced more than 30 bills that would restrict a woman’s reproductive health care.

    Those same Republicans, who decry an all-too-powerful government, ...

    ..have no problem deciding what health care is right for our daughters, or sisters or mothers.

    Read more: Opinion: Foul play: War on women is real - Sen. Barbara Boxer - POLITICO.com

    - The Lilly Ledbetter Law:

    Equal Pay For Equal Work.

    The first law passed by the new admin.

    Only 3 Repubs ( they were senators ) in the entire US congress voted for it.


    And now...

    The Republican governor of Wisconsin recently signed a law passed by Republicans...

    ... to repeal the state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which protected women’s equality in the workplace.

    Read more: Opinion: Foul play: War on women is real - Sen. Barbara Boxer - POLITICO.com


    And IMHO it's safe to say that...


    ..since RP wants to let the states decide on just about anything and everything...


    ...he wouldn't lift a finger to protect the rights of woman in any way shape or form.


    TL


    Ps, Here's a bunch of other "shocking" proposed legislation for GOPers from around the nation.


    MoveOn.org Political Action: Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women


    - Lest you forget... from a female GOP senator herself.

    “If you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters.”


    Pps. Looks like I'm not the only one imaging this war and don't bother trying to play any semantics.

    I told you GOP legislators have gone crazy all across the land and there is no equivalent to this war on women - on the dem side, whatsoever.

    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086503].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    TL,
    I am well aware of everything you posted.
    But this is the first time you said anything about the GOP war on women.
    No, you kept saying the Virginia war on women.

    Maybe we should discuss the war on the elderly?
    Or the war on the liberals?
    Or the war on the conservatives?
    Or the war on the senior citizens?
    Or the war on ( fill in the blank).
    In todays divisive society you can manufacture a social war on anything you desire.
    I ask you once again,as I have numerous times, if you are as concerned as you keep claiming to be,why aren't I seeing you trying to bring America together instead of trying to widen the chasm?
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086629].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      TL,
      I am well aware of everything you posted.
      But this is the first time you said anything about the GOP war on women.
      No, you kept saying the Virginia war on women.

      Maybe we should discuss the war on the elderly?
      Or the war on the liberals?
      Or the war on the conservatives?
      Or the war on the senior citizens?
      Or the war on ( fill in the blank).
      In todays divisive society you can manufacture a social war on anything you desire.
      I ask you once again,as I have numerous times, if you are as concerned as you keep claiming to be,why aren't I seeing you trying to bring America together instead of trying to widen the chasm?

      Nice semantic trick.


      You said...


      I ask you once again,as I have numerous times, if you are as concerned as you keep claiming to be,why aren't I seeing you trying to bring America together instead of trying to widen the chasm?


      There is a real GOP war on women, whether you like it or will acknowledge it or not and speaking on it does nothing to divide people.


      As far as your high and mighty/bringing everybody together but and TL's trying to divide - people stuff...


      I have no clue as to what you're talking about.


      - In this thread you have accused me of...


      * Trying to divide people. ( see just above )

      and...

      You said...

      I personally think I have more democratic values than you because you love to

      spread...

      discontent and misinformation, while my goal is to help create a better America.


      - Your semantic gymnastics revolving around the war on women issue is a little much for me.

      - Your take on dem values was also priceless.

      - And your comments regarding my intentions are troubling.



      So therefore I shall not respond to you any longer in this thread.

      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086846].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Nice semantic trick.

        Sorry, no Jedi mind trick,I promise.


        You said...


        I ask you once again,as I have numerous times, if you are as concerned as you keep claiming to be,why aren't I seeing you trying to bring America together instead of trying to widen the chasm?

        A truthful and very legitimate statement and question.


        There is a real GOP war on women, whether you like it or will acknowledge it or not and speaking on it does nothing to divide people.

        Again, no sematics, you are the one that tried to use semantics.First you said it was a Virginian war on women,then it changed to a GOP war,which I admitted I knew about,and finally you claimed RPs position would mean the women would lose. I supplied FACTS that there are more women that men un the US population and they could vote down the laws so in effect RPs plan would benefit them.


        As far as your high and mighty/bringing everybody together but and TL's trying to divide - people stuff...

        Nothing high and mighty about it...you have a problem with bringing people together? It sure seems to me that you do more to divide than bring together. I'd love to hear others thoughts on that beside yours and mine.


        I have no clue as to what you're talking about.

        I'll be the first to say I believe that statement. I think you are clueless too.


        - In this thread you have accused me of...


        * Trying to divide people. ( see just above )

        True, I think you do.

        and...

        You said...

        I personally think I have more democratic values than you because you love to

        spread...

        discontent and misinformation, while my goal is to help create a better America.

        Again true. But then you were the one harping on being the "real democrat".
        Which is spreading misinformation. And my goal is to have a better America. What is yours?


        - Your semantic gymnastics revolving around the war on women issue is a little much for me.

        While your semantic gymnastics make my head spin. Its funny how you have no issues doing it but complain when people get back at you with the same things you try to do.
        But I think what you really mean is my ability to counter your ridiculous statements.


        - Your take on dem values was also priceless.

        As are yours. As stated before, the "democratic values" the you spout now are not the democratic values the party was formed with,and you can claim that you follow 90% of what they npost on their website all you want,but all I see are faux democrats.

        - And your comments regarding my intentions are troubling.

        Are they? I've asked you several times what are your intentions. I've asked you to lay them out so they can be understood. And I am pretty sure I am not the only one interested in knowing.



        So therefore I shall not respond to you any longer in this thread.

        I've heard that before,but it didn't last long.
        But what you really mean is that you can't find facts to back up your statements therefore it is easier to ignore me.


        All The Best!!

        TL
        LOL, promises promises.
        What is dead in the water is you and your statements.
        Everything I have said is the truth.

        All The Best!!
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087026].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    By the way:
    "Looks like I'm not the only one imaging this war and don't bother trying to play any semantics."
    I don't need to, you do extremely well without help.

    Also you stated:

    "since RP wants to let the states decide on just about anything and everything...


    ...he wouldn't lift a finger to protect the rights of woman in any way shape or form."

    According to this site,and I am sure I can find others that have similar information, Women outnumber men in the USA,so all they have to do is vote it down in every state,so in effect Ron Paul's plan would actually give women more power.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6086760].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Pat,
    You are right, the corporations and Big Pharma control a lot of the "political machine", bot dems and repubs.
    That is one of the things that makes RP so appealing, he can't be bought.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087463].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Thom,
    He is still editing them.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087504].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
    I think he took his ball and went home.
    Signature
    Professional Googler
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087523].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I predict the above post will be gone soon.
    And the account will be banned.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087563].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I predict the above post will be gone soon.
      And the account will be banned.

      Good call Kim!

      I reported it for spamvertising :rolleyes:

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087733].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Patrician
        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

        Good call Kim!

        I reported it for spamvertising :rolleyes:

        Terra
        ... and i gave him an infraction for good measure.

        hey see the little red box on his post? anybody else? something new (to me at least).
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087954].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author KimW
          Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

          I can't believe first of all this thread got off the ground in spite of the OP saying it is OK.

          ... and there goes my theory about it being allowed because of good behavior.

          It is just as snarky and downright antagonistic as any political thread I have ever seen.

          It's down right politically incorrect that's what it is.


          especially because when it gets deleted high hopes will be so happy we are not receiving preferential treatment.
          Pat,I mostly agree, Highhopes will be the ultimate winner, but the last election saw much worse discussions here in my opinion.

          Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

          ... and i gave him an infraction for good measure.

          hey see the little red box on his post? anybody else? something new (to me at least).
          The little red shows up after someone does an infraction for a post. It'been been that way at least a few months,I can't really say how long because I rarely give infractions.I usually just report the Spammers. Even when people have been downright insulting to me I don't bother with the infractions.
          Signature

          Read A Post.
          Subscribe to a Newsletter
          KimWinfrey.Com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088879].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

        Good call Kim!

        I reported it for spamvertising :rolleyes:

        Terra
        Me too Terra, twice..lol
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087991].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Me too Terra, twice..lol


          LOL Kim!

          Is that sort of like honking your horn?

          Honk once, it doesn't move, honk again?

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088017].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

            LOL Kim!

            Is that sort of like honking your horn?

            Honk once, it doesn't move, honk again?

            Terra
            You caught me, I'm a double honker!!
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088063].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

    The thread will likely get deleted or locked also, so why argue?

    I can't believe first of all this thread got off the ground in spite of the OP saying it is OK.

    ... and there goes my theory about it being allowed because of good behavior.

    It is just as snarky and downright antagonistic as any political thread I have ever seen.

    It's down right politically incorrect that's what it is.


    especially because when it gets deleted high hopes will be so happy we are not receiving preferential treatment.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6087935].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    What Thom said:

    "Because it's fun and passes the time.
    I know I'll never change your's or TL's mind, and I know you both know you won't change mine.
    Judging by the way we go from arguing to agreeing I don't think any of us are taking this as serious as it appears."

    Oh, and this wink goes out to Mike!
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6088407].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    They compared 6 polls on the news here tonight and it was Romney vs Obama and sort of confusing (but very very close for all 6). Then this 'expert' guy said #1 compare the average of all 6 to get your answer - well they were almost all identical with them running just about neck and neck - and #2 he said that the deciding factor with average 1 or 2 point difference would be the president's approval rating - if it is 49% (as it is today according to these same pollsters) he would probably beat Romney - however if it went down to 45% he would probably lose, regardless.

    Make sense? (numbers and politics do nothing for me but make me dizzy)

    I really like Paul in many ways (mostly because he is not dem or rep) and I like the people who like him but then there are things I wonder about - he may be even too radical for me in some of his thinking. I just don't want Romney that's all I know for sure.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6089848].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "Don't do it TL - It's a good thread, let's not get it deleted..."

    This is the exact words GaryV said when you made the sarcastic post in the "Why do you love your country " thread.

    By the way,most of the "discussion between TL and Mr Fox occurred on the second page of the thread for those that want to see the real chain of events,
    Especially the posts in the 60/70s range.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092070].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I was being sarcastic Thom, I should have used the emoticon.

    I find it ironic that he is trying to use things that have been proven to be untrue over and over again to try to defend his statements now.

    Ironically the first person I ever "unfriended" on FB I did because he kept posting lies about obama. I don't care what anyone says as long as it is the truth.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092160].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    You guys on both sides are getting way too personal.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092242].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Kurt,
    PMed you.
    Kim
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092288].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Under User Control Panel
    go to
    Settings and options
    go to
    Edit ignore list
    There you can put in users that you don't want to see.
    HTH
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092486].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      TL lets change the rules a little.
      For now on anything you say about RP, you back up with proof (and show your work)
      I'll do the same for anything I say about Obama (like I already have).
      We both know your 'speculating' about how things would be if RP was elected are based on you being a "real democrat", so there's no need to go there anymore, it's obviously biased.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092747].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Thom, you're the one who introduced the "L" word into this thread...


    RON PAUL DENIES SAYING HE WOULDN’T HAVE ORDERED BIN LADEN RAID IN PAKISTAN — BUT HERE’S THE VIDEO


    Either RP is misstating the facts or maybe he simply forgot what he said in the past, thanks to his age - on a number of occasions.

    Did Ron Paul Lie About Not Wanting to Order Bin Laden Killed? | Video | TheBlaze.com

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092953].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Thom, you're the one who introduced the "L" word into this thread...


      RON PAUL DENIES SAYING HE WOULDN'T HAVE ORDERED BIN LADEN RAID IN PAKISTAN -- BUT HERE'S THE VIDEO


      Either RP is misstating the facts or maybe he simply forgot what he said in the past, thanks to his age - on a number of occasions.

      Did Ron Paul Lie About Not Wanting to Order Bin Laden Killed? | Video | TheBlaze.com

      TL
      I watched the first two videos and I don't get your point.
      He said he wouldn't of done it like it was done.
      In the second video he explained how we captured the person who was probably responsible for the attacks with the cooperation of the Pakistan govt. In fact they arrested him and turned him over to us.


      I had hoped this thread could serve as a place were political policies, their outcomes and effects could be discussed.
      It was, you are the one who started with the unfounded acquisitions and assaults on RP.
      You're the one who brought up that old interview with RP that you tried to pass off as him lying.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6093158].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    TL

    You said: "Bill Ayers?????????????

    That's a stupid lie that's only repeated by the right wing hit machine."

    So are you saying the Obama did NOT know Ayers? Please clarify because according to Ayers in his book:

    "In 2008 there was a lot of chatter on the blogosphere about my relationship with Barack Obama: we had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fundraiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign."

    Sounds pretty cozy to me..

    But to use your own words... "It's quite safe to say..."

    That perhaps they DID have a closer relationship, but now deny it so as to keep the heat off the Prez. Maybe? I mean, you can't outright dismiss it, can you?

    Just thinking the way you think - broad assumptions based on crap you read around the net...with the difference that THIS statement was taken from Ayers book.
    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092991].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

      TL

      You said: "Bill Ayers?????????????

      That's a stupid lie that's only repeated by the right wing hit machine."

      So are you saying the Obama did NOT know Ayers? Please clarify because according to Ayers in his book:

      "In 2008 there was a lot of chatter on the blogosphere about my relationship with Barack Obama: we had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fundraiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign."

      Sounds pretty cozy to me..

      But to use your own words... "It's quite safe to say..."

      That perhaps they DID have a closer relationship, but now deny it so as to keep the heat off the Prez. Maybe? I mean, you can't outright dismiss it, can you?

      Just thinking the way you think - broad assumptions based on crap you read around the net...with the difference that THIS statement was taken from Ayers book.

      I'll answer you Mike but it's the last thing I do in this thread.


      You guys can turn it into a RP lovefest and I won't get involved.


      My answer...

      Perhaps Mr. Ayers is prone to exaggerate.


      I got this from wikepedia...


      During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, a controversy arose regarding Barack Obama's contact with Bill Ayers, a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, ...


      ...and a former leader of the Weather Underground, a radical left organization in the 1970s.[1]



      -----------

      Investigations by The New York Times, CNN, and other news organizations concluded that Obama did not have a close relationship with Ayers.[2][3][4]

      ----------

      Ayers served on two nonprofit boards with Obama.

      Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, hosted a gathering at their home in 1995,[5] where Alice Palmer introduced Obama as her chosen successor in the Illinois State Senate.


      Obama has condemned Ayers' past,[7][8] and stated that he does not have a close association with him.[5]


      Anyways, if I'm wrong I'm wrong and this is not a big deal to me or most people.

      He paid his debt to society and The University of Chicago has forgiven him also.

      All The Best!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6093076].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I'll answer you Mike but it's the last thing I do in this thread.


        You guys can turn it into a RP lovefest and I won't get involved.


        My answer...

        Perhaps Mr. Ayers is prone to exaggerate.


        I got this from wikepedia...


        During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, a controversy arose regarding Barack Obama's contact with Bill Ayers, a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, ...


        ...and a former leader of the Weather Underground, a radical left organization in the 1970s.[1]



        -----------

        Investigations by The New York Times, CNN, and other news organizations concluded that Obama did not have a close relationship with Ayers.[2][3][4]

        ----------

        Ayers served on two nonprofit boards with Obama.

        Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, hosted a gathering at their home in 1995,[5] where Alice Palmer introduced Obama as her chosen successor in the Illinois State Senate.


        Obama has condemned Ayers' past,[7][8] and stated that he does not have a close association with him.[5]


        Anyways, if I'm wrong I'm wrong and this is not a big deal to me or most people.

        He paid his debt to society and The University of Chicago has forgiven him also.

        All The Best!

        TL

        TL,

        In truth, I don't even have an opinion on this relationship. But be honest about one thing - with yourself at least...

        The reason it doesn't bother you is simply because it's in relation to Obama. If this was something related to Bush - given your hatred for him - not only would it be a big deal - but I suspect you'd be calling Bush a terrorist.

        Yes you would... admit it.

        Viewpoints and opinions are fine. We all have them and mostly I respect yours. It's the hypocritical nature of MANY of your opinions that tend to set you up for the types of responses you are now getting in this thread. That and your refusal to provide proof of many of your "facts", while "poo-pooing" facts about Obama as "right-wing nutjob" speak.

        So now, like you, I will back out of this thread, simply because it's gotten past that polite conversation stage. Nothing good can come from adding anything else.
        Signature

        Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6093727].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    He never says in either video that he would not have ordered the kill, only that he would have not ordered it the way it was done. There is a HUGE difference.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6092996].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I had hoped this thread could serve as a place were political policies, their outcomes and effects could be discussed.


    But this thread has descended...


    So, therefore that's it for me.

    I refuse to go round and round with anyone who will not acknowledge basic reality.

    Here's an example:

    Policy A:

    Gives the population a certain set of benefits:


    These benefits have been ordered by the federal gov on an industry and the industry will comply and offer these particular benefits from now on.


    Moving on...


    Mr. P. has been clear that he will repeal policy A... ( if at all possible )


    .... with his Policy B...

    ...and...


    ... his replacement policy (B) has none of the particular benefits of policy A.


    It stands to reason that the particular benefits of policy A will no longer be available to the population.


    Some people won't even acknowledge that the benefits from policy A will disappear once policy A is repealed and have called it speculation.


    I've had it.


    Anyone can say whatever you will from now on etc.


    I'm done!


    All The Best!!

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6093051].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    This really is the last thing I post in this thread.


    I'm not even going to read this thread from now on.


    Have fun!!



    All The Best!!

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6093188].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I have to disagree Mike. I think the thread could have and still can have many polite discussions,as most of us here are friends and can discuss without getting angry and insulting. Heck,we can also have those discussions with those we don't even know.

    I really feel sorry for the OP who posted an interesting question that really wasn't that political but had his thread hijacked.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6093996].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I have to disagree Mike. I think the thread could have and still can have many polite discussions,as most of us here are friends and can discuss without getting angry and insulting. Heck,we can also have those discussions with those we don't even know.

      I really feel sorry for the OP who posted an interesting question that really wasn't that political but had his thread hijacked.
      Kim,

      You may be right. I didn't mean to imply we all couldn't continue without it degrading further. I simply feel that in THIS thread it's been through the gamut. I know where TL, Tim, You and Thom pretty much stand, as I am sure you all know where I am on these issues and candidates. Nothing will change any of our minds at this point. It's starting to run in circles.

      It went from interesting conversation on topics such as health care (with a ton of links) to a "who's candidate has the biggest..." (so to speak) with the snide-ness starting to show.

      Sometimes I feel the need to agree to disagree and move on. No hard feelings from me towards anyone.

      Oh, and Tim?
      Signature

      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6094545].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    yeah - it's called win/win

    we can actually have opposing opinions and each be for the opposite side. however if someone specifically attacks your beliefs, then it is a different story and it goes down hill from there and becomes personal.

    i see the dynamic here - i didn't for a long time other than the old left/right/center stuff.

    but i do see it started to deteriorate when TL started attacking RP.

    ... and the end play 'taking my marbles and going home' - i often play it - you can't beat me if i don't play. (not proud of it)

    "This is how the world ends
    this is how the world ends,
    not with a Bang
    but a whimper..."

    Kim replying to something you said someplace earlier - yes it was less viscious than last run - that one was so left and right - where some 'party animals' just could not tolerate for a minute anybody saying anything positive about the opponent and it evoked a response that amounted to a direct attack back.

    i think we are all evolving toward the center or middle ground. (which is where i believe the country needs to be too!)
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6094135].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Kimw,

    I think I answered the OP's question well, and even gave a good example with link. It only LOOKS like 2 parties because the two top ones are SO large. MANY other countries have multiple parties with only 1 or two BIG ones. I think Germany is that way.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6094316].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Steve,
    I think I also answered it well,as ,like you said, you did and numerous others.
    With none of us making it a real political issue.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6094421].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Definitely agree with you Mike. (again,I have no "Thanks" left,so all I can say is a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse).
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6094676].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author iddigger
    Oh hell just vote for me and I'll fix all the problems
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6098190].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Tim,
    I recently posted on my FB a link to an article that explains the current unemployment rate is at about 11%,not the rate that is being reported.
    If it is accurate then Romney could garner more votes away from obama, but I also don't think it would take votes away from the independent voters,who,if nothing else will still write in somebody other than the two mainstream candidates.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6100694].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Kim, they have to keep the same formula whether it favors one side or the other. It also was much higher under Bush, Clinton, Reagan etc if we used the same formula that rates "real" unemployment.

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Tim,
      I recently posted on my FB a link to an article that explains the current unemployment rate is at about 11%,not the rate that is being reported.
      If it is accurate then Romney could garner more votes away from obama, but I also don't think it would take votes away from the independent voters,who,if nothing else will still write in somebody other than the two mainstream candidates.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6100768].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Ok, I see what you mean,but I am talking about the real unemployment rate, not the reported one. Everyone likes to leave out those that have given up.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6100798].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      OK, here's what I was referring to Thom regarding Paul supporting subsidies for the oil companies. His explanation is that he doesn't "consider them subsidies" but rather tax breaks and he is against raising taxes on anyone. LOL!! What a bunch of sugar coated BS. OK, Congressman Paul, let's just "call" them "tax breaks", or better yet, loopholes ( why didn't he say these were loopholes by the way? ), do you think oil companies really need this help from the federal government when they are making record $billions in profits while the working class and poor are struggling to make ends meet? Shouldn't these companies pay their fair share in taxes like other industries? No, according to Paul.

      This guy is as slick as Slick Willie. That answer at the beginning of this interview is that of a typical politician who is for big corporations. Don't be fooled folks.

      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6100902].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        OK, here's what I was referring to Thom regarding Paul supporting subsidies for the oil companies. His explanation is that he doesn't "consider them subsidies" but rather tax breaks and he is against raising taxes on anyone. LOL!! What a bunch of sugar coated BS. OK, Congressman Paul, let's just "call" them "tax breaks", or better yet, loopholes ( why didn't he say these were loopholes by the way? ), do you think oil companies really need this help from the federal government when they are making record in profits while the working class and poor are struggling to make ends meet? Shouldn't these companies pay their fair share in taxes like other industries? No, according to Paul.

        This guy is as slick as Slick Willie. That answer at the beginning of this interview is that of a typical politician who is for big corporations. Don't be fooled folks.

        Ron Paul On 2012, Taxes, Unions & More (Cenk Uygur MSNBC Interview) - YouTube
        The reporter called it a subsidies bill and when RP explained what it was I thought he explained it well. Seeing how the reporter didn't try to correct him I'd say he understood RP was right.
        When a bill doesn't give money to a corporation in any way, how is it a subsidy? Thanks for posting the video Tim.
        As for calling RP a "slick Willie", you better be checking out your guy before you make accusations like that. You can look up Slick Willie in the dictionary and you'll find a picture of Obama. You can write a book with all the things he has said and then quietly done the opposite.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101001].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          I also forgot to mention that voting for a tax cut to a corporation would fall in line with his tax plan.
          His plan would eliminate personal income tax and create a 15% tax rate for corporations.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101045].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            And you see no problem with this?

            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            His plan would eliminate personal income tax and create a 15% tax rate for corporations.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101069].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          A tax break can be, and is, considered a subsidy in the energy industry.

          "Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, planning consent and limits on market access."

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          When a bill doesn't give money to a corporation in any way, how is it a subsidy?
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101059].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            A tax break can be, and is, considered a subsidy in the energy industry.

            "Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, planning consent and limits on market access."

            Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            Subsidy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
            I'll take merriam-webster over wikipedia in this.
            No I see no problem with no personal income tax and a flat rate tax for corporations.
            Kim Like we've already discussed he doesn't want to end medicare or S.S. In fact if you look at his budget plan he has increased funding for both of them for his first four years.
            HE wants to make them optional tp people coming into the work force.

            Tim like what he says or not, he's honest and consistent.
            Two things you can't say about Obama.
            Wait Obama has been consistent in lying and taking away our rights so I guess he has that going for him.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101241].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              That's just your opinion. I don't see him being any more honest or consistent than Obama.

              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              Tim like what he says or not, he's honest and consistent.
              Two things you can't say about Obama.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101280].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Christopher Fox
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        OK, here's what I was referring to Thom regarding Paul supporting subsidies for the oil companies. His explanation is that he doesn't "consider them subsidies" but rather tax breaks and he is against raising taxes on anyone. LOL!! What a bunch of sugar coated BS. OK, Congressman Paul, let's just "call" them "tax breaks", or better yet, loopholes ( why didn't he say these were loopholes by the way? ), do you think oil companies really need this help from the federal government when they are making record in profits while the working class and poor are struggling to make ends meet? Shouldn't these companies pay their fair share in taxes like other industries? No, according to Paul.
        Wow. And the Paul bashing continues. With a vid, again. From MSNBC, a media outlet that is at least as far to the left as is FOX to the right, and, in my far from humble opinion, even further to the left than FOX is to the right.

        So I reserve the right to change my mind about posting in this thread. And I do so, to disspell semantic propaganda - to help you out, Tim, with definitions to words you don't seem to understand.
        • Subsidy - A subsidy is when government takes money from one entity and gives it to another entity. It is the forced redistribution of wealth. It is not a reduction in tax rates, a removal of a previous law of what an entity is allowed to legally claim as a tax deduction, nor is it what happens when legislators vote against raising taxes.
        • Tax loophole - A tax loophole is a mistake. It is an inadvertent means by which an entity can use a technicality to avoid paying the tax rate that legislators intended when they crafted the legislation. The tax rates and deductions addressed by this bill were all intentionally put into law in 2005 - none of them were loopholes.

        Get it? This bill was a bill to raise taxes on oil companies. Not to end any subsidies nor close loopholes. Further, this bill was a bill to introduce new subsidies - to take money from the oil companies and to give it to other companies. Companies like those making electric motorcycles.

        This bill was also designed to change the non-subsidized, non-loophole tax rates that were established in 2005 and voted for, by none other than Barack Obama. Where is your and MSNBC's character assassination of him? Their and your claims that he is a Slick Willy, in bed with big oil? I am sure you are not being hypocritical intentionally, but just don't understand the meaning of the words you use, like subsidy and loophole. Most people don't due to the demagoguery that comes out of Washington and the refusal of our media outlets to do their job in pointing it out.

        Left and right just keeps pushing the propaganda, fighting amongst themselves.

        The irony reigns supreme with posting a vid from MSNBC, as their parent company who owns them, GE, didn't pay any income tax at all in 2010 - I haven't looked into 2011.

        Further, these record profits are due, in large part, to the fact that there is record demand for their product. That demand increases every day. I am no big fan of huge multinational corporations. They wield way too much power and are one of the entities that buys and sells our politicians. From both sides of the aisle. You should look at who major players like GE and Goldman-Sachs gave money to in the 2008 election. And although I am sure you would have been up in arms had the head of FOX been hanging out with Bush in the Whithouse, the left is omniously quiet when the head of MSNBC, the CEO of GE, does. Just like MSNBC is suddenly okay with Gitmo and the invasion of other sovereign nations and the killing of innocent children with our bombs - no cries of impeachment, war criminal trials, etc.

        The silence is deafening.

        And while the world stood by and watched almost one million people be hacked to death with machetes in Rwanda in a few short months, suddenly we must be humanitarian and invade Lybia - with MSNBC and the left supporting that action and refusing to lather the left up into a frenzy of cries of war criminal as they did with Bush. You only need to look at this graphic depicting gold reserves per capita (Luxeomburg has quite a bit, eh? Makes me wonder why my Fox ancestors left that country) to understand why we are there, why we unleashed the fury of our military raining death and destruction and didn't do one damn thing to help Tutsis:



        And even though I am not a fan of the huge multinational corporations, people need to understand that corporations, basically, do not pay taxes. Huh?!? That's right. They don't pay them. They are another cost of business and like every other cost of business, they pass them on to the consumer. You and I pay the corporation's taxes Tim, in large part.

        Paul's explanation is accurate. And if you think that not raising an entity's tax rates is a subsidy, you are either using the wrong words, knowingly or unknowingly, or believe that all of the money in this country belongs to the government and is under the sole responsibility of 536 jerkoffs (legislators plus president) to decide how to divide it up. None of it is ours and none of us are entitled to private property rights. If the latter is the case, consider yourself in the company of such notable companions as the politburos of China and the former Soviet Union, North Korea, despotic dictators, tyrannical monarchs and military juntas of Latin America in their mirrored sunglasses and military garb.

        This guy is as slick as Slick Willie. That answer at the beginning of this interview is that of a typical politician who is for big corporations. Don't be fooled folks.
        See the above.

        I understand Warrior Forum's policy on political threads. I also understand if they choose to let one roll for a bit, as a gift to us, as it is such an engaging discussion, and one that many people like to throw their hat in the ring for, evidenced by the length of this thread. I, however, do not want to be the one responsible for getting it closed, so I will truly stay out of it from this point forward, knowing once again that my words stand on their own merit and do not need any further defense from me. Just as I did not want to deteriorate the thread by engaging in an intensive back and forth with TLTheLiberator, I do not want to engage in one with you Tim. Feel free to respond, but, again, what I have just typed is solid, accurate, and factual. There is not much that can be said in rebuttal to it.

        Let me close with this. Paul is obviously my dude. That being said, if Paul was not running and Dennis Kucinich was, I would vote for him before Romney or Obama. Despite my deeply rooted disagreements with Kucinich's political ideas. I would do this because he, like Paul, I believe to be a man of integrity. He has remained relatively free of the stranglehold that the money powers have over DC.

        Many of us in America are sick and tired of the political BS that we have been forced to engage in, our entire lives, by the demagogues in Washington and the media that play their game. They are all of one master. It doesn't matter what the outlet, be it FOX, MSNBC, Huff Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, etc., they all put forward a political bias. Some to a greater extent than others. This is not by accident. It is done so guys like you and I spend our days yelling and screaming at each other, arguing over some policy differences to keep us distracted. To keep our eyes off of the real power structure of the world.

        The Power Structure including:

        The monarchies of Europe which are not nearly as ceremonial as we believe. The Bilderberg Group and the corporations under their control, including major media outlets. Hell, David Rockefeller has thanked folks like the Washington Post for not reporting on their activities, to keep us sheeple in the dark while they march forward with their goal of turning the whole damn world into the China model. The heads of most of these multinational corporations are rotten to the core and invovled. The privately owned Federal Reserve Bank, which issues money as debt (and you won't hear MSNBC say one damn bad word about them as the Fed handed them some money from the 2008 banker bailout - neither will you hear much from FOX on the issue, or anyone else).

        It doesn't matter Tim. Bush, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, McCain, Romney, Gore, they all work for the same group. They are all controlled and put into place by the same entity that uses our military as their own Hessian Army. JFK was the last dude that tried to stand up to them, to lead a slave revolt, by issuing an Executive Order for the Treasury to begin issuing debt free currency and start dismantling the CIA - and he got a bullet in the head for it.

        And that is why they can't stand Paul. That is why they fill your head with propaganda and constantly attack his character and encourage you to do the same - both MSNBC and FOX, and all of the other major media outlets. These edicts come from the top, filters down through the producers and who they put on the air. They don't have to brainwash the pundits, rather they only hire the pundits who say what they want to hear said. The pundits that can't see through the Hegelian Dialectic employed and just spout the same tired routine of left/right garbage, while having no idea they are pawns being used in a chess game that is global in scale. They can't stand Paul because they know they can't get to him. Because they know he will use both the Presidential Pen and the Bully Pulpit to expose them, just like JFK tried to do.

        There is a reason why guys like Paul and Kucinich, dudes of drastically different political bents, have problems getting positive press coverage and both speak out openly about the private corporation, who's owners we don't know, who operates outside of the control of either the Congress or the President, issues our money as debt, controls our economy, created the Great Depression, created the financial crisis of 2008 (take a good look at where the TARP money went). They both speak out against the Fed. And they both want to end our military from being used as the private Hessian Army of the powers I identified, plus some that I didn't. And they both are maligned and have nonstop character assassinations performed upon them by the corporate media outlets - that ain't a coincidence.

        We are all entitled to our own political beliefs Tim. My closet friend, for whom I would do anything, is an avid Obama supporter - bumper stickers, yard signs, the whole shebang. As much as I disagree with him, I don't hate him, nor wish him ill, just as I don't you. But like with him, I encourage you to step away from the traditional media outlets you are accustomed to and take a fresh look at things. Do some research, temporarily put aside the partisan politics we have all been forced to ingest and regurgitate and see if you can't, for yourself, determine what is really going on in this world. What the power structure is, who controls it, and how. You might just surprise yourself and come to some different conclusions and realize that in the end, there is not a damn dime's difference between Obama, Romney, Bush, Clinton, etc.

        Don't be a willing participant of the Hegelian Dialectic, where they divide us and keep us fighting amongst ourselves so we don't figure out what is really going on ...

        And, even though it is midnight as I get ready to hit the submit reply button, I have a bat sh*t crazy 12 month old Red Heeler that doesn't grasp what time of day it is and once again is demanding my attention away from my computer, so I gotta go. Toodles.
        Signature
        One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothing can beat teamwork.

        - Seldom Seen Smith
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101925].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          It really doesn't matter on what network that video was from, what matters is the words that come out of Paul's mouth. You can call it Paul bashing, I call it showing the guy for what he is. You and Thom can choose to ignore a common definition of energy subsidies because as you both have said "Paul is my man". Good for you.

          Luckily very few people in this country agree with you guys and we'll never see what a Paul administration would look like, because Paul really has no real solutions and would be a disaster to the country.

          Plus, can you guys cut it out with the "Wows"!! lol. My view of Paul is not that unusual.

          Originally Posted by Christopher Fox View Post

          Wow. And the Paul bashing continues. With a vid, again. From MSNBC, a media outlet that is at least as far to the left as is FOX to the right, and, in my far from humble opinion, even further to the left than FOX is to the right.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6104899].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Umm, right. I've heard that meme for quite a while. I don't buy it and most American's don't either because it really is ridiculous.
          Originally Posted by Christopher Fox View Post

          realize that in the end, there is not a damn dime's difference between Obama, Romney, Bush, Clinton, etc.
          Yes, Paul talks openly about corporations and his mantra is that the government should stay out of the way of big business: no regulations, no rules and lower taxes. Do you honestly think he would do something different than that? If not, how is he any different from any other typical right wing GOP conservative?

          There is a reason why guys like Paul and Kucinich, dudes of drastically different political bents, have problems getting positive press coverage and both speak out openly about the private corporation
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6104995].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by Christopher Fox View Post

          The privately owned Federal Reserve Bank, which issues money as debt (and you won't hear MSNBC say one damn bad word about them as the Fed handed them some money from the 2008 banker bailout -
          You know Christopher, I don't dislike you of course, but your earlier post is just such a bunch of naive, arrogant sloshed BS that I could pick it apart over and over. I probably won't do so, unless I am bored like I am now, but here's just one example of how your statement bolded above is 100% wrong. I could find dozens more of MSNBC examples within minutes I'm sure but that would really be too boring to contemplate at the moment.

          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6109439].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Interesting,I'll say that. But I will still say that no matter who wins,theya re not going to get all they try to get. Too many checks and balances in the system even with things as crooked as they currently are. But even on a fair ,legit playing field none of them would get all they want.
    I actually found his stance on union busting more interesting than the word play at the beginning. Plus the statement that nobody has a "right" to health care, because I certainly feel that I do as I paid into the system for almost 40 years for that very thing.
    Now when the government stops taking money from people for that,then they can say people no longer have the right to it.

    Edit: I see Thom has posted since I started watching the video.
    I'm an advocate of a flat tax rate myself. But I think I have said that before.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101052].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    The unemployment rate is such that it ALWAYS changes!!!!!!!!!!!! After a certain point, old people fall off and are no longer counted. That means that the longer the period of nation wide unemployment, the LOWER the stated rate will be compared to the REAL rate!

    If unemployment were a real 100%, then it would eventually reach ZERO EVEN if NOBODY were hired!

    Though I would love it if someone like Ron Paul were elected, I don't feel he can be. I'll wait for rand.

    Tim, 0% 15% is ****FAR**** larger than the highest ever originally agreed on! Frankly, I think that is a decent idea. A national sales tax to REPLACE all state ones, and income taxes is also good. If I were king, I would ALSO institute an import duty based on the trade deficits. Apple's income would drop a LOT, and the government would get a large cut, *****BUT***** it would raise costs SO much that companies, like Apple, would consider hiring people in the US. In a lot of ways, China's retaliation would be foolish. IF, for example, they charged INTEL an import duty, it would REALLY hurt their electronics businesses.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101163].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Tim, 0% 15% is ****FAR**** larger than the highest ever originally agreed on!
      Yes, but frankly, that was a looonnnng time ago. Our population as a nation back then was the size of a large city now. The idea of the constitution being a living document makes a hell of a lot of sense. Those "founding fathers" had flaws.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101496].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Yes, but frankly, that was a looonnnng time ago. Our population as a nation back then was the size of a large city now. The idea of the constitution being a living document makes a hell of a lot of sense. Those "founding fathers" had flaws.
        The constructors of the document put in place a way to change it, which it has been - 27 times. That it is so difficult to change is one of the safeguards that protect us (or was supposed to protect us ) from being affected by 'issue of the day' popular sentiment.

        The U.S. Constitution was put in place specifically to limit the power and scope of the federal government. The argument that the Constitution should be a 'living document' comes from those who want to escape its confines but aren't able to do it in the proscribed manner.

        The biggest flaw I see in the execution of the ideals of the founders is the inability to escape the political/philosophical leanings of the judiciary. Every judge, IMHO, should be a 'strict constructionist'. If the letter of the Constitution does not specifically allow the federal government the power to do something, it should be denied that power.

        It is, actually, in the 10th Amendment. Lot of good that has done, though, eh?
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6105295].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Here, I'll just say ****WOW****!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101298].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    I'll say ****POW!*** and here we go for round 2! heheheheheh

    doctor lawyer indian chief

    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101395].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

      That's just your opinion. I don't see him being any more honest or consistent than Obama.
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Here, I'll just say ****WOW****!
      And here I'll just have to repeat what Steve said ****WOW***.
      Thanks for the best laugh of the night.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101405].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        OK, am I supposed to say WOW back now?

        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        And here I'll just have to repeat what Steve said ****WOW***.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101509].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          OK, am I supposed to say WOW back now?
          Sure, but I think we're both missing a couple things like.
          and a couple
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101516].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Haha. Hey, a few half dozen exclamation marks here and there help also.
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            Sure, but I think we're both missing a couple things like.
            and a couple
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6101553].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Clinton, who I liked, was actually called Slick Willie quite often.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6103713].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    All I can say is I don't see how you can say he isn't consistent since he has a very transparent record of 30 years being consistent in what he says and how he votes.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6105012].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      I didn't say he wasn't consistent Kim.
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      All I can say is I don't see how you can say he isn't consistent since he has a very transparent record of 30 years being consistent in what he says and how he votes.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6105071].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Post 586 is what I was commenting on, if I misunderstood it,my bad.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6105161].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Luckily very few people in this country agree with you guys and we'll never see what a Paul administration would look like, because Paul really has no real solutions and would be a disaster to the country.
      Just the opposite actually.
      Look right here in this thread.
      Only two people have spoke out defending Obama, you and TL.
      How many have spoke out for Ron Paul?
      If very few people agree with us why does R.P. get more donations from active military personal then the other candidates combined?
      Why does he draw crowds in the thousands when he speaks?
      Over 4,000 stood out in the rain in Philadelphia to listen to him.
      If you want to know why those numbers don't translate to the primary numbers it's because the majority in his crowds are Independents and Democrats.
      How do his 'money bombs' consistently raise over 3 million each month most coming from small donations of less then $200 from individuals?
      You are seriously underestimating the support Ron Paul has.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6105310].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Right, I just said I didn't see Paul being anymore consistent than Obama. I know, to some that may mean that I am saying Paul is inconsistent because they see Obama as being inconsistent, but that isn't how I see it.
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Post 586 is what I was commenting on, if I misunderstood it,my bad.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6105548].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Right, I just said I didn't see Paul being anymore consistent than Obama. I know, to some that may mean that I am saying Paul is inconsistent because they see Obama as being inconsistent, but that isn't how I see it.
        Obamas very consistent, never said he wasn't.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6105595].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Well, at least I understand where you are coming from. I am one of those people that see obama as very inconsistent. And if anyone remembers that far back, when he first got elected I was one of the people saying to give the guy a chance. Well,I did. As the saying goes, Fool me once shame on you,fool me twice shame on me.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6105650].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    LOL, now THAT made my day!
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6105757].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    In Obama's defense on (consistency) I can remember thinking and maybe saying here during the nomination that I really think he was sincere in his campaign promises -

    ... but that whoever won, it would be the same story as always - it wouldn't be the way they planned because whoever won would just be the newest puppet in a puppet regime.

    The same thing that always happened would happen - the left thinks of a good plan, the right makes sure they either stop it or water it down - the right thinks of a good plan and the left adds provisions that make it unacceptable. The other legislative entities nix it -

    ... it's a syndicate - so real easy to fool people - Joe Good Guy is consistent, honest, etc. but whoops he is being impeded by the process. (and really nothing he can do).

    Sometimes this can be good and of course checks and balances are appropriate - in fact conducive to getting more toward the middle (which is what I think is right) could be aided by this little dance.

    ... but then that is the perfect excuse to not follow through on promises made to the people when they had their little window of opportunity to 'vote' for what they wanted to happen, the way they wanted it to happen.

    It could all be a farce -

    = smoke and mirrors

    only the shadow knows...
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6105770].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
    I'm so sick of politcs I think I'm just going to pack a bag and move to Visit The Farm
    Signature
    Professional Googler
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6105789].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "only the shadow knows..."

    Just to take a sidetrack here....I met the man that invented the Shadow. His name was Walter Gibson but he wrote the Shadow novels under the name of Maxwell Grant.
    He also ghostwrote books and knew Harry Houdini and most of the other well known magicians of that era up until the mid 80s when he died.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_B._Gibson
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6105872].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    LOL Kim - nice shadow! I remember vaguely...

    The shadow I am referring to is the same one a Mr. A. Jones refers to in the 'shadow government'

    {hold your fire Tim }

    the same one decades earlier alluded to @ B Dylan's 'you know something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?''



    p.s. thank you for letting me know my cloak of invisibility is off - so many of my comments are ignored here it is almost like well being invisible - granted most of my comments are inane - (as in 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls%$#') - just trying to be funny which I aint or cynical/ironic which I R.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6106222].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dave Patterson
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      LOL Kim - nice shadow! I remember vaguely...

      The shadow I am referring to is the same one a Mr. A. Jones refers to in the 'shadow government'

      {hold your fire Tim }

      the same one decades earlier alluded to @ B Dylan's 'you know something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?''



      p.s. thank you for letting me know my cloak of invisibility is off - [b]so many of my comments are ignored here it is almost like well being invisible/b] - granted most of my comments are inane - (as in 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls%$#') - just trying to be funny which I aint or cynical/ironic which I R.
      Just so you know Pat...I always read your comments. You sometimes take my mind in directions I hadn't considered...in other words, you make me think.

      Sometimes that takes awhile......
      Signature
      Professional Googler
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6106298].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      LOL Kim - nice shadow! I remember vaguely...

      The shadow I am referring to is the same one a Mr. A. Jones refers to in the 'shadow government'

      {hold your fire Tim }

      the same one decades earlier alluded to @ B Dylan's 'you know something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?''



      p.s. thank you for letting me know my cloak of invisibility is off - so many of my comments are ignored here it is almost like well being invisible - granted most of my comments are inane - (as in 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls%$#') - just trying to be funny which I aint or cynical/ironic which I R.
      Your comments are never ignored Pat.
      Like Dave even if I don't comment I read them and they get me thinking in other directions at times.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6106451].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      p.s. thank you for letting me know my cloak of invisibility is off - so many of my comments are ignored here it is almost like well being invisible - granted most of my comments are inane - (as in 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls%$#') - just trying to be funny which I aint or cynical/ironic which I R.
      Just so you know . . . like Kim, Dave, and Thom, I always read your comments too. I haven't commented in this thread because ... well, let's just say I'm not that good at keeping my comments "user friendly" when it comes to politics.

      On another note, I'm amazed this thread hasn't been deleted yet.
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6106523].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Ah Pat, but I am pretty sure my shadow came up with that tag line though.

    "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of man?"
    "Only The Shadow knows...."

    The Shadow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    He was and still is one of my favorite pulp characters.
    Orson Welles played him in early radio days.
    Alec Baldwin played him in a movie in the 1990s,but it was a terrible movie.

    Boy, if he was around nowadays we wouldn't have this corrupt xorporations and government.

    PS: I always read your posts!
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6106290].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Thank you guys - your comments mean a lot to me.

    I think you are all the BALM! I treasure your friendship and am always keen to read what you have to say too!

    You should all be president!

    Look Ma I am not invisible!!!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6106738].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      Thank you guys - your comments mean a lot to me.

      I think you are all the BALM! I treasure your friendship and am always keen to read what you have to say too!

      You should all be president!

      Look Ma I am not invisible!!!
      What? I'm sorry, did you say something
      (you knew someone would say it)
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6106937].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      Thank you guys - your comments mean a lot to me.

      I think you are all the BALM! I treasure your friendship and am always keen to read what you have to say too!

      You should all be president!

      Look Ma I am not invisible!!!
      I don't think I've ever been called the BALM before.

      I hope it isn't an acronym for Blathering Addlebrained Loser Man.
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6107160].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    No Dennis - but I make the point 'BALM' because people think the expression is 'you are the BOMB' (which is really not usually a good thing, i.e., atomic bomb, stink bomb, etc).

    Now BALM is like soothing, healing etc.

    no blathering intended!

    lol.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6107385].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      OK, so here's MSNBC talking about Ron Paul winning ( or at least tying ) in Iowa and Minnesota. I guess I will have to stop saying Paul hasn't won a primary or caucus yet as it seems he has at least won or tied in Iowa and Minnesota. Anyways, the point I wanted to make is that I think it's somewhat a myth that the media is ignoring or biased against Paul. This isn't getting much media attention for the same reason Santorum didn't get much media play when he was declared winner in Iowa back in late January. Also, there is a very interesting Pew report on media reporting of the presidential race so far this year. I'll post that link soon.

      Here's the video:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EfS1x5RnZZQ
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6108950].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Interesting clip, but it was cut off mid report.
    But I am with you on this one Tim, I find MSNBC to report on both sides of the issues.
    Some say they are as far left as Fox is right, and admittedly some of their shows are out there,but for overall reporting I think its one of the best places to get both sides of a story.

    Of course, I still don't buy the "too big to fail" crap. The government should never have done the bailout,imo. But that's another story.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6110924].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      I believe there is a part two Kim.

      I agree with you about MSNBC, which is surely slanted to one side but they do offer other opinions and also do some really good old fashioned journalism imo.
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Interesting clip, but it was cut off mid report.
      But I am with you on this one Tim, I find MSNBC to report on both sides of the issues.
      Some say they are as far left as Fox is right, and admittedly some of their shows are out there,but for overall reporting I think its one of the best places to get both sides of a story.

      Of course, I still don't buy the "too big to fail" crap. The government should never have done the bailout,imo. But that's another story.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6122236].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ScooterDaMan
    I find this discussion amusing and will not offer my political opinions. I write for a very well ranked political blog under a pseudonym that I will keep private.

    I will say that the perception of which network is or is not biased is entirely a matter of how biased you are one way or another. If the network tends to mirror your views, they seem "normal" and not at all biased. If they don't, they are either way too far right or way too far left.

    Sorry; but I find this stuff very entertaining. I LOVE this time of the four year cycle!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6118763].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    So since I say a network isn't biased one way or another,what does that make me?
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6118838].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6119158].message }}

Trending Topics