So very wrong about the Democrats.

More accurate: let's serve our rich masters in a different way that recognizes that if you openly campaign for fucking the poor, they may vote for you sometimes (because Americans are notorious for voting against their interests), but they may also decide to fuck you (which is why we have Social Security, unemployment insurance, and other New Deal legislation rather than a Depression-era revolution). I've always thought Republicans were way more honest about whose interests they serve than are Democrats. In both cases, though, it's not my interests.

Looks like the cost is starting to make everybody unhappy.

Because doctors don't want a load of bureaucratic BS to get between them and their patients.

This is obviously full of emotion and devoid of any objectivity. To which no response will be heard.

According to the polls, about 10% of Americans want to health care bill to stay as it is, and 56% want it repealed. Put that in your calculator.

I would think that a lot of the resistance to any US universal healthcare is fear of the unknown. I've read and heard the debate in many different media and there seems to be a lot of fearmongering on both the pro and con sides.

I have said to you and others on this forum before, I admit capitalism isn't for everyone. But here in America, that's what we have. You never told me which country you would rather live in. So let's start with France.
Read the rest here: http://matadornetwork.com/notebook/destination-guides/how-to-move-to-paris-with-no-money
Bon voyage.

When did I ever say I was for corporate welfare? I think bailing out car companies and financial institutions is ok, as long as it's in the form of a loan, and they don't try and take over the company's operations. As for funding the military industry, it's not welfare if it's paying for goods and services.

It goes against the Constitution. The government can regulate actions such as driving or commerce etc, but the government cannot regulate inaction, such as deciding not to buy health care.

You can't make everybody happy, so that's going to be pretty damn expensive. And the republican's philosophy is more like teach a person to fish rather than giving them a handout.

Once again, Tracy proves that Tracy will twist anything in an attempt to prove a point. This undoubtedly comes from the latest Rasmussen poll, released today (February 21, 2010).

Here's what it says on the Rasmussen Reports own page:

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 56% favor repeal of the health care law, including 43% who Strongly Favor repeal. Forty percent (40%) oppose repeal of the law, including 27% who are Strongly Opposed."

Regarding Rasmussen, other pollsters who have never been accused by anyone of having a bias often speak of Rasmussen as being biased. Many news organizations -- also, not Fox or MSNBC, but ones that are not typically accused of having a bias -- will not cite Rasmussen polls because the surveys it conducts are automated (known as IVRs for "interactive voice response") rather than the kind of live telephone interview polls that are used by organizations like Gallup, Pew Research, Quinnipiac University, and the major newspapers and television networks.

During 2010 election polling, some Rasmussen polls were revealed to have asked only self-identified Republican voters about congressional races. Do you think the Republican would come out on top in such polls? :yes:

TLB Forum Members, you must read very carefully to uncover the Tracy Coxx method of deflecting a point that Tracy can't really answer. I started the questioning about corporate welfare, specifically putting it in the Tracy context: Tracy writing baseless things about indolent people who are presumably on welfare and a major cause of the condition of the U.S. government's finances. I posed a question: will Tracy state unequivocally that all corporate welfare must end? All the subsidies, special tax loopholes, etc., all of which exist because the corporations buy these laws via the politicans they own -- of BOTH parties.

Tracy doesn't answer. As his Tracy's wont, Tracy answers questions with questions: "When did I ever say __________?" (fill in the blank).

This method is meant to dissemble, not enlighten. It is meant to avoid, not discuss. It is meant to hide, not defend one's views.

Review all of Tracy's posts, and you will find this method running like a thread through them.

Tracy,

You wrote: “I have said to you and others on this forum before, I admit capitalism isn't for everyone. But here in America, that's what we have. You never told me which country you would rather live in. So let's start with France.” To deal with stupid issues first: you are diverting attention from the issue at hand by brushing me off because I don’t live in a fair country. Stating that accomplishes nothing, Tracy. But I’ll answer anyway and the answer is in two parts. 1) I would prefer to live in my homeland of Puerto Rico, but I would like this country to belong to its people. For it to belong to me and my compatriots it is necessary that the American Empire leave us alone. Further, it is necessary for private industry to stop exploiting my brothers. My country is a colony of the American Empire. How ironic! The 13 colonies that rebelled against empire and became a nation is now an empire itself! 2) I shouldn’t have to move somewhere else—and neither should anybody else have to move—because no country has the right to exploit its people.

To expand further on the quote provided: the attitude expressed by the quote is easily summarized as “fuck the poor.” “It’s not for everyone. It’s poor people’s fault they are poor. They like being poor. What other explanation is there for it?” Do you think people should just accept their exploitation? Capitalism isn’t for everyone but it still depends on a pool of easily exploited people. Capitalism is only for the ruling class. Everyone else is treated like an object, like a tool, like an inferior. You are telling people to be quiet because, after all, “in America, [capitalism is] what we have.” You shrug your shoulders and you shrug off any responsibility for the well-being of your compatriots.

Further, your directing me to France is part of the childish and ridiculous disdain people like you have for social democracies. Sending me off to France in no way addresses the inequalities of my homeland and the inequalities of the US.

And Tracy, stop it with these ridiculous tricks. I never said you were for corporate welfare. I asked you if you were for corporate welfare. I wanted an answer from you.

The military industrial complex is a beast fed by corporate welfare. It is a perpetual war machine. Why should companies receive money but not people in need? Does it all really come down to “people don’t make goods and services”? “Never mind them because they don’t make me rich”? Which is all to say: is it an attitude that dehumanizes people and objectifies them as cogs in the corporate machine and when said cogs can’t work anymore we throw them out?

Smc, Enoch, Randolph and others… You really aren’t going to be able to “win” this one. I have been monitoring this thread (and similar ones) for quite a while now. Tracy has the game down pat and no matter how well thought out, logical or well presented your arguments are you will never get her to admit you are right. Any more than Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, or Rush Limbaugh would.

This “discussion” is not political discourse--there is no debate of “ideas.” And no attempt at resolution or understanding. There is only name calling, “I didn’t say that,” and recitation of right wing partisan “talking points” and dubious facts that any 12 year old could learn from listening to Rush Limbaugh. False choices are often presented as well: “where would you rather live than the US?” is not really a valid question. It completely omits the fact that the person objecting to capitalist greed, lack of universal health care, racism, homophobia, etc. may want to STAY in the US--indeed they have a RIGHT to live in the US as a citizen--only to want to make things better.

I was raised in a conservative Republican home and read Ayn Rand at a very early age. My degrees include an MBA and a minor in Economics so please, spare me your attempts at “educating” me. As I have gotten older and seen the failures of our socioeconomic system I have developed a much more inclusive view of the world that includes a greater role of government. At the same time I am a champion of individual rights and freedom. As you might expect, I have very complex views on many subjects and enjoy a friendly discussion of genuine “ideas” with people I know and respect.

Unfortunately, these threads are not the place for that. I for one am tired of logging on to TLB only to see “Ronald Reagan,” or “Liberal Free for All…” or whatever at the top of the page when it should say something like “Kelly Shore and Rakel Rodriguez Together” or “Support for Victims of Violence” or even “RU Gay 4 Liking Shemales.” Who knows, I could be totally wrong about all of this. I for the most part, have totally ignored these postings before and will continue to do so once again.

You are absolutely correct. The ONLY value of "engaging" Tracy (and I realize that using the word "engaging" is an insult to the real engagement that goes on in genuine discourse) is the value that accrues to those who read but do not post, and who may -- even if only a bit -- figure out that drivel such as that spewed in these threads again and again warrants at least a critical eye, not the fealty to ignorance that tends to accompany the statement of such drivel.

Who?
 

OK all you passionate political posters, let's see who can identify the author of the following passage.

It's from Ayn Rand.

Big deal. :p

Agreed.

aw9725: you are completely correct. There is no real substantive discussion going on here. There is no exciting exchange of ideas. But this is because Tracy brings no substance whatever to this thread or other threads, no substance whatever to the forum as a whole. You, smc, randolph and myself try our best to bring real ideas. Tracy only brings half-baked tirades about...everything. And when two--or however many people are involved in a discussion--people in a discussion do not both bring real ideas the discussion breaks down.

But while this is by no means a real discussion as may be had by, say, biological evolutionists about the placement of a fossil in the evolutionary tree, it is precisely due to the vapid nature of Tracy's post that some of us counter her. I, for one, do not do this for her sake. I do it for the sake of the readers and members of this forum. To paraphrase Bill Maher: in America bullshit spreads real fast and you have to get in there quick to get rid of it before it reaches critical mass.

smc: Fealty to ignorance. Love that phrase. I'm stealing it for my short stories...

A selfish bitch who is more interested in self-glorification than empowering and educating people?

...That's what Ayn Rand means in Ta?no, right?...

What I was going to point out is that Ayn Rand is worshiped by conservatives. Her concept of the ego centered individual indulging in a "free market" is the center piece of Reagan and subsequent Republican Presidents. It was further fostered by Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan.
The US was founded on "We the people". The founders understood the principle of cooperation for mutual benefit, WE will do it. The turmoil building in this country is the direct result of conservatives diminishing the public for personal benefit.

Ayn Rand-The biggest philosophy poser of all time.

I agree with you on that, and I do find it hypocritical that the US treats your country the way it was treated over 200 years ago by England. I do not have any firsthand knowledge about what things are like there, but I do know that Puerto Ricans are able to leave their country, but you want to stay in the hope that Puerto Rico will one day belong to it's people. Fine. More power to the people of Puerto Rico. Seriously. But who knows when or if this will ever happen. Knowing this, things are at least good enough for you to want to stay none the less.

As I said in the Reagan thread, I think your views of life in America are tainted by your experiences in Puerto Rico. If not, are you saying things here are like they are there? The other explanation you asked for is there are obviously people in America who are all for socialism. I am not denying that, and my quote is my recognition that I'm not going to change their minds. There are several other countries they can go to where they will be as happy as frogs in a swamp. But here they are a square peg in a round hole. This is a capitalist country, and hopefully it will remain a capitalist country despite BO's promise to fundamentally change America. It not my recommendation that the poor find another country. It is my recommendation that people in a capitalist country who can't stand capitalism find another country. My link to the article about how to do that when you have no money was in response to an earlier comment you made that it is often cost prohibitive.

Let's stop speaking in generalities. Who in America is being exploited so we can at least talk about specific cases.

Well it is in fact a capitalist country. If other countries want socialism fine. Let them have at it. But there is a place on Earth were we're capitalists - for all those who want to live in a capitalist country, there is a choice - the USA. There is no iron curtain. We don't keep people here against their will to live as capitalists.

Let's say there's a nudist colony of people living there and doing their thing. Then someone is raised in the colony, grows up and decides being a nudist isn't for her. She becomes a nun and has all her preconceptions about the evil nudists, spouting off how things should be in her eyes and how she feels like a 2nd class citizen in nudist land. Should the nudist colony change to accommodate the nun? No. She should admit that being a nudist isn't her thing and hey, there's a whole world of fully clothed bible thumpers out there. Why not go there?

No.

Stop with these ridiculous tricks. I never said that people in need should not receive any aid. In fact, I said:
There are other avenues for people in need to get help. It doesn't always have to come from the government. In 2006, Americans have donated $295 billion to charities. The amount donated has been rising about 150% faster than the economy for more than 50 years. Americans have been much more generous than other countries to charities. Again, companies receive money for goods and services. If they received money as a charity, and not as a loan, then that would be welfare. Do you see the difference?

lol no. Of course people make goods and services, and when they do they receive a salary. And as for the predictable response of why their salaries are so much lower than the CEOs? I explained it in the Reagan thread.

I like Ayn Rand. A rare atheist conservative like me.

Tracy and I agree on something! The two books I read were Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Both when I was in my teens. :respect:

Like what other countries? Bangladesh, Burma, Burundi, Haiti, Liberia, Nicaragua or others who have real issues to survive? With that you try to put the USA in a perspective that is not true.
I said it before http://forum.transladyboy.com/showth...065#post164103
Only the total amount of money can look good. And this is only because you have a high population with a high GDP/GDI. With these facts you always look not so good, as country or per citizen.
But you have statistics where you are at top and mostly #1, like military expenses (total nearly 50% of the world military expenses and second per GDP), most prisoners (total and incarceration), crime rates that can compared to the worst countries in the world, the highest health costs of all, and not to talk about your eco-balance.

I read her book "Anthem" written in 1937. Her writing reflected the times. Many people thought communism was the wave of the future, she strongly disagreed. She grew up in Russia during the revolution and the takeover by the Bolsheviks. She saw the brutality, the oppression and the lack of freedom of a collectivist society. It strongly colored her future writing.
In my opinion, her writing is somewhat adolescent and rather naive. She doesn't understand the essence of humanity which is cooperative effort. She is basically sociopathic in her out look. I guess that's why she is popular with conservatives.

I am well aware of how Rand is received by liberals in academia. Whatever your interpretation of Rand, at least as a teenager, I was intrigued and influenced by the potential of the “individual” to make a difference in society. I have always been strongly independent and reading about characters such as John Galt or Hank Rearden appealed to me. As did the strong women in their lives. This strength of character is neither “right” nor “left” politically. My own beliefs about Rand may have indeed changed over the years. After all, in another thread on here, someone else calls me a “liberal professor”! :lol:

Anyway, I’m not sure that “Atlas Shrugged” would have the same impact on me today as it did when I was 17. Randolph makes some good points about what is "wrong" with much of her writing and philosophy. You are free to ridicule Rand all you want in this thread. However I would ask that you not attack me personally--unless you would like to meet in “real life” to discuss it.

After March 5 I have decided that I will no longer be participating on TLB. I have enjoyed getting to know some of you and hope that you will continue to keep in touch via email.

Andy :cool:

attack?
 

Andy I am not aware of personally attacking you at any time in any post. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the above quote. I sincerely hope you change your mind, your posts are well thought out and add to the forum.

Just like the democrats in congress, the Wisconsin democrats have to use dirty underhanded, even illegal methods to get their agenda passed. Albeit they've gone much further than the ones in congress and actually have warrants out for their arrest!

It amazes me how many times democratic organizations and politicians try to skirt procedures and laws to push their agenda. Ranging from back room, midnight sessions to pass major legislation to staging a walkout to stop a vote. There was also a walkout in Texas' congress several years ago, guess which side... the democrats. And then there's groups like ACORN whose modus operandi includes election fraud and aid for whore houses, or the ACLU protecting the rights of organizations like NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Democratic congressmen openly try and set the stage to allow illegal aliens to vote. The democratic unions and politicians in Wisconsin want to push their agenda to the point of putting their state in debt and forcing layoffs. Just do your job, represent your people and show up and vote.

Surly Tracy you can come up with more bad things Democrats are fond of doing and yes the ACLU is another awful organization. Unions of course harbor criminals and other bad types. And LIBERALS, gasp, oh horrors! How can upright honest decent conservative Republicans stand to live in the same country with all this riff raff. It's truly disgusting. Oh, by the way, Tracy did you know that there are actually poor conservatives that have criminal records and quite a few are in JAIL. OMG how can that happen? Surely it is the result of a liberal conspiracy to secretly do away with conservatives. Something has to be done to protect conservatives from this relentless thrust by evil LIBERALS to take over the country. :lol::lol::lol:

Tracy Coxx is a master of telling you only parts of a story, or simply repeating drivel that has been refuted by reputable investigations and news organization (that is, pretty much anyone other than Fox "News" and WorldNetDaily.

The statements about ACORN are right-wing drivel. Whatever one thinks of ACORN, concerted election fraud and aid for whorehouses is nothing but far-right talking points, baseless drivel. Tracy loves to repeat such crap, knowing how easy it is to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet and get away with spewing bullshit.

Tracy wants you to think that only Democrats employ the walkout strategy, because if Tracy told the truth Tracy would have to reveal that this is a tactic used by both sides. History, though, gets in the way when you insist -- as does Tracy -- on having your own "facts" (that is, not real facts, but the things you want people to believe). But facts are a tenacious thing; they tend to stick around:

• California Assembly, 1994: When the Assembly was evenly split, 40-40, between Democrats and Republicans, the Republican members refused to show up for floor sessions in an effort to prevent Democrats from electing Willie Brown as speaker with less than a majority vote. The Republicans stayed out for several days but finally relented in January 1995.
  
• Nevada Senate, 1999: In a complicated conflict over privatization of workers' compensation, the entire Republican majority left the chamber in the middle of a night session in anger over a speech by a Democrat. The minority Democrats who remained in the chamber issued a call of the house. The sergeant-at-arms was able to round up enough Republicans to make a quorum, and the Democrats proceeded to pass two bills. Later that day, the Republicans returned and, after a motion to reconsider by two of the Republicans who had been compelled to attend, overturned the Senate's actions on those bills.

Regardless of what one thinks about these tactics, or about either of the parties, the truth ought to be told. There are, by the way, examples going all the way back to Lincoln and the Illinois legislature.

Tracy doesn't mention how yesterday, in the Ohio legislature, a bill seeking to take away collective-bargaining rights from public employees was pushed through by the Republican majority in an underhanded manner. Some Republicans didn't want to go along with their leadership, so they were removed from committees on which they had votes and where they might have opened a debate and stopped the bill from proceeding so quickly and replaced by any other Republican who would vote the way the leadership wanted. This happened in two committees and the votes then took place in the course of an hour. This enabled the legislation to get to the floor, where it passed by one vote. Several historians of parliamentary procedure have already noted that this is the most underhanded maneuver they've seen in a state legislature in decades. These Republicans who disagee with their leadership were denied the right to read the legislation and debate it. As one Republican Ohio legislator noted, his party did the same thing the national Republicans accused the Democrats of doing with the healthcare bill in Congress!

If you want to understand Tracy's behavior, look up "GIFT" -- the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. I apologize in advance for the use of "fuckwad" by those who first articulated this theory, but it does explain what we see again and again in this and the other drivel-filled threads Tracy starts on this site.

The conservatives are determined, by hook or crook, to seversly weaken the middle class. Their financial masters (Koch bothers) pour money into elections to get their lackeys elected. Unionized workers are among the few that have seen their wages stay ahead of inflation. Most workers have not seen gains in wages (adjusted for inflation) for many years.
Granted, there is a severe problem with excessively generous retirement benefits. Our local county is spiraling deeper and deeper into debt as a result of retirement benefits granted to firemen and police officers. Who is at fault in this? It seem to me, its the fault of the dumbass officials that failed to look into the future costs of the plans they approved. :frown:

I'm saddened to see you fall into this trap of "blaming" -- whether implicitly or explicitly -- working people for the current situation. Police, firemen, teachers, and other public workers are simply demanding what is theirs already. A pension is not a gift; it is part of the wage/benefit package that was negotiated contractually. And it is the very, very, very rare pension plan indeed that does not include a significant contribution from the worker herself or himself. So, all these public employees are demanding is to be paid the money that is THEIRS!

Why are counties, cities, and states so strapped? Not because the amount os the pensions are out of line. It is because the money was LOST. And who lost it? The very Wall Street bankers who, enabled by the politicians they own, used this money in their casino -- a casino that nearly brought down this country economically. They ran, and continue to run, a massive financial fraud and not a single one is under indictment or behind bars.

Put the blame where it belongs. Once we do that, we can begin the process of recovering the money stolen from working people by these criminals.

Certainly, workers earn and deserve a just retirement. However, the evidence suggests that at the time the retirement plan was negotiated, the ultimate costs were not projected. The plans were extremely generous, far beyond what would be considered reasonable.
The question is it justified to give some one a retirement higher than his final salary? Is it justified to play games with work time to raise the retirement even more? In the case of Riverside County, there is no evidence the money was "lost" it seems to be a case of bad fiscal planning and management.

I'm even more saddened, now. You should review the meaning of the word you use, "just." Whether the plans were "far beyond ... reasonable" is at best a secondary point, and one that is worthy of consideration for future pension agreements. The primary point is one of ownership, as in ownership of the money that is being withheld. It does not belong to Riverside County; it belongs to the workers. And so, I ask, is it "just" to keep it from them? And if it simply does not exist to give to them, is it "just" to blame them for wanting what is rightfully theirs?

SMC The employees have a right to whatever was negotiated with the County. I am not blaming the employees for the lack of funds necessary to pay their retirements. Riverside County finances depend to a large extent on development fees and taxes. Development has crashed in this area resulting in severe economic distress for the County. As with other government agencies they spend more they can bring in. I doubt any agency keeps its retirement program fully funded at all times regardless of the current economy. Consequently, the County is faced with a future shortfall in its retirement system.
Is it fair that the taxpayers will ultimately be required to fork up the money to pay for these very generous retirements approved by County administraters? Needless to say Riverside County voters are thoroughly pissed off.

No, it's not fair that taxpayers -- working people themselves -- should bear the brunt of this. As I wrote earlier, the answer, as far-fetched as it may seem, lies in addressing the criminal behavior of those who are truly responsible for the problem. There is MORE THAN ENOUGH money to pay these pensions, pay for universal healthcare, free college tuition for every American, daycare, job training, ... you name it. The problem is not how much money there is, but who has stolen it and continues to hoard it, and who enables this on the criminals' behalf (Democrats and Republicans alike).

The first step is to acknowledge the truth. I'm still waiting for that from you, Randolph. Based on what you've written many times, I'm finding it difficult to understand why it's taking so long. I recognize that you are probably one of those Riverside County taxpayers. But at the same time that you angrily accept your fate -- to have to pay for these pensions -- is it not possible to acknowledge that in doing so you are being stolen from by the very people who should be giving back the money for those pensions?

SMC In various posts, I have complained bitterly about the rape of the working class by the Wall Street banks and the complicity of our Federal government. Why aren't these criminals in jail? The laws are configured to punish the little guys while hoards of lawyers are able to get the rich off when and if they are charged with crimes. The horrendous loss of 401K savings by working people should be addressed by a heavy tax on the obscene profits accumulated by the rich investors. These funds would then be used to restore at least some of the 401K losses.

You must have a democrat financial advisor. Why didn't you invest in the same thing the rich guys did? My 401K never went below its inital start and is worth today what it was before the big crash. Now it did lose. It was worth more when the market was at 14,000 , but that was un-sustainable. Today the market is 12,000? and my value is the same now, maybe a little more, than it was at 12,000 before. Stock market values only count on the day you cash out. Anything else is just paper.

That's right, and that's why I did not expect you to join the chorus of those who seek to divert attention away from the real culprits.

Note to all: "democrat" as used above in the quote has nothing to do with this discussion, and Fran knows it.

Yeah, but I had to get to work...

absolutely!

Yes, of course there are conservatives in jail, but they aren't politicians are they? Well maybe a couple are, but I'm talking about how politicians in office and political organizations operate, not random citizens who find themselves in jail.

Exactly!

Wow, it's even easier simply to agree with sarcastic remarks that the OP doesn't really believe than to regurgitate the asinine and factually incorrect "talking points" of your typical posts, isn't it, Tracy?

Randolph should think twice before becoming an enabler. :lol:

SMC Hey, the only enabling I would like to do would be enabling a cute shemale to cum all over my tonsils.
Gulp, gag, cough, swallow, oh so yummy! :rolleyes:

The reason why Obamacare was such a Democatic victory is that over the years, democrats and republicans are going to share leadership time, hippies will buy cadillacs and rednecks will grow long hair, and the Supreme Court will sway from liberal to conservative. But Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, these have roots that are here to stay.
With the decline of the 30 year job, and the 30 year mortgage, the middle class is losing solid ground. There was a survey done that found that people who make over 75 grand a year are HAPPY, and people who make less than 75 grand a year are UNHAPPY. No wonder the large percentage of people hate all government. Something's got to give, whether it be legalized pot, or war with Mexico. Cheap labor is the new OIL.

What you see is what you get
 

Another used car salesman in the spotlight, this guy forgot to spray his bald spot after he shined his shoes. Make sure the camera catches his front, because his haircut has a hole in it. Look out for him in 2012.

Buddy Hey legalized pot! Perhaps if the politicians had a little pot, they wouldn't be so interested in going to war. Oh wait! If we took over Mexico, the pot would cheaper and the immigrant problem would go away. But first, we should take over Canada, they have more oil and good healthcare. :lol:

I considered that, but the Republicans would object to war with Canada, cause they speak American there.

Gasp, do you really think Canadians speak American?
I think Ila will have something to say about that.

Your country has tried it several times before and always lost. You might as well give up any future attempts. The only reason Canada hasn't taken over the US is because we don't need the trillions in debt that your country is amassing.

You are most definitely right, randolph. We speak correct English here and not American.

Polar bears can speak English? :eek: ;)

You bet. I've heard that some penguins are good at it too. ;):lol:

Maybe Ila has something going up there that we don't know about. ;)

Randolph should think twice before becoming an enabler. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Close; Randolph is a provocateur~.

Close; Randolph is a provocateur~.[/quote]

I would love to meet a shemale that says "aboot". :lol:

[I would love to meet a shemale that says "aboot". :lol:[/QUOTE]

Can't help you there. Ya looking for a "bluenoser".

Can't help you there. Ya looking for a "bluenoser".[/quote]

I think it's too cold up there. I am going to head South and look for a "hot tamale" that says "si". :lol:

Ahhh, Tea Party America. :rolleyes:

Tax cuts for the rich. :frown:

Now come on Randolph just listen to the GOP they claim it's vital for the rich to get all the cuts as they create the jobs

So why is unemployment at an all time high?
There tried answer is blame the Dems and to fix everything is simple just keep cutting taxes for the rich
Oh by the way the reason the goverment is bankrupt is because of intitlements not W's two wars and the massive joblosses durning W's eight years
Oh don't forget that's it the UNIONS fault that a lot of states are now in the red
So we now have the cry cut taxes for the rich end entitlements and destroy all unions and everything will be great
in others words Reagenonic round 3 so all the non rich just bend over while the GOP does it agian and we get :coupling:
:frown: Jerseygirl Jen

Listen to this girl Randolf, she's pretty smart. Just a couple of things though Jen, you can probably call Gulf War II Bush's war, even though both houses voted for it, and it had unanimous support in the UN, but you're calling the Afghanistan war Bush's war? Didn't Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have something to do with that? And I would hardly characterize an average 5% unemployment rate during Bush's terms as massive joblosses. It's the best unemployment rate since the late 60s.

OK Here is a proposal.
Fran, Jen, Tracy, SMC and Randolph get together at a Southie bar in Boston for libations and political discussion.
Fran would take bets on who would get thrown out of the bar first. :lol:

Is the point to be thrown out of the bar? Where's the fun in that?

Oh well, my attempts at a little humor have failed again. :confused:

My god, did you think I was being serious? I was asking "tongue-in-cheek."

In any case, were the point to be thrown out of the bar first, I assure you that I know the buttons to push in Southie that would win me the "honors." However, I would prefer to lose so I could stay in the bar and get shitfaced.

Yep, that's where the humor is, discussing politics while shitfaced.
I've tried that a few times, we end up agreeing on having another drink. :lol:

If I find myself at a table in a bar with drinks and Fran, political debate is the last thing I'm thinking about.

The California economy is NOT improving in spite of optimistic prognostications from Washington and New York. Employment is 250,000 LOWER than it was ten years ago. Food Stamp demand is increasing in the area where I liv (Riverside County) and is higher than any where else in the US.
This is in spite of billions of tax money poured into banks and financial institution, ostensibly to "stimulate" the economy. It appears most of the stimulus money has gone into the stock market, making millions of profits for investors but not doing much for the economy.
The other problem is the price of gasoline. California is a commuter economy. The economy is extremely sensitive to the price of gasoline. A major escalation in price will severely and prevent any economic recovery in California.

I know how you feel Randolph. I live in the pomona area and gas is ridiculous. I do know of 2 people that have lost their jobs because they cannot commute to work and make it a worthwhile. Gas costs more than what they are actually making. I filled up my tank with $67 the other day. :censored: I'm hoping it doesn't get as bad as it did in the summer of 2008.

Yes, too much money goes to the educate system (I'm preparing for a hate mail on this one), prison systems, unions and government workers. And brown wants to extend taxes in June!?!?! oh hell no!!! Californians.. please say NO to tax increases!!!

During the coming presidential campaign you will probably be asked: "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" You can bet it will not be Obama asking that question.

Well, I would have to agree with much of what you say. California is over regulated, overly bureaucratic and the legislature is corrupt. Infrastructure is disintegrating while urban renewal funds are spent on things the Board of Supervisors can brag about. Like fancy sports complexes and expensive community centers that have their names plastered on them. Aarggg!

Yeah, 'they' are building a football stadium in the diamond bar/walnut area and 'they' are also trying to build another sports stadium in LA. One of the people who was for the LA stadium said something along the lines, "traffic will be no problem, the LA freeways can handle about twice as many cars than what it has right now." I guess he/she has never driven down the 10 freeway at 6pm on a weekday. :censored:

Hey, anybody working for the arms industry should be very happy with Obama. He is the biggest Presidential arms dealer in recent memory. The Wikileaks documents spell it out in Fortune magazine. Two hundred and fifty thousand workers here in the US are working full time making weapons for international trade. Of course, Israel get top of the line.

I can honestly say i'm doing better as for the last two years i got a pay raise along with an cost of living increase thanks to our union

While back in the W years it was pay freezes and a pay cut, we accepted the pay cut to aviod layoffs

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Always true to your talking points... Are YOU better off than you were 4 years ago?

That's great. Looks like all your hard work paid off. Or was it just an automatic raise that comes with being part of a union? In other words did the dems pay for your vote with my taxes?

Yep, sitting on my nest egg (stayed on the sidelines during the boom).

Oh ok, I thought you were saying that ...

Obama should declare MARTIAL: LAW in Detroit and have a new MANHATTAN PROJECT invent a car that lasts 40 years and runs on french fry grease. Made by the army. Costing 10 grand each for the safest, most economical greenest reliable smartest vehicle ever made. Waiting for the World to fall out of love with oil takes too long.

In the good old days we had strong active unions that supported the Democratic Congressmen. Their influence helped moderate big business support of the Republican Congressmen. Decisions by Congress were usually a compromise between the two. This strengthen and maintained the well being of the working middle class.
Foreign competition along with persistent effort by the Republicans and big business, has essentially eliminated the union movement, except for some public employees. Consequently, both parties and all congressmen are now beholden to big business. The working middle class and especially the poor, have no influence in Congress. This does not bode well for the Nation.
Just look at the billions of taxpayer money poured into the financial institutions to bail them out, supposedly to get the economy going again. Well, much of it has gone into the stock market enriching the very people who created the crash. The market will crash again, the taxpayers will be stuck again. But will there be a next time?
Isn't time the American public stood up and said enough is enough?

What about discussing politics butt ass naked? Would that result in buttseks?

How does my pay raise increase your taxes? I'm not a state employee or goverment employee i'm a bank teller

And before you ask the bank i work for didn't not get part of the bail out
And fyi our raises are mostly based on merit and job preformance
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Now that could be fun as we let it all hang out

:lol: Jerseygirl Jen

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;179191lf War II Bush's war, even though both houses voted for it, and it had unanimous support in the UN, but you're calling the Afghanistan war Bush's war? Didn't Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have something to do with that? And I would hardly characterize an average 5% unemployment rate during Bush's terms as massive joblosses. It's the best unemployment rate since the late 60s.[/QUOTE]



You forgot to mention that W and his crew lied there A$$ES of to both houses
and your average 5% is another shellgame played on the public from the liar W you forget that he was always calling up the reserves to go fight so they left there jobs to go fight creating a ton of temp jobs taking people of the unemployment line and W as usual lied at the numbers and FOX news helped sell the shell game
In truth W lost more jobs then he created and more people fell in to poverty
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Are there going to be some rules or shall we just have a drunken orgy? :drool:;)

Like under the boardwalk? on a hot summers night :innocent:


:cool: Jerseygirl Jen

We don't have a boardwalk here so I guess we will have to meet in New Jesey. Umm, who is going to provide the drinks? :innocent:

Ok ok. Congrats then. I was thinking it was a cost of living increase.

And you forgot to mention:

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

lol... let's get this straight... This month unemployment dropped .1% to 8.9 meaning that 192,000 people found work. If we do the math, you're saying the 3.9% gain in unemployment since Bush is due to almost 7.5 million troops coming home? Holy crap, I never knew we had so many troops over there!

The difference between the Clinton-era statements on Iraq and the ones from the Bush Administration are obvious. Tracy Coxx, though -- as is typical -- conveniently ignores this in Tracy Coxx's usual way. Instead of responding to the charge of Bush lies, Tracy posts things to divert attention away from what Jen raised.

Unfortunately for Tracy, as has been demonstrated time and again on this site, the truth has a nasty habit of not going away. Fortunately for Tracy, the anonymity of the Internet affords the opportunity to ignore the truth and just keep spewing bullshit without ever having to face (literally) anyone else in the discussion. So, unlike what might happen in a school setting, where this kind of crap would be put to rest pretty quickly, we have to give up bandwidth for more of Tracy's prevarication and not-so-clever diversions.

A LIE:

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

The above is the famous Judith Miller baloney that was debunked.

A LIE:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

The CIA had already told Bush this wasn't true, but he said it anyway.

A LIE:

"[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

While intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early 1990s, they never found any proof of an ongoing relationship. Language was "tweaked" so Bush and Tenet could present a lie.

A LIE: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including a report from the State Department's intelligence wing -- declared to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

Shall I go on? There are upwards of 200-plus lies that have been documented about Iraq by the Bush Administration.

Bush and his buddies could be considered consequentialists. That is, they believed, "the end justifies the means". It is OK to lie, distort, kill, cheat, whatever, in order to achieve the desired objective. In this case, it was the removal of Saddam and the achievement of economic control over Iraq.

At the end of the day, the real question is:

Which side are you on?

In this thread, a lot of the posters seem to be on the side of the guy on the left, even though that side cares nothing about their interests.

Go figure ... :confused:

The political spectrum in the US--and as a result the political spectrum in my country--is absurd. Both choices present you with corporatism/empire and there is nowhere to turn to. All progressive voices are silenced or ridiculed.

In my country the choices are a) remain in a subservient/slavish status to the US or b) transform ourselves into the 51st state of America. Neither of these satisfy me since both require playing party to imperialism.

And let's not forget that the Clinton administration wanted inspections whereas Bush wanted to go in no matter the cost--how many people have been killed by American bullets? Colin Powell was sent to the UN with bullshit photos. And when all this shit (and more!) hit the fan and the lie was exposed they hid it.

You know, I'd love to read Tracy's response to smc's post. Because a) she seems curiously silent about it (which it appears to me she often does rather than admit she was wrong) and b) because her use of Clinton era quotes appears to me to be the typical juvenile response to challenges of "the other guy did it too." Reminds me of the religious saying scientists have their own myth in the form of evolution, which is tantamount to the religious saying "see, they're just as stupid as we are."

As the GOP controled house are hard at work demanding budget cuts ie :coupling: the working poor and demanding lower taxes for the rich and cutting taxes on corparations who are so over taxed like poor GE who made over 5 billion in profit and will not be paying one red cent in taxes
So someone tell me what's wrong with this picture
face it folks we go double :coupling: from the GOP and there trickle down encomny, GE making billions a year in profits and not paying taxes is Reaganomics showing it's ugly head
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

As the old saying goes, "We are being screwed glued and tattooed" :censored:

Well today Paul Ryan of the GOP gave his verson of the 2012 budget and i give him credit as he seems very serious about doing away with the red ink but thats where the credit ends as this budget is another GOP FU TO THE COMMON PERSON as once agian the GOP are showing who they really care about cutting trillions of dollars but cuting medicare and medicade and planed parents but giveing the top tax bracket another tax cut going with the GOP'S ideals that the rich shall not pay any of the national debit nor shall they sufer from any planed cuts and corpate welfare will also not sufer so the oil companies can rest easy and will recive billions from the goverment and the working poor will get to pay the tab and sufer from the cuts
looks like the 2012 budget is another big :coupling: from the GOP as the continue to only be looking out for the rich and big bussiness and give the rest of us the BS about trickle down
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Don't worry Jen, the money saved is going to a good cause, the military. It will enable the military to bomb more countries with multimillion dollar bombs. You see, we are trying to protect the world from suicide bombers that kill themselves and other people. Our bombs are good bombs, they usually just kill bad guys. That's why they are so expensive. :censored:

It all makes me think of the nobility of the past. They did everything they could not to pay taxes. And in places they paid none at all. All the burden was on the working people they exploited. Does this sound familiar?

That the financial burden is largely on the backs of the working people as opposed to the rich contributing a fair share appears--emphasis on appears--to be largely lost on the population. Or maybe it isn't lost but the news elides this. The news organizations in the US are mostly pathetic what with Fox News and their psycho newspeople and CNN and their ridiculous use of Twitter, Facebook, News Roulette, etc etc. It's quite embarrassing. And I don't see how they would air meaningful information regarding the financial troubles. This is what you get with corporate media. The people responsible for all these things are never held responsible because all that precious ad revenue would dry up.

Check out the English version of Aljazerra. Some real news there.