|
Liberal free for all coming to an end
20 days left, and then the voters will finally have a say to all these trillion dollar spending bills, taxes, national health care and cap & trade energy policies that Obama and the democrat congress crammed down our throat.
So here we are in October 2010 with double digit unemployment. There's no sign of economic recovery and we're about to be hit with the biggest tax increase since WWII. Conservatives are not surprised at this. This is what we've been saying Obama will bring while he was just an idiot out there promising hope and change on the campaign trails. The final 2 years of his presidency is going to suck for him because congress will finally tell him "NO". And if BO's earlier monsters like obamacare are not out right repealed, they will probably die from lack of funds. How bad will it be for dems? Even B. Clinton's former pollster Douglas Shoen says "you're looking at the potential for the Republicans to win both houses of Congress and holding 30 or more governors' seats. We're looking at a landslide of potentially epic proportions". Political analysts say that the Republicans will win the Senate, capturing seats in Indiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Washington state, Illinois and Nevada. And they could prevail in New York, Connecticut, Delaware and California to boot. The GOP will capture the House by a good margin, winning upward of at least 60-plus seats now held by Democrats. This is going to be fun! http://www.newpatriotjournal.com/ima...urnout_Gap.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ |
Does any American on these forums REALLY want these right-wing nuts, with their massive anti-LGBT agenda to have any more control than they currently do (Like blocking bills which are PART OF THEIR OWN MANIFESTO just because the other party is pushing them)?
Good luck when you need to use an overseas proxy to get to this site. And as for national healthcare - I'll stay in a country where my taxes pay for SRS, instead of tax breaks for billionaires, thanks. |
Nothing like the ahistorical perspective to brighten a day and restore one's faith in the American people.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Tracy, I'm with you. There won't be a massive change in taxes or laws. That won't happen. The activists on the right should not be feared. They are just leaning hard on the rudder, but they are few. The result will be enough to get a right turn. Obama has shown his true colors; and it ain't pretty.
|
If the Repubs succeed in taking over the Gov with massive funding from foreign interests then its over for the middle class. We will be sweeping the floors of the mansions of the rich. We will have a Plutocracy. Blackwater types will be used to suppress any opposition. This will be great for gun lovers. Like the Taliban, they can cruise the streets in Humvees to enforce compliance. Gays, transsexuals, atheists and all others that do not fit the Sarah Palin vision of a pure America will be marginalized. When the blackwaters show up at my door, I will be fully loaded and ready for them.
Liberals of the world unite! http://pol.moveon.org/republicorp_or...73-HAMxZnx&t=4 |
Quote:
WHO figures on quality of healthcare by country show a definite trend: Socialised Healthcare 1 France 2 Italy 3 San Marino 4 Andorra 5 Malta 7 Spain 8 Oman 9 Austria 11 Norway 12 Portugal 13 Monaco 14 Greece 15 Iceland 16 Luxembourg 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland 20 Switzerland 21 Belgium 22 Colombia 23 Sweden 25 Germany 26 Saudi Arabia 27 United Arab Emirates 29 Morocco 30 Canada 31 Finland 33 Chile 34 Denmark 36 Costa Rica SEMI-socialised/privatised 6 Singapore 10 Japan 24 Cyprus 28 Israel 32 Australia 35 Dominica 37 United States of America Quote:
Or giving the rich tax cuts so they can invest more money in China and India and get rid of more American jobs? Damn right stuff like that needs to be dealt with to prevent harming your economy. |
I find it amazing that foriegners act as the experts on American government.
Explain please why Cleveland, Ohio is the medical center of choice for Canada. |
Quote:
|
Expanding government is the problem here. Alot of the problems we have now are due to increasing fed meddling in affairs that should have been handled by the states or by people themselves.
Anyone who thinks it is about Republicans versus Democrats or Liberals versus Conservatives are either blind or ignorant of what is going on. Repubs or Dems; they are just two different faces of the same shitheap. |
It mystifies me why conservatives love to be screwed by Republicans but scream to high heaven when screwed by Democrats. ;)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tim Geithner, BO's secretary of treasury, allowed Steven Friedman to oversee Goldman Sachs. Who's Friedman? Former chairman of Goldman Sachs and was on the board of directors. Geithner OK'd this conflict of interest. Geithner also allows Friedman to keep his 52000 shares of Goldman Sachs stock while he oversees Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs stock rose from $78/share to $167 per share during the first year of Obama's administration. The lobbyist for Goldman Sachs is Michael Pease. He joined the director of government affairs. They hired him because their previous lobbyist, Mark Patterson, has been named the chief of staff for Timothy Geithner. Michael Pease is now in Barney Frank's office. The reality of democrat political and business practices is far worse than anything moveon can make up about republicans. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Some wisdom from the past:
Quote:
|
TracyCoxx isn't a witch, she's you....
|
Quote:
Wait, are we talking about sex or politics? :lol: |
In a New York Times magazine article, BO sounds like he's coming to grips with the likely outcome of the election. He says republicans will either have a modest win or a big win. The funny thing is that he says they "will have to learn to get along with me". :lol:
Republicans will be busy undoing the disaster that BO has created and preventing it from getting worse. BO can say that republicans are the party of 'No', but that's rather naive. There's a fundamental difference in philosophies that goes beyond simply saying no and he knows that very well. |
Quote:
Do you have an answer, Tracy? |
I lost faith in Obama when he appointed the chief pesticide lobbyist as our agricultural representative in foreign affairs. Michell's "organic" garden is just window dressing for the public. :frown:
We knew when Bush was elected that we would be screwed, we thought Obama would at least take us out to dinner before screwing us, such is not the case. :blush: |
Quote:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ul-bailou.html BO misplaced the blame so the real problem isn't really going to be fixed and what's more, he hasn't done anything to prevent it from happening again. |
Quote:
But don't say you weren't warned ;) |
Quote:
The electronic age has revolutionized financial markets. Trading can be done on a split second basis and computer models can monitor trends instantly. Without controls, the computers could destroy the marker in seconds. The small investor can be wiped out before he can pick up the phone. The old style ideas about a "free" market are obsolete. Like it or not, there needs to be regulation. |
Quote:
I agree that there needs to be regulations but not like the kind we have now. The gov. should be acting as a referee and setting a fair playing ground, not determining the outcome for everyone. |
It's happening more and more with each election. The republicans have to not only get enough votes to win, but get enough votes to overcome all the cheating that goes on with the democrats. Illegals are voting more often, Acorn is still around under different names signing up ineligable people to vote, Black Panthers are intimidating voters, and now it seems even voting machines are rigged. People have signed in to voting machines in Nevada only to find Harry Ried's name is already checked. How desperate is this guy?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
My portfolio is back where it was two years ago, thanks to the stimulus program. :)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The entire financial industry came to believe that we had figured out how to make prosperity permanent. Consequently, risk was minimalized and loans which used to be considered risky were now okay. Greed rules! |
Quote:
Quote:
|
In the news: The Justice Department is sending a small pack of election observers to Arizona as Hispanic groups sound the alarm over an anti-illegal immigration group's mass e-mail seeking to recruit Election Day volunteers to help block illegal immigrants from voting.
Hey 'Hispanic groups'. Illegals have no right to vote... get over it! |
Lies
8 Nasty Conservative Lies About the Democrats and Obama That Must Be Debunked Before the Election By Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future Posted on October 25, 2010, Printed on October 30, 2010 http://www.alternet.org/story/148614/ There are a number things the public "knows" as we head into the election that are just false. If people elect leaders based on false information, the things those leaders do in office will not be what the public expects or needs. Here are eight of the biggest myths that are out there: 1) President Obama tripled the deficit. Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion. 2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy. Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been. 3) President Obama bailed out the banks. Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama. 4) The stimulus didn't work. Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs. 5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts. Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts. 6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion. Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion. 7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc. Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to. 8) Government spending takes money out of the economy. Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget. This stuff really matters. If the public votes in a new Congress because a majority of voters think this one tripled the deficit, and as a result the new people follow the policies that actually tripled the deficit, the country could go broke. If the public votes in a new Congress that rejects the idea of helping to create demand in the economy because they think it didn't work, then the new Congress could do things that cause a depression. If the public votes in a new Congress because they think the health care reform will increase the deficit when it is actually projected to reduce the deficit, then the new Congress could repeal health care reform and thereby make the deficit worse. And on it goes. Dave Johnson blogs at Seeing the Forest and is a Fellow at the Commonweal Institute. He has over 25 years of technology industry experience. ? 2010 Campaign for America's Future All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/148614/ |
and other ghost stories abound. It is that time of year.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
An article about it is here. You said it was all a hoax. So what were the Black Panther guys doing there with nightsticks and who was perpetrating the hoax? |
Quote:
So, with that disclaimer, here is my response, Tracy. You are correct about one thing, and it has to do with my use of the word "hoax." I misused that word by failing to make the context clear. What I meant was that the charge that the political appointees of Obama overruled "career attorneys" to have the case dropped is a hoax. Anyone who wants to know the true story, based on full quotes that are contextual, would be wise to go beyond the Washington Times story to which you provide a link. That is a biased newspaper by any reasonable journalistic standards, and the headline of the story you linked to is proof. Why? Because it was "career lawyers" at DOJ who recommended dropping the case, and a federal judge who accepted the rationale for dropping the case. Obama political appointees only okayed the recommendation before it was passed on to the judge. I suggest reading this Newsweek article for a fuller, less partisan, explanation: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/14/t...ew-acorn0.html Don't get me wrong: voter intimidation is wrong. I believe the lunatic fringe New Black Panther Party (denounced by the establishe BPP, by the way), sought to intimidate voters as part of its periodic publicity stunts. But your charge is about the Obama DOJ subverting the law and the constitution. As a conservative member of the Commission on Civil Rights says at the end of the article to which I've linked, there is a plenty of stuff to criticize Obama about (I would add: from the left or the right). She aptly notes that to pin this incident on him only lessens the validity of conservative criticism. Tracy, I feel that your points would be stronger if you stuck to substantive arguments about foreign policy, economic policy, and so on, and got away from the distractions that are pushed from both sides to avoid us, as Americans, having those important discussions. |
Quote:
Tracy is very well informed from a very conservative standpoint. Fortunately, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all these ultra liberal and ultra conservative views. |
Tommorrow's the big day boys and gurls.:kiss:
|
3 Attachment(s)
I hope tomorrow is not the start of Armageddon.:eek:
There is lots of good people out there, they just need to VOTE!:yes: |
Quote:
In all seriousness, and not to open a can of worms, the Federal government needs to be downsized. |
Quote:
|
If voting changed anything the establishment would make it illegal.
Stay at home. Don't bother to vote. Regardless of what party they belong to, they are all a bunch of crooks. |
Quote:
Quote:
Rather than writing about some week correlation between the voter intimidation story and the Acorn scandal in an attempt to downplay both why doesn't he report these facts: * After winning a case of voter intimidation against The New Black Panther Party, the Obama Department of Justice inexplicably dropped the charges. * The direct ties between the NAACP and The New Black Panther Party. * J. Christian Adams, a legitimate government whistle-blower who has testified that he was told by his fellow DOJ staffers to all but ignore cases where the defendant is a minority and the plaintiff white. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Reid stays as senate majority leader... ughhh.
Pelosi is ousted... Yes!!! Good riddance b[leep]. Well one thing is for sure... The liberal free for all has come to an end! :coupling: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
In the meanwhile, since subversion of elections is on your mind, why don't you tell us where you stand on the the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling. Did you enjoy all the advertisements on TV paid for by undisclosed donors? Do you think that is "subversion of elections"? |
Yep
1 Attachment(s)
Sigh, two years of gridlock.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
LMAO!!! I had tears in my eyes laughing so hard at this :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdES0GP0KhI |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now I've posed some clear, direct questions to you. You've been back to the thread since those questions were posted, but have skipped over them. Perhaps you'd like to retract the implication of your "cricket" comment? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Annoying Citizens United videos doesn't hold a candle to "New" Black Panthers brandishing clubs and intimidating voters, or to ACORN's attempt at the highest levels to register voters multiple times plus register non-existent voters and dead voters, or to attempts by liberals to allow illegal aliens to vote, or to the fracking president trying to grab control of the US Census office! And if those videos are so bad, what about the plethora of left-wing media outlets that spew biased news? Everyone complains about Fox News, but what about CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, New York Times, and on and on? And don't forget Hollywood with their vocal left wing actors and movies riddled with liberal politics. But hey... it's free speech. |
Obama says the voters just didn't understand what he was trying to do. Does anyone buy this? Or did the voters understand and whole heartedly reject it?
|
Quote:
I have three sets of questions for you. 1. As I wrote in an earlier post, "I don't support the Democrats or Republicans." I believe that the Democratic Party is guilty of electoral fraud and manipulation in many instances throughout history, and I have no problem believing that Democrats (who, after all, serve the interests of a wing of the very same people served by the Republicans) do things to ensure votes go their way. Tracy, do you accept that the Republicans do things like this, too? You wrote earlier: "The DOJ sent 400 people to Arizona, not to ensure that illegals do not vote, but to watchdog Arizona officials who are trying to ensure that illegals do not vote." Whether that's true or not, do you accept that during the Bush administration government officials, acting for partisan interests, did anything like that. 2. Do you think one's ability to exercise "freedom of speech" should be dictated by one's level of wealth? Let's accept your premise about Citizens United. In the interest of ensuring the greatest amount of freedom of speech, do you support public financing of elections or some other way to ensure that everyone's voice can be heard so that those with the most millions to spend cannot drown out everyone else simply by virtue of having those millions? This is not a left-right issue. 3. In the context of "freedom of speech," do you support full disclosure of who funds political ads, whether on the left or right? It seems to me that the greatest freedom of speech is that which allows us a real discourse, together, as Americans -- something sorely lacking in our body politic today. Absent disclosure, it is difficult to know whether the voices we hear are genuine, and genuinely FOR what they purport to be for, or whether there is manipulation at play. For instance, if a corporation or corporate group that publicly supports tax credits for businesses that send jobs overseas funds a political ad (without disclosure) that accuses a politician of such support, that would be worth knowing, don't you think. Similarly, if a union stands to benefit from a certain outcome in the legislature in, say, one state and (without disclosure) funds an ad attacking a candidate in another state who has not voted as the union wishes, wouldn't it be good to know -- in the interest of encouraging a genuine public discourse in the context of freedom of speech? These are not partisan questions. I hope you can step back from the vitriol expressed in your last post and consider these thoughtfully, in the interest of genuine dialogue. Otherwise, there's no point in continuing. You can have the thread and vent, and I'll stick to pictures of gorgeous girl cocks. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The question was asked here: http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...1&postcount=32 It says "One week ago". Kind of vague... And I'm hearing crickets here: http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...3&postcount=43 It says "5 days ago". Yesterday it said one week vs 4 days, that's at least a 3 day difference so I called it 'several'. Happy? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
On the "crickets" issue, how about dropping the insults ("whining"). If necessary, I can go to the moderator console and show you the exact time and date of the posts in question. My point in mentioning it was to bring up a broader point about civility in the discussion, which I have mentioned more explicitly in other posts. |
Quote:
|
Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed U.S. economy' Commentary: How: Gold. Tax cuts. Debts. Wars. Fat Cats. Class gap. No fiscal discipline By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse." Get it? Not "destroying." The GOP has already "destroyed" the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse." Jobs recovery could take years In the wake of Friday's disappointing jobs report, Neal Lipschutz and Phil Izzo discuss new predictions that it could be many years before the nation's unemployment rate reaches pre-recession levels. Yes, Stockman is equally damning of the Democrats' Keynesian policies. But what this indictment by a party insider -- someone so close to the development of the Reaganomics ideology -- says about America, helps all of us better understand how America's toxic partisan-politics "holy war" is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And unless this war stops soon, both parties will succeed in their collective death wish. But why focus on Stockman's message? It's already lost in the 24/7 news cycle. Why? We need some introspection. Ask yourself: How did the great nation of America lose its moral compass and drift so far off course, to where our very survival is threatened? We've arrived at a historic turning point as a nation that no longer needs outside enemies to destroy us, we are committing suicide. Democracy. Capitalism. The American dream. All dying. Why? Because of the economic decisions of the GOP the past 40 years, says this leading Reagan Republican. Please listen with an open mind, no matter your party affiliation: This makes for a powerful history lesson, because it exposes how both parties are responsible for destroying the U.S. economy. Listen closely: Reagan Republican: the GOP should file for bankruptcy Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase." In the past 40 years Republican ideology has gone from solid principles to hype and slogans. Stockman says: "Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts -- in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses too." No more. Today there's a "new catechism" that's "little more than money printing and deficit finance, vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes" making a mockery of GOP ideals. Worse, it has resulted in "serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy." Yes, GOP ideals backfired, crippling our economy. Stockman's indictment warns that the Republican party's "new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one:" I believe party affiliation is irrelevant here. This is a crucial subject that must be explored because it further exposes a dangerous historical trend where politics is so partisan it's having huge negative consequences. Yes, the GOP does have a welfare-warfare state: Stockman says "the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending, exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget -- entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans' fiscal religion." When Fed chief Paul Volcker "crushed inflation" in the '80s we got a "solid economic rebound." But then "the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts." By 2009, they "reduced federal revenues to 15% of gross domestic product," lowest since the 1940s. Still today they're irrationally demanding an extension of those "unaffordable Bush tax cuts [that] would amount to a bankruptcy filing." Recently Bush made matters far worse by "rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures." Bush also gave in "on domestic spending cuts, signing into law $420 billion in nondefense appropriations, a 65% percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy." Takes two to tango. Stage 3. Wall Street's deadly 'vast, unproductive expansion' Stockman continues pounding away: "The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector." He warns that "Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation." Wrong, not oblivious. Self-interested Republican loyalists like Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner knew exactly what they were doing. They wanted the economy, markets and the government to be under the absolute control of Wall Street's too-greedy-to-fail banks. They conned Congress and the Fed into bailing out an estimated $23.7 trillion debt. Worse, they have since destroyed meaningful financial reforms. So Wall Street is now back to business as usual blowing another bigger bubble/bust cycle that will culminate in the coming "American Apocalypse." Stockman refers to Wall Street's surviving banks as "wards of the state." Wrong, the opposite is true. Wall Street now controls Washington, and its "unproductive" trading is "extracting billions from the economy with a lot of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives." Wall Street banks like Goldman were virtually bankrupt, would have never survived without government-guaranteed deposits and "virtually free money from the Fed's discount window to cover their bad bets." Stage 4. New American Revolution class-warfare coming soon Finally, thanks to Republican policies that let us "live beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore," while at home "high-value jobs in goods production ... trade, transportation, information technology and the professions shrunk by 12% to 68 million from 77 million." As the apocalypse draws near, Stockman sees a class-rebellion, a new revolution, a war against greed and the wealthy. Soon. The trigger will be the growing gap between economic classes: No wonder "that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans -- paid mainly from the Wall Street casino -- received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90% -- mainly dependent on Main Street's shrinking economy -- got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market's fault. It's the decaying fruit of bad economic policy." Get it? The decaying fruit of the GOP's bad economic policies is destroying our economy. Warning: this black swan won't be pretty, will shock, soon His bottom line: "The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing ... it's a pity that the modern Republican party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach -- balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline -- is needed more than ever." Wrong: There are far bigger things to "pity." First, that most Americans, 300 million, are helpless, will do nothing, sit in the bleachers passively watching this deadly partisan game like it's just another TV reality show. Second, that, unfortunately, politicians are so deep-in-the-pockets of the Wall Street conspiracy that controls Washington they are helpless and blind. And third, there's a depressing sense that Stockman will be dismissed as a traitor, his message lost in the 24/7 news cycle ... until the final apocalyptic event, an unpredictable black swan triggers another, bigger global meltdown, followed by a long Great Depression II and a historic class war. So be prepared, it will hit soon, when you least expect. I had to leave part 1 of this article out in order to get it to fit. I thought Tracy might be interested in this. We will have to wait and see won't we? That's right Tracy, keep your fingers crossed. |
Quote:
Quote:
That said, let me clarify about voter suppression. It seems as if you thought I was being specific about the Bush administration doing something in Arizona. I was not I only used your example to pose my question. I will give you one non-Arizona example of Republican voter suppression during the Bush administration. In 2002, Republican officials in New Hampshire attempted to reduce the number of Democratic voters by jamming phones. Professional telemarketers from a company based in northern Virgina, "GOP Marketplace," were hired to make repeated hang-up calls to to the telephone numbers that the Democratic state committee and the state firefighter's union were using for voters to call and get rides to the polls. By keeping these lines busy, the intent was to suppress the number of voters who could ask the Democratic Party for such rides. This voter suppression effort was undertaken in the interest of getting John E. Sununu, the son of George H.W. Bush's first White House chief of staff, elected to the U.S. Senate. Sununu won a narrow victory. Four men were convicted of federal crimes and sentenced to prison for their involvement. There was a guilty plea by Allen Raymond to several felony charges in federal court in Concord, New Hampshire on June 30, 2004, which really brought the case to the public's attention. The prosecutor in Ramond's case indicated to the court that Raymond had been contacted about the phone jamming by "a former colleague who was then an official in a national political organization." Not long after, the Manchester Union-Leader, one of the most right-wing daily newspapers in the country, reported that the unnamed individual had a significant role in the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign." He was later identified as James Tobin, then serving as the New England regional director for the Bush campaign. He resigned in October from that post and in December was indicted and arraigned on two criminal counts each of conspiring to make harassing telephone calls and aiding and abetting telephone harassment. Later, Allen Raymond was sentenced to five months in federal prison. His accomplice, Charles McGee, received seven months. Tobin refused to cooperate, and during his trial questions came up about who was paying for his defense. Ultimately, it was revealed that the Republican National Committe was paying for his lawyer. Later in this case, after being convicted, Tobin was freed on appeal -- but on legal technicalities, not the merits of the actual case of voter suppression. Raymond Allen wrote a book that sold quite well, How to Rig an Election. This is but one example of how both parties seek to undermine voting rights, Tracy. I can provide many more. One of the more common things Republicans do is to send letters to minority voters (yes, U.S. citizens who happen to be black and live in poverty-stricken election districts) disguised as "official" in some capacity telling people that if they show up at the polls they run the risk of arrest for any outstanding parket tickets, or must pass a reading test, or may be subject to imprisonment if they have moved, etc. Democrats pulled the same kind of stuff in the South before the Voting Rights Act. It's despicable, but voter suppression efforts are certainly not the purview of one party or one administration. |
Quote:
Quote:
The "additional disclosure requirements" would enhance "disclaimers," thus requiring that those who provide the funds for ads take responsibility for them; enhance disclosures, requiring that the money be traceable to its source(s); require that corporations and organizations (including unions) disclose to shareholders and members how and where money was spent on political ads; and tighten the coordination rules that are meant to keep non-party entities from coordinating their work with official campaigns as a way around limits on spending. In brief, as law the bill would require disclosure by donors supporting campaign advertising, and require sponsors to approve TV ads personally, as candidates are required to do. So, for example, a corporation, wealthy businessman, union ... no one ... could set up a group with a name like Americans for Sound Policy and then run an ad attacking a candidate without the funders being identified in the ad. This bill passed the House of Representatives in June. A similar bill was blocked twice in the Senate by Republicans, who voted against invoking cloture to keep it from coming before the full body. The last such block, in late September, fell short by a vote of 59 to 39 (60 votes are required for cloture). All Democrats voted for cloture; two Republicans did not vote; all other Republicans voted to block the bill. The Republican leadership argued that the Democrats were trying to "rig the system" to their advantage. How can there be an advantage for any one side in mandating full disclosure in a democracy, unless someone wants to keep something a secret? |
Quote:
|
Could an American answer a question for me please... Why is it that people over there don't like the idea of having a national health service?
Our (UK) NHS service is something we couldn't live without and if the government said we had to pay for everything there would be riots. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
For another thing, to change the system to a national health service would require everyone's health premiums to go up like $2000/year and the result would be degraded medical service. And for another thing, our country is deep in debt and cannot afford the national health care system that was enacted. |
Why?
SMC made the point, the Repubs don't want to reveal the vast amount of corporate secret funding for their campaigns. When the voters realize that most of the funding comes from BP, the chamber of commerce and the likes of the Kock brothers they may decide to vote for someone else.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
We need a third party that represents us, the working middle class. I am fed up with both parties but I cant take the Tea Party. I understand the outrage of the Tea Party but they are clueless and pawns of the big guys. We need to impeach the Supreme Court Justices that voted for the corporate flooding of money into the election system. We also need to change the election system so members of congress get elected for only one term of six years and cant run for reelection. This would eliminate a lot of this campaigning crap. If we don't like what they are doing during their six year term, impeach them. We have to do something or we are going to lose not only our freedom but the ability to make a living. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The problem of those who are either in power or seek to be in power (Democrats and Republicans alike), and who have enormous financial resources at their disposal that people like you and I, Tracy, do not have, is a threat to whatever vestiges of democracy we may enjoy in this country. It should not matter WHO subverts elections as much as THAT they are subverted. So long as you cannot demonstrate equal anger about both "sides" seeking to take away the power of your one vote through some kind of fraud, it is difficult to see that your objections are not grounded in something more insidious. Why should it matter more that one side may be trying to get immigrants to vote than it matters that another side is trying to ensure that minorities (citizens of this country) don't get to vote? One of the things that polarizes people in the United States on the left and right is that the 24/7 cycle of vituperative commentary from the left and right uses selective information to skew the debate. You, I believe, have been cheated by some of those commentators, because they made sure you knew that ACORN had been accused of voter fraud in 14 states in 2008, but they made sure not to tell you whatever because of those accusations. I am no supporter of ACORN, but of truth and civil discourse. Did you know, Tracy, that in June of this year the Government Accounting Office (GAO) -- independent of the Obama administration and of the Republicans -- released a report on these accusations in 14 states? The GAO report found that, in every one of those cases, complaints filed against ACORN with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) were dismissed. The FEC is also not directly affiliated with the Democratic or Republican parties. The report also showed that four of six FBI investigations into alleged voter fraud committed by ACORN employees were closed due to lack of evidence. The two other investigations were also closed and referred to local and state jurisdictions. The report detailed five cases in which ACORN employees pled guilty to misdemeanor counts of voter registration fraud, but the GAO stated that these cases did not allege any wrongdoing on behalf of ACORN itself or any affiliated organizations -- only the individuals. Did you know that ACORN, in fact, offered materials to local election officials that helped initiate the prosecution of these guilty individuals, because ACORN felt that they had undermined the proper training ACORN had provided them to register voters legally? Again, I am not defending ACORN, but seeking the truth and encouraging you to direct your anger where it really NEEDS to be directed -- -- at anyone who usurps your democratic rights. It is only my opinion, but it seems to me that you would want to get the widest possible hearing for your complaints about the government. Direct you anger appropriately, and recognize who is really at fault (hint: it's the people who own the wealth, not their politician lackeys, who are the real enemy, and those people support both sides to keep you thinking you have a choice), and you'll certainly get my ear for anything you want to say. |
1 Attachment(s)
Wall Street campaign donations to Democrats and Republicans. Something happened in October 2009. Health care bill?
|
Quote:
When the liberals tamper with the voters, THAT's where I have a problem. When you're bringing in illegal aliens, that's tampering with the voter. When you're signing up voters to vote multiple times, that's tampering with the voter. When you're filling out default liberal votes, that's tampering with the voter. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
You can't have it both ways, Tracy. You can't admit there is voter suppression by both sides and then claim that the side you don't like can vote if they want to, no matter what might be done to keep that from happening. That's hypocrisy. And it's also hypocritical to state that adding votes to the mix that are or may be cast illegally is a problem that subverts elections, while implying by omission -- as you do again and again -- that subtracting potential votes does not subvert elections. If someone keeps a voter from voting, and someone else brings a voter to the polls and makes it possible for that person to vote even though not eligible, is that not the same subversion of your vote and how it counts.
Unless you can state unequivocally that anything that subverts elections, be it illegal voters or voter suppression or advertisements that lie but have no traceability as to who funded them, etc., etc. etc. -- then your argument is fallacious. And after many attempts, there is no value in challenging a fallacious argument. It is a waste of time. I will continue to hold out hope that your interest is in truth and constructive discourse. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not one's own facts. |
Quote:
Quote:
I often wonder how the american public let these corporations do what they do. They must spend so much money on propaganda. --- Thanks for the replies :) |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
One way or another, whether it's through insurance premiums or taxes, people pay for medical treatment. Either insurance companies (aka evil corporations) receive a profit for getting you the medical treatment you need or a large portion of what you're paying through taxes is wasted on a one-size fits all government solution. |
Quote:
The logical extension of your argument is that elderly people who are the victims of fraud over the telephone by those who convince them to share their personal information or to send them huge amounts of money -- a type of fraud that is a massive problem in the United States -- should simply have known better, and nothing should be done. Quote:
In any case, our discussion is over, not because we can't agree, and not because the discourse isn't important, but because you seem too filled with anger and vitriol to have a meaningful dialogue. If it matters, I'll even let you say you scored all the points, even though I haven't been playing a game. Ain't democracy wonderful? Let's enjoy it while it lasts. The people who take it away from us are going to be the ones who capitalize on the unwillingness of people to step back, take a deep breath, and really explore what is going on, rather than simply reacting to "facts" that are fed to them to serve a devious purpose. And again, as I've written time and again, that feeding comes from both wings of the rulers, equally. |
Money
From Michael Collins at "the money party.com"
Quote:
|
Voting
1 Attachment(s)
A major factor in the rout of the Democrats was the senior vote. Seniors are very concerned about Medicare. Also many of the young voters stayed home in disgust.
|
Quote:
Life/health and a busted car are hardly equal. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © Trans Ladyboy