America's coming civil war -- makers vs. takers Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/op

[jack113]

On one side are those who create wealth, America’s private sector–the very ones targeted by President Obama’s tax hikes announced Monday.

On the other are the public employee unions; left-leaning intelligentsia who see the growth of government as index of progress; and the millions of Americans now dependent on government through a growing network of government transfer payments, from Medicaid and Social Security to college loans and corporate bailouts and handouts (think GM and Solyndra).

Ignorant rightist idiocy.

Over the past century America’s private sector has been the source of productivity, innovation, creativity, and growth–and gave us the iPhone and iPad. The public sector has been the engine of entitlement, stagnation, and decline -- and gave us Detroit and the South Bronx.

Nonsense.

America’s growth and prosperity during the 20th Century was the consequence of public and private sectors working together.

When all the talking is done their remains one truth. America has been sold out by the fascist that deregulated Wall Street and sold our jobs to the communists.
Jobs are not created by companies feeling sorry for laid off workers or any sense of loyalty to the country. Jobs are only created when their is more demand for products by consumers and unemployed workers do not make good consumers. Globalization and one world government is a failure yet the American public still supports it.

The America people have the fascist military government it has voted for since Eisenhower left office.

I am glad to have grown up threw the great depression and the creation of the New Deal that put American back on it's feet and I thank god daily that I had enough sense to save for my retirement instead of throwing away my money on political fascist campaigns and for fighting in two wars and coming home in one peace and being smart enough not to invest my money in the organized crime syndicates called Wall Street and FED.

Americans better get out and vote for their favorite fascist in November because it may be the last vote this country see for a long time. It does not matter which party people want to support they are both openly fascist and anti American.

 

[California Girl]

Sorry guys.

Your Atlas Shrugged wet dream isn't going to happen, no matter how many hyperbolic op-eds you can find.

And your 'Let's Be Europe' ain't gonna happen either. No matter how many hyperbolic op-eds you can find.

See, works both ways. When y'all (left and right) get that through those dense heads of yours, the country - the one we all claim to care about - will be better off.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, unfortunately it is the most likely scenario, because our government has been hijacked by the opulent who have no need for programs that save millions of middle class jobs, which the stimulus did. And we no longer have a free press, we have corporate puppets who repeat everything they are told by 5 huge corporations who OWN the press.

We are headed for a civil war, when the truly dependent (children and the elderly) are harmed or extinguished.

Medicare is by far the greatest accomplishment in our nation's history. It took the elderly from being the most likely to live in poverty, and living under the specter of losing everything they worked their entire lifetime for with one illness, to the least likely to face poverty.

IT is too valuable, and MUST be funded.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

Then perhaps both parties ought have been booted for stealing from the FICA surplus.

Perhaps we should have replaced the parties with a TRUE conservative and TRUE leftist option --- Neither of which would have us bombing 4 countries a month.

Perhaps we should have concentrated on R&D funding and not subsidies.

Don't talk to me about how all this is one partys' fault. I've been working in 3rd Party politics for 15 years BECAUSE the writing was on the wall..

As Libertarian as I am --- Soc Sec and Medicare OUGHT to be grandfathered in for those that have counted on it. But PRETENDING these programs are UNIVERSAL insurance isn't gonna be possible. UNIVERSAL programs don't last more than a lifetime. Because the Govt is INEPT, INEFFICIENT and CORRUPT. So I'd just assume transition them to welfare and still require UNIVERSAL participation in paying for them.

I'm not in favor of changing the rules on either PUBLIC service employees or Seniors just as they are ready to get that watch and a placque.

As a JFK liberal, I can place the blame where it clearly belongs. And you parrot the sick mantra of the man who destroyed this country. He was not a conservative, he was the antithesis of what conservatism used to be.

How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People

When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, he abandoned the traditional economic policies, under which the United States had operated for the previous 40 years, and launched the nation in a dangerous new direction. As Newsweek magazine put it in its March 2, 1981 issue, “Reagan thus gambled the future — his own, his party’s, and in some measure the nation’s—on a perilous and largely untested new course called supply-side economics.”

Essentially, Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later. It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built. Ronald Reagan was a cunning politician, but he didn’t know much about economics. Alan Greenspan was an economist, who had no reluctance to work with a politician on a plan that would further the cause of the right-wing goals that both he and President Reagan shared.

Both Reagan and Greenspan saw big government as an evil, and they saw big business as a virtue. They both had despised the progressive policies of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson, and they wanted to turn back the pages of time. They came up with the perfect strategy for the redistribution of income and wealth from the working class to the rich. Since we don’t know the nature of the private conversations that took place between Reagan and Greenspan, as well as between their aides, we cannot be sure whether the events that would follow over the next three decades were specifically planned by Reagan and Greenspan, or whether they were just the natural result of the actions the two men played such a big role in. Either way, both Reagan and Greenspan are revered by most conservatives and hated by most liberals.

If Reagan had campaigned for the presidency by promising big tax cuts for the rich and pledging to make up for the lost revenue by imposing substantial tax increases on the working class, he would probably not have been elected. But that is exactly what Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan. Consider the following sequence of events:

1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.

4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers. Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

The practice of using every dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue for general government spending continues to this day. The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue which is supposed to be in the trust fund for use in paying for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. But the trust fund is empty! It contains no real assets. As a result, the government will soon be unable to pay full benefits without a tax increase. Money can be spent or it can be saved. But you can’t do both. Absolutely none of the $2.5 trillion was saved or invested in anything. I have been laboring for more than a decade to expose the great Social Security scam.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Moynihan was a rare bird. He was the first and the most vocal to call it a theft. But you are blinded by partisianship. You should TRY to shed some of the bias.

Reagan is NOT the reason that the theft occurred. It occurred with FULL concurrence of the Congress. The left STILL brags about the Clinton balanced budget. Which was only balanced with the accounting of the Surplus as income. SOME politicians on both sides have admitted to this scheme, but they are RARE. And educating the the American people about the shameful waste of this money has NEVER been on the radars of EITHER party.

The problem has ALWAYS been that Congress has no SAVINGS ACCOUNT. The only invested monies they handle is pensions. AND THOSE are largely put into 3rd party hands.

More importantly, when Republicans suggested using the Surplus to defer future liabilities by creating very limited "personal accounts" -- you and your minions went crazy.. And the end result was PROMULGATING the theft wasn't it? So YOU are likely to blame as well... USING that surplus in that fashion back then --- WOULD have resulted in cash benefits to the program TODAY!!!!

 

[paulitician]

The tipping-point is near. The Takers will outnumber the Makers in a few years. And when that happens, we will begin to experience Third World misery & chaos. We are headed in that direction.

 

[Bfgrn]

Then perhaps both parties ought have been booted for stealing from the FICA surplus.

Perhaps we should have replaced the parties with a TRUE conservative and TRUE leftist option --- Neither of which would have us bombing 4 countries a month.

Perhaps we should have concentrated on R&D funding and not subsidies.

Don't talk to me about how all this is one partys' fault. I've been working in 3rd Party politics for 15 years BECAUSE the writing was on the wall..

As Libertarian as I am --- Soc Sec and Medicare OUGHT to be grandfathered in for those that have counted on it. But PRETENDING these programs are UNIVERSAL insurance isn't gonna be possible. UNIVERSAL programs don't last more than a lifetime. Because the Govt is INEPT, INEFFICIENT and CORRUPT. So I'd just assume transition them to welfare and still require UNIVERSAL participation in paying for them.

I'm not in favor of changing the rules on either PUBLIC service employees or Seniors just as they are ready to get that watch and a placque.

As a JFK liberal, I can place the blame where it clearly belongs. And you parrot the sick mantra of the man who destroyed this country. He was not a conservative, he was the antithesis of what conservatism used to be.

How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People

When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, he abandoned the traditional economic policies, under which the United States had operated for the previous 40 years, and launched the nation in a dangerous new direction. As Newsweek magazine put it in its March 2, 1981 issue, “Reagan thus gambled the future — his own, his party’s, and in some measure the nation’s—on a perilous and largely untested new course called supply-side economics.”

Essentially, Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later. It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built. Ronald Reagan was a cunning politician, but he didn’t know much about economics. Alan Greenspan was an economist, who had no reluctance to work with a politician on a plan that would further the cause of the right-wing goals that both he and President Reagan shared.

Both Reagan and Greenspan saw big government as an evil, and they saw big business as a virtue. They both had despised the progressive policies of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson, and they wanted to turn back the pages of time. They came up with the perfect strategy for the redistribution of income and wealth from the working class to the rich. Since we don’t know the nature of the private conversations that took place between Reagan and Greenspan, as well as between their aides, we cannot be sure whether the events that would follow over the next three decades were specifically planned by Reagan and Greenspan, or whether they were just the natural result of the actions the two men played such a big role in. Either way, both Reagan and Greenspan are revered by most conservatives and hated by most liberals.

If Reagan had campaigned for the presidency by promising big tax cuts for the rich and pledging to make up for the lost revenue by imposing substantial tax increases on the working class, he would probably not have been elected. But that is exactly what Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan. Consider the following sequence of events:

1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.

4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers. Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

The practice of using every dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue for general government spending continues to this day. The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue which is supposed to be in the trust fund for use in paying for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. But the trust fund is empty! It contains no real assets. As a result, the government will soon be unable to pay full benefits without a tax increase. Money can be spent or it can be saved. But you can’t do both. Absolutely none of the $2.5 trillion was saved or invested in anything. I have been laboring for more than a decade to expose the great Social Security scam.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Moynihan was a rare bird. He was the first and the most vocal to call it a theft. But you are blinded by partisianship. You should TRY to shed some of the bias.

Reagan is NOT the reason that the theft occurred. It occurred with FULL concurrence of the Congress. The left STILL brags about the Clinton balanced budget. Which was only balanced with the accounting of the Surplus as income. SOME politicians on both sides have admitted to this scheme, but they are RARE. And educating the the American people about the shameful waste of this money has NEVER been on the radars of EITHER party.

The problem has ALWAYS been that Congress has no SAVINGS ACCOUNT. The only invested monies they handle is pensions. AND THOSE are largely put into 3rd party hands.

More importantly, when Republicans suggested using the Surplus to defer future liabilities by creating very limited "personal accounts" -- you and your minions went crazy.. And the end result was PROMULGATING the theft wasn't it? So YOU are likely to blame as well... USING that surplus in that fashion back then --- WOULD have resulted in cash benefits to the program TODAY!!!!

I do blame Reagan for a number of the problems we face today. And so does the father of Reaganomics.

We went from a tax and spend government to a borrow and spend government. Trickle down never happened, instead the opulent vacuumed up the wealth the middle class had accumulated. And today's GOP represents the biggest danger this nation faces. They are people who don't even know truth from dogma and myth.

The Democratic party has no liberal or progressive power within. They were last seen boarding Bobby Kennedy's funeral train never to be seen or heard from again. Today's Democratic party is further to the right than the GOP was in the 1950's.

When you and I are dust, and historians decipher the rise and fall of America, November 22nd, 1963 will be the zenith. We have been in a free-fall ever since.

 

[Buford]

As a JFK liberal, I can place the blame where it clearly belongs. And you parrot the sick mantra of the man who destroyed this country. He was not a conservative, he was the antithesis of what conservatism used to be.

How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People

When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, he abandoned the traditional economic policies, under which the United States had operated for the previous 40 years, and launched the nation in a dangerous new direction. As Newsweek magazine put it in its March 2, 1981 issue, “Reagan thus gambled the future — his own, his party’s, and in some measure the nation’s—on a perilous and largely untested new course called supply-side economics.”

Essentially, Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later. It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built. Ronald Reagan was a cunning politician, but he didn’t know much about economics. Alan Greenspan was an economist, who had no reluctance to work with a politician on a plan that would further the cause of the right-wing goals that both he and President Reagan shared.

Both Reagan and Greenspan saw big government as an evil, and they saw big business as a virtue. They both had despised the progressive policies of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson, and they wanted to turn back the pages of time. They came up with the perfect strategy for the redistribution of income and wealth from the working class to the rich. Since we don’t know the nature of the private conversations that took place between Reagan and Greenspan, as well as between their aides, we cannot be sure whether the events that would follow over the next three decades were specifically planned by Reagan and Greenspan, or whether they were just the natural result of the actions the two men played such a big role in. Either way, both Reagan and Greenspan are revered by most conservatives and hated by most liberals.

If Reagan had campaigned for the presidency by promising big tax cuts for the rich and pledging to make up for the lost revenue by imposing substantial tax increases on the working class, he would probably not have been elected. But that is exactly what Reagan did, with the help of Alan Greenspan. Consider the following sequence of events:

1) President Reagan appointed Greenspan as chairman of the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka The Greenspan Commission)

2) The Greenspan Commission recommended a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn down during the years after Social Security began running deficits.

3) The 1983 Social Security amendments enacted hefty increases in the payroll tax in order to generate large future surpluses.

4) As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs. None of the surplus was saved or invested in anything. The surplus Social Security revenue, that was paid by working Americans, was used to replace the lost revenue from Reagan’s big income tax cuts that went primarily to the rich.

5) In 1987, President Reagan nominated Greenspan as the successor to Paul Volker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Greenspan continued as Fed Chairman until January 31, 2006. (One can only speculate on whether the coveted Fed Chairmanship represented, at least in part, a payback for Greenspan’s role in initiating the Social Security surplus revenue.)

6) In 1990, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a member of the Greenspan Commission, and one of the strongest advocates the the 1983 legislation, became outraged when he learned that first Reagan, and then President George H.W. Bush used the surplus Social Security revenue to pay for other government programs instead of saving and investing it for the baby boomers. Moynihan locked horns with President Bush and proposed repealing the 1983 payroll tax hike. Moynihan’s view was that if the government could not keep its hands out of the Social Security cookie jar, the cookie jar should be emptied, so there would be no surplus Social Security revenue for the government to loot. President Bush would have no part of repealing the payroll tax hike. The “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president was not about to give up his huge slush fund.

The practice of using every dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue for general government spending continues to this day. The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue which is supposed to be in the trust fund for use in paying for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. But the trust fund is empty! It contains no real assets. As a result, the government will soon be unable to pay full benefits without a tax increase. Money can be spent or it can be saved. But you can’t do both. Absolutely none of the $2.5 trillion was saved or invested in anything. I have been laboring for more than a decade to expose the great Social Security scam.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Moynihan was a rare bird. He was the first and the most vocal to call it a theft. But you are blinded by partisianship. You should TRY to shed some of the bias.

Reagan is NOT the reason that the theft occurred. It occurred with FULL concurrence of the Congress. The left STILL brags about the Clinton balanced budget. Which was only balanced with the accounting of the Surplus as income. SOME politicians on both sides have admitted to this scheme, but they are RARE. And educating the the American people about the shameful waste of this money has NEVER been on the radars of EITHER party.

The problem has ALWAYS been that Congress has no SAVINGS ACCOUNT. The only invested monies they handle is pensions. AND THOSE are largely put into 3rd party hands.

More importantly, when Republicans suggested using the Surplus to defer future liabilities by creating very limited "personal accounts" -- you and your minions went crazy.. And the end result was PROMULGATING the theft wasn't it? So YOU are likely to blame as well... USING that surplus in that fashion back then --- WOULD have resulted in cash benefits to the program TODAY!!!!

I do blame Reagan for a number of the problems we face today. And so does the father of Reaganomics.

We went from a tax and spend government to a borrow and spend government. Trickle down never happened, instead the opulent vacuumed up the wealth the middle class had accumulated. And today's GOP represents the biggest danger this nation faces. They are people who don't even know truth from dogma and myth.

The Democratic party has no liberal or progressive power within. They were last seen boarding Bobby Kennedy's funeral train never to be seen or heard from again. Today's Democratic party is further to the right than the GOP was in the 1950's.

When you and I are dust, and historians decipher the rise and fall of America, November 22nd, 1963 will be the zenith. We have been in a free-fall ever since.

The nation will go back on course when we free education from your greedy slimy corrupt fingers.

 

[Unkotare]

I know, son, that you hate being told you are not in the mainstream, but, sorry, you are not, and your silly politics only hurt the country.

Son, understand this: we mainstream Republicans don't care what you guys think. We will do what we know is best in saving the party from you and your comrades. That is simply it. That discussion is done.

they know better to mess with the GOP mainstreamers here that are in charge.

Definately, definately mainstream. Definately mainstream. Mainstream, yeah, mainstream. Uh-oh! Time for Wapner!

Definately, definately mainstream. Mainsteam. Yeah. Of course I'm a very good driiiiiiver. Mainstream. Yeah. Mainstream. Uh-oh! Time for Wapner!

 

[Unkotare]

On one side are those who create wealth, America’s private sector–the very ones targeted by President Obama’s tax hikes announced Monday.

On the other are the public employee unions; left-leaning intelligentsia who see the growth of government as index of progress; and the millions of Americans now dependent on government through a growing network of government transfer payments, from Medicaid and Social Security to college loans and corporate bailouts and handouts (think GM and Solyndra).

Ignorant rightist idiocy.

Over the past century America’s private sector has been the source of productivity, innovation, creativity, and growth–and gave us the iPhone and iPad. The public sector has been the engine of entitlement, stagnation, and decline -- and gave us Detroit and the South Bronx.

Nonsense.

America’s growth and prosperity during the 20th Century was the consequence of public and private sectors working together.

When all the talking is done their remains one truth. America has been sold out by the fascist that deregulated Wall Street and sold our jobs to the communists.
Jobs are not created by companies feeling sorry for laid off workers or any sense of loyalty to the country. Jobs are only created when their is more demand for products by consumers and unemployed workers do not make good consumers. Globalization and one world government is a failure yet the American public still supports it.

The America people have the fascist military government it has voted for since Eisenhower left office.

I am glad to have grown up threw the great depression and the creation of the New Deal that put American back on it's feet and I thank god daily that I had enough sense to save for my retirement instead of throwing away my money on political fascist campaigns and for fighting in two wars and coming home in one peace and being smart enough not to invest my money in the organized crime syndicates called Wall Street and FED.

Americans better get out and vote for their favorite fascist in November because it may be the last vote this country see for a long time. It does not matter which party people want to support they are both openly fascist and anti American.

You need to use some of that money you saved to buy a dictionary. Both because your spelling is that of a 3rd grade drop-out and because you obviously don't know what the word 'fascist' means.

 

[Listening]

Yea, the truth hurts.

Good thing JKG or you wouldn't know truth if it jumped up and bit you on your tiny little dicks.

Care to debate me on any topic? I will bury you.

Pick one...

I''ll be waiting........................

I'll start a thread (likely in a different forum to keep from being forced to sort through the bull) and let you know. It will be related to Obamacare.

I love comments like "I will buy you." especially coming from someone challenging me to a debate. Just how the hell are you going to prove you buried anyone ? It is a statement that requires a subjective judgement we have to agree upon...unless you plan to climb your tree, eat a banana, and beat your chest (which I always enjoy watching lefties do).....which is a whole discussion in and of itself.

 

[Bfgrn]

Good thing JKG or you wouldn't know truth if it jumped up and bit you on your tiny little dicks.

Care to debate me on any topic? I will bury you.

Pick one...

I''ll be waiting........................

I'll start a thread (likely in a different forum to keep from being forced to sort through the bull) and let you know. It will be related to Obamacare.

I love comments like "I will buy you." especially coming from someone challenging me to a debate. Just how the hell are you going to prove you buried anyone ? It is a statement that requires a subjective judgement we have to agree upon...unless you plan to climb your tree, eat a banana, and beat your chest (which I always enjoy watching lefties do).....which is a whole discussion in and of itself.

It's simple. I deal with facts and the truth. The right deals with dogma. I will bury you with the truth and the facts. It will be fun, I look forward to it...

 

[Listening]

Care to debate me on any topic? I will bury you.

Pick one...

I''ll be waiting........................

I'll start a thread (likely in a different forum to keep from being forced to sort through the bull) and let you know. It will be related to Obamacare.

I love comments like "I will buy you." especially coming from someone challenging me to a debate. Just how the hell are you going to prove you buried anyone ? It is a statement that requires a subjective judgement we have to agree upon...unless you plan to climb your tree, eat a banana, and beat your chest (which I always enjoy watching lefties do).....which is a whole discussion in and of itself.

It's simple. I deal with facts and the truth. The right deals with dogma. I will bury you with the truth and the facts. It will be fun, I look forward to it...

No you don't, dumbass.....

You don't make statements like "I will bury you." with any reasonable hope you can support such a claim with facts.

You deal with cherrypicked data that supports your pre-supposed conclusion and then apply the standards of good/bad right/wrong/ worked/didn't work to support said pre-supposed conclusion.

And there is no getting around the fact that the conservative message is nuanced in that it desires a certain protocol to be followed regardless of the issue.

I hope you don't find that to much to digest.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'll start a thread (likely in a different forum to keep from being forced to sort through the bull) and let you know. It will be related to Obamacare.

I love comments like "I will buy you." especially coming from someone challenging me to a debate. Just how the hell are you going to prove you buried anyone ? It is a statement that requires a subjective judgement we have to agree upon...unless you plan to climb your tree, eat a banana, and beat your chest (which I always enjoy watching lefties do).....which is a whole discussion in and of itself.

It's simple. I deal with facts and the truth. The right deals with dogma. I will bury you with the truth and the facts. It will be fun, I look forward to it...

No you don't, dumbass.....

You don't make statements like "I will bury you." with any reasonable hope you can support such a claim with facts.

You deal with cherrypicked data that supports your pre-supposed conclusion and then apply the standards of good/bad right/wrong/ worked/didn't work to support said pre-supposed conclusion.

And there is no getting around the fact that the conservative message is nuanced in that it desires a certain protocol to be followed regardless of the issue.

I hope you don't find that to much to digest.

Translation: you will lose, you already know it and you are trying to rig the debate.

But thank you for saying the same thing I already said.

The right deals with dogma = And there is no getting around the fact that the conservative message is nuanced in that it desires a certain protocol to be followed regardless of the issue.

 

[Listening]

It's simple. I deal with facts and the truth. The right deals with dogma. I will bury you with the truth and the facts. It will be fun, I look forward to it...

No you don't, dumbass.....

You don't make statements like "I will bury you." with any reasonable hope you can support such a claim with facts.

You deal with cherrypicked data that supports your pre-supposed conclusion and then apply the standards of good/bad right/wrong/ worked/didn't work to support said pre-supposed conclusion.

And there is no getting around the fact that the conservative message is nuanced in that it desires a certain protocol to be followed regardless of the issue.

I hope you don't find that to much to digest.

Translation: you will lose, you already know it and you are trying to rig the debate.

But thank you for saying the same thing I already said.

The right deals with dogma = And there is no getting around the fact that the conservative message is nuanced in that it desires a certain protocol to be followed regardless of the issue.

How funny....

Since you missed, I will spell it out for you.

You don't get to debate on your terms. If I seriously debate someone, the first thing I always do is establish the ground rules.

Your first statement (I will bury you) only shows that your idea of a debate is to ejaculate onto the board and then run around like some moron claiming victory.

The right deals with process and scope.....that is part of the debate (i.e. the U.S.Constitution says there is no place for health care....don't really care what John Roberts says....you can't produce anything that shows where it does....the left has never been able to do it....other than to stick their fingers in their ears and yell out General Welfare......General Welfare....General Welfare.....with no thought given to what they are saying.

Good luck with your shovel...don't hit yourself in the face.

 

[Bfgrn]

No you don't, dumbass.....

You don't make statements like "I will bury you." with any reasonable hope you can support such a claim with facts.

You deal with cherrypicked data that supports your pre-supposed conclusion and then apply the standards of good/bad right/wrong/ worked/didn't work to support said pre-supposed conclusion.

And there is no getting around the fact that the conservative message is nuanced in that it desires a certain protocol to be followed regardless of the issue.

I hope you don't find that to much to digest.

Translation: you will lose, you already know it and you are trying to rig the debate.

But thank you for saying the same thing I already said.

The right deals with dogma = And there is no getting around the fact that the conservative message is nuanced in that it desires a certain protocol to be followed regardless of the issue.

How funny....

Since you missed, I will spell it out for you.

You don't get to debate on your terms. If I seriously debate someone, the first thing I always do is establish the ground rules.

Your first statement (I will bury you) only shows that your idea of a debate is to ejaculate onto the board and then run around like some moron claiming victory.

The right deals with process and scope.....that is part of the debate (i.e. the U.S.Constitution says there is no place for health care....don't really care what John Roberts says....you can't produce anything that shows where it does....the left has never been able to do it....other than to stick their fingers in their ears and yell out General Welfare......General Welfare....General Welfare.....with no thought given to what they are saying.

Good luck with your shovel...don't hit yourself in the face.

The Constitution is not an encyclopedia, it is a brief outline.

But let's see if we can understand why something like health care is not in the Constitution, OK?

There was no 'health' care in 1776. George Washington received the best treatment available at the time of his death in 1799. He would have probably LIVED if doctors had left him alone. Instead they used bloodletting, bowel evacuation, dried beetles on his throat and ramming a toxic compound up his ass.


The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington

To save the General's life, his doctors prescribed and administered bloodletting, placing a blister of cantharides (a preparation of dried beetles) on his throat and performed two venesections of 20 ounces each. To treat the severe sore throat and dysphagia, a solution of vinegar in hot water was prepared. However, attempts to gargle with this solution led again to near suffocation, followed by a severe coughing spell. Venesection was repeated with removal of 40 ounces of blood. Application of blister of cantharides to the General's throat was followed by spontaneous bowel evacuation.

His three physicians then decided to administer calomel (Mercury chloride) and tartar rectally.

The exact quantity of blood removed from the ailing President can be derived at as follows:

1. 12-14 ounces - Mr Albin Rawlins
2. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
3. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
4. 40 ounces - Dr James Craik
5. 32 ounces - Dr Elisha Cullen Dick

The total quantity of blood taken amounted to 124-126 ounces or 3.75 liters, drawn over a period of nine to ten hours on Saturday, December 14, 1799.

General Washington was a physically impressive man measuring 6 feet 3 inches in height and weighing 230 pounds. Because adult blood volume is 70 ml/kg, one can estimate the blood volume of President Washington at seven liters. The extraction of more than half of his blood volume within a short period of time inevitably led to preterminal anemia, hypovolemia, and hypotension. The fact that General Washington stopped struggling and appeared physically calm shortly before his death may have been due to profound hypotension and shock.

The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington


It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Next...LOL!!!

 

[Listening]

Translation: you will lose, you already know it and you are trying to rig the debate.

But thank you for saying the same thing I already said.

The right deals with dogma = And there is no getting around the fact that the conservative message is nuanced in that it desires a certain protocol to be followed regardless of the issue.

How funny....

Since you missed, I will spell it out for you.

You don't get to debate on your terms. If I seriously debate someone, the first thing I always do is establish the ground rules.

Your first statement (I will bury you) only shows that your idea of a debate is to ejaculate onto the board and then run around like some moron claiming victory.

The right deals with process and scope.....that is part of the debate (i.e. the U.S.Constitution says there is no place for health care....don't really care what John Roberts says....you can't produce anything that shows where it does....the left has never been able to do it....other than to stick their fingers in their ears and yell out General Welfare......General Welfare....General Welfare.....with no thought given to what they are saying.

Good luck with your shovel...don't hit yourself in the face.

The Constitution is not an encyclopedia, it is a brief outline.

But let's see if we can understand why something like health care is not in the Constitution, OK?

There was no 'health' care in 1776. George Washington received the best treatment available at the time of his death in 1799. He would have probably LIVED if doctors had left him alone. Instead they used bloodletting, bowel evacuation, dried beetles on his throat and ramming a toxic compound up his ass.


The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington

To save the General's life, his doctors prescribed and administered bloodletting, placing a blister of cantharides (a preparation of dried beetles) on his throat and performed two venesections of 20 ounces each. To treat the severe sore throat and dysphagia, a solution of vinegar in hot water was prepared. However, attempts to gargle with this solution led again to near suffocation, followed by a severe coughing spell. Venesection was repeated with removal of 40 ounces of blood. Application of blister of cantharides to the General's throat was followed by spontaneous bowel evacuation.

His three physicians then decided to administer calomel (Mercury chloride) and tartar rectally.

The exact quantity of blood removed from the ailing President can be derived at as follows:

1. 12-14 ounces - Mr Albin Rawlins
2. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
3. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
4. 40 ounces - Dr James Craik
5. 32 ounces - Dr Elisha Cullen Dick

The total quantity of blood taken amounted to 124-126 ounces or 3.75 liters, drawn over a period of nine to ten hours on Saturday, December 14, 1799.

General Washington was a physically impressive man measuring 6 feet 3 inches in height and weighing 230 pounds. Because adult blood volume is 70 ml/kg, one can estimate the blood volume of President Washington at seven liters. The extraction of more than half of his blood volume within a short period of time inevitably led to preterminal anemia, hypovolemia, and hypotension. The fact that General Washington stopped struggling and appeared physically calm shortly before his death may have been due to profound hypotension and shock.

The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington


It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Next...LOL!!!

O.K.

I'll ask.

Did you have a point you wanted to make ?

 

[Bfgrn]

How funny....

Since you missed, I will spell it out for you.

You don't get to debate on your terms. If I seriously debate someone, the first thing I always do is establish the ground rules.

Your first statement (I will bury you) only shows that your idea of a debate is to ejaculate onto the board and then run around like some moron claiming victory.

The right deals with process and scope.....that is part of the debate (i.e. the U.S.Constitution says there is no place for health care....don't really care what John Roberts says....you can't produce anything that shows where it does....the left has never been able to do it....other than to stick their fingers in their ears and yell out General Welfare......General Welfare....General Welfare.....with no thought given to what they are saying.

Good luck with your shovel...don't hit yourself in the face.

The Constitution is not an encyclopedia, it is a brief outline.

But let's see if we can understand why something like health care is not in the Constitution, OK?

There was no 'health' care in 1776. George Washington received the best treatment available at the time of his death in 1799. He would have probably LIVED if doctors had left him alone. Instead they used bloodletting, bowel evacuation, dried beetles on his throat and ramming a toxic compound up his ass.


The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington

To save the General's life, his doctors prescribed and administered bloodletting, placing a blister of cantharides (a preparation of dried beetles) on his throat and performed two venesections of 20 ounces each. To treat the severe sore throat and dysphagia, a solution of vinegar in hot water was prepared. However, attempts to gargle with this solution led again to near suffocation, followed by a severe coughing spell. Venesection was repeated with removal of 40 ounces of blood. Application of blister of cantharides to the General's throat was followed by spontaneous bowel evacuation.

His three physicians then decided to administer calomel (Mercury chloride) and tartar rectally.

The exact quantity of blood removed from the ailing President can be derived at as follows:

1. 12-14 ounces - Mr Albin Rawlins
2. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
3. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
4. 40 ounces - Dr James Craik
5. 32 ounces - Dr Elisha Cullen Dick

The total quantity of blood taken amounted to 124-126 ounces or 3.75 liters, drawn over a period of nine to ten hours on Saturday, December 14, 1799.

General Washington was a physically impressive man measuring 6 feet 3 inches in height and weighing 230 pounds. Because adult blood volume is 70 ml/kg, one can estimate the blood volume of President Washington at seven liters. The extraction of more than half of his blood volume within a short period of time inevitably led to preterminal anemia, hypovolemia, and hypotension. The fact that General Washington stopped struggling and appeared physically calm shortly before his death may have been due to profound hypotension and shock.

The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington


It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Next...LOL!!!

O.K.

I'll ask.

Did you have a point you wanted to make ?

Yes, maybe if you re-read my post, it will become apparent.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Translation: you will lose, you already know it and you are trying to rig the debate.

But thank you for saying the same thing I already said.

The right deals with dogma = And there is no getting around the fact that the conservative message is nuanced in that it desires a certain protocol to be followed regardless of the issue.

How funny....

Since you missed, I will spell it out for you.

You don't get to debate on your terms. If I seriously debate someone, the first thing I always do is establish the ground rules.

Your first statement (I will bury you) only shows that your idea of a debate is to ejaculate onto the board and then run around like some moron claiming victory.

The right deals with process and scope.....that is part of the debate (i.e. the U.S.Constitution says there is no place for health care....don't really care what John Roberts says....you can't produce anything that shows where it does....the left has never been able to do it....other than to stick their fingers in their ears and yell out General Welfare......General Welfare....General Welfare.....with no thought given to what they are saying.

Good luck with your shovel...don't hit yourself in the face.

The Constitution is not an encyclopedia, it is a brief outline.

But let's see if we can understand why something like health care is not in the Constitution, OK?

There was no 'health' care in 1776. George Washington received the best treatment available at the time of his death in 1799. He would have probably LIVED if doctors had left him alone. Instead they used bloodletting, bowel evacuation, dried beetles on his throat and ramming a toxic compound up his ass.


The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington

To save the General's life, his doctors prescribed and administered bloodletting, placing a blister of cantharides (a preparation of dried beetles) on his throat and performed two venesections of 20 ounces each. To treat the severe sore throat and dysphagia, a solution of vinegar in hot water was prepared. However, attempts to gargle with this solution led again to near suffocation, followed by a severe coughing spell. Venesection was repeated with removal of 40 ounces of blood. Application of blister of cantharides to the General's throat was followed by spontaneous bowel evacuation.

His three physicians then decided to administer calomel (Mercury chloride) and tartar rectally.

The exact quantity of blood removed from the ailing President can be derived at as follows:

1. 12-14 ounces - Mr Albin Rawlins
2. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
3. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
4. 40 ounces - Dr James Craik
5. 32 ounces - Dr Elisha Cullen Dick

The total quantity of blood taken amounted to 124-126 ounces or 3.75 liters, drawn over a period of nine to ten hours on Saturday, December 14, 1799.

General Washington was a physically impressive man measuring 6 feet 3 inches in height and weighing 230 pounds. Because adult blood volume is 70 ml/kg, one can estimate the blood volume of President Washington at seven liters. The extraction of more than half of his blood volume within a short period of time inevitably led to preterminal anemia, hypovolemia, and hypotension. The fact that General Washington stopped struggling and appeared physically calm shortly before his death may have been due to profound hypotension and shock.

The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington


It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Next...LOL!!!

The Constitution is not an encyclopedia, it is a brief outline.

The Constitution is not even a brief outline, it's the law of the land you stupid fuck.

 

[Listening]

The Constitution is not an encyclopedia, it is a brief outline.

But let's see if we can understand why something like health care is not in the Constitution, OK?

There was no 'health' care in 1776. George Washington received the best treatment available at the time of his death in 1799. He would have probably LIVED if doctors had left him alone. Instead they used bloodletting, bowel evacuation, dried beetles on his throat and ramming a toxic compound up his ass.


The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington

To save the General's life, his doctors prescribed and administered bloodletting, placing a blister of cantharides (a preparation of dried beetles) on his throat and performed two venesections of 20 ounces each. To treat the severe sore throat and dysphagia, a solution of vinegar in hot water was prepared. However, attempts to gargle with this solution led again to near suffocation, followed by a severe coughing spell. Venesection was repeated with removal of 40 ounces of blood. Application of blister of cantharides to the General's throat was followed by spontaneous bowel evacuation.

His three physicians then decided to administer calomel (Mercury chloride) and tartar rectally.

The exact quantity of blood removed from the ailing President can be derived at as follows:

1. 12-14 ounces - Mr Albin Rawlins
2. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
3. 20 ounces - Dr James Craik
4. 40 ounces - Dr James Craik
5. 32 ounces - Dr Elisha Cullen Dick

The total quantity of blood taken amounted to 124-126 ounces or 3.75 liters, drawn over a period of nine to ten hours on Saturday, December 14, 1799.

General Washington was a physically impressive man measuring 6 feet 3 inches in height and weighing 230 pounds. Because adult blood volume is 70 ml/kg, one can estimate the blood volume of President Washington at seven liters. The extraction of more than half of his blood volume within a short period of time inevitably led to preterminal anemia, hypovolemia, and hypotension. The fact that General Washington stopped struggling and appeared physically calm shortly before his death may have been due to profound hypotension and shock.

The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington


It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Next...LOL!!!

O.K.

I'll ask.

Did you have a point you wanted to make ?

Yes, maybe if you re-read my post, it will become apparent.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

Why don't you quit playing games and come out and say you don't think the Constitution applies anymore. I read that in your post. I just wondered if you had the stones to actually say it.

Jefferson also said....

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

But, hereagain is my point: Already you've stepped into the somehow deciding what a fact is and what constitutes and argument. Just because Jefferson said it...that makes it law....?

No.

And even if something is law....will it always be law ? No.

Unless you think the 18th amendment is still in force.

I made an assertion.....and what you did was simply to deflect to the kind of standard you want to utilize in assessing the usefulness of the assertion....without ever stating as much.

But...you'll bury me in a "debate". I shudder to think what you call debate.

 

[Bfgrn]

O.K.

I'll ask.

Did you have a point you wanted to make ?

Yes, maybe if you re-read my post, it will become apparent.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

Why don't you quit playing games and come out and say you don't think the Constitution applies anymore. I read that in your post. I just wondered if you had the stones to actually say it.

Let's talk about what kind of country and government our founders designed. Did our founding fathers create an oligarchy where only the wealthy survive? Health care is not in the Constitution, but neither is the word corporation, for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government.

The Constitution only mentions two entities: We the People and the government. The people are on one side of a line, and we are sovereign and have individual rights. On the other side of the line is the government, which is accountable to the people and has specific duties to perform to the satisfaction of the people. We delegate some of our power to the government in order to perform tasks we want government to do. In a representative democracy, this system should work just fine.

In the Declaration of Independence, the preface to all the documents that followed, Thomas Jefferson famously said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Please explain to me how 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is possible without your health?

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, maybe if you re-read my post, it will become apparent.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

Why don't you quit playing games and come out and say you don't think the Constitution applies anymore. I read that in your post. I just wondered if you had the stones to actually say it.

Let's talk about what kind of country and government our founders designed. Did our founding fathers create an oligarchy where only the wealthy survive? Health care is not in the Constitution, but neither is the word corporation, for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government.

The Constitution only mentions two entities: We the People and the government. The people are on one side of a line, and we are sovereign and have individual rights. On the other side of the line is the government, which is accountable to the people and has specific duties to perform to the satisfaction of the people. We delegate some of our power to the government in order to perform tasks we want government to do. In a representative democracy, this system should work just fine.

In the Declaration of Independence, the preface to all the documents that followed, Thomas Jefferson famously said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Please explain to me how 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is possible without your health?

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

Let's talk about what kind of country and government our founders designed. Did our founding fathers create an oligarchy where only the wealthy survive? Health care is not in the Constitution, but neither is the word corporation, for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government.

Our founders created a nation that left domestic issues to the states and a Federal government to insure that the states did not deprive it's citizens of the rights they have.