Political Change and Correctness Can Destroy America

[Foxfyre]

Not from me. One thing all of my OICs/SNCOICs agreed upon: I'm might be an asshole, but at least I'm consistent about it.

Actually, as assholes go Gunny, from what I've seen as a relative newcomer here, you're not very good at at it.

Electing a liberal won't destroy America, but unscrupulous politicians who have no qualms about dismantling American values to curry favor, contributions, and votes from special interests can. We have seen liberal values turn peaceful, effective schools into locked down camps to keep them from being shooting galleries, something that was unthinkable 50 years ago.

We have seen people lose their jobs or be professionally ostracized because they made a politically incorrect quip or joke or hold a politically incorrect opinion. This has thrown a huge chill over our literary and educational institutions.

We have seen liberal courts turn our value system upside down with ill advised and devastating rulings that not only fail to correct existing problems but create new ones.

A strong liberal majority in Congress aided and abetted by a highly liberal President and unchecked by liberal leaning Federal and Supreme Courts could in fact dismantle much of the intent of the Constitution and continue us on a downward spiral to be a nation that is no longer the America we have known and loved. We could wind up with something that none of us can truly admire, appreciate, or salute with patriotic pride.

The next President of the United States will likely appoint another Supreme Court Judge or two. Whatever we think about George W. Bush, and however ill advised his Harriet Myers pick was, he has given us two very good men, reasoned, disciplined, jurists on the Supreme Court.

We should think very long and hard about that before we decide who we want to be our next President.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No worse than the corrupt practices of any one of the candidates. You hate based on party lines and are willing to forgive Republicans no matter how vile they act. All politicians are corrupt.

Obama is "no worse"? Evidently not to Senator Clinton. And my hate is not always based on party lines. For example my nickname for McCain is McPain.

What is the definition of victory in Iraq? What are the objectives? And you are such a sell-out. So gouge the middle class and send their jobs overseas rather than act like a civil society and marginalize at least some of the power that the investment firms and banks have over our laws and legislators?

The primary mission and victory is to secure Iraq and train the Iraqis to protect themselves. Petraeus is succeeding in that mission. Of course you don't hear about that in the liberal media.
Hillary is going to gouge the middle class if she gets into office. Just watch your taxes escalate. And watch more middle class jobs go overseas. The only way we can attract more companies to the U.S. is to make it attractive to companies who want to actually make money….that means a lower tax base. Our corporate taxes are the second highest in the world.

So be proud to be a bigot. Yeah, you'll get far in life. Your mom must be proud.

Bigot? LOL. That's the put down label that liberals resort to when they can't defend their position. You can't really define today's liberal "toleration" or "tolerance" because it's just for propaganda use. Obviously I wouldn't get too far in a liberal world because I don't cotton to speech codes, political correctness, and relativism.

Correct, but the government cannot worship, or display religious icons, or display religious text...unless they concede to display all corresponding icons & texts from all other religions. Do you understand the difference?

Government does not worship. People do. As long as a government religion is not established there should not be any prohibition of a people to freely express their religion in the public square. I have no problem with many different religions expressing themselves in public and having the government allow icons or whatever for those that wish to provide them as long as they meet the standards set by each location. For example a courthouse would have different standards than say, an airport.

I have freedom from religion, it is my right to not be preached to, my right to not be harassed because of my beliefs, my right to not be singled out for not praying. If a preacher gets on a soapbox and preaches in a park, that is fine. If that preacher is funded by a government agency - that is wrong. If that preacher comes to my house with his followers to preach outside my lawn in order to force-feed his hyperbole to me - that is wrong. Can you follow this now? Why would you have the right to force your views on me and I not have the right to have peace from those views? Your argument is very one-sided.

Of course the government should not be proactively pushing a particular religion but if you are in the public square you must tolerate (haha) other peoples rights to free expression even if their expressions are religious in nature. That is what the word PUBLIC is all about. That is what FREEDOM OF SPEECH is all about. Get it? Nobody can force you to believe them. If you don't want to listen just leave the public square. If a preacher comes to your home, shut the door on him. If he stands on the public sidewalk in front of your house and deliberately harrasses you (highly unlikely) that is a matter of harrassment because he is violating your right to privacy.

First of all, your logic is biased and flawed...and that shows by you saying secular slob. If Christian crazies come into a room and begin praying, why must I be the one to leave? If that is in the workplace, that is inappropriate. If that is in a government agency, that is un-Constitutional. Christmas is not a government holiday, it is a religious holiday. Government agencies must say Happy Holidays because there are other corresponding holidays, including the Winter Solistice that are just as legitimate as Christmas.

How is it un-Constitutional for government agency people to say "Merry Christmas"? Sounds like you want to put a clamp on a person's right to free speech. Does this apply to your elected congressman or senator as well? You're going to tell them they can't say "Merry Christmas" too? As long as they are not using their government positions to establish a government religion I see nothing wrong with the occasional expressions of holiday cheer such as Merry Christmas or Happy Soltice or a "God bless you" should you sneeze. Lighten up. You're beginning to sound like an ACLU pinhead.

No, they do not. No moreso than Christian extremists legislate from the bench or corporate shills legislate from the bench.

I see. Secular slobs had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. Yarn me another one.

Look who is talking. Christians are supposed to be filled with love, forgiveness and compassion...and here you are being angry, on the attack, and very unforgiving.

No, that was just a simple request for you to suspend your hate for a moment and think about the ramifications of the idea that America was founded with the belief that our rights originate from a Higher Power…not a man-made State.

The Evangelical Taliban is an extrapolation of what I feel is to come. Based on the current Evangelical born-again movements, and the extremists zeal inwhich they are trying to take over America. They see themselves as God's army and they will enforce Christian values into all levels of society. Interestingly enough, so did the Taliban in Afghanistan. So how much violence did the Evangelicals commit when they protested the gay parade?

Are you kidding? The evangelical right is no threat to America or to you. That idea is nothing more than drummed up leftist propaganda and you are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. America was MUCH more religious in years gone by. I'd rather like to see many of those old societal values return to improve the dissolute society we have today. Those evangelicals did not commit any violence at all. Read about it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40929

No, the free market is a myth. The market is not free. The SEC laws are protectionist for the shareholders and not for the workers. The CAFTA/NAFTA agreements were shareholder protection contracts and not free trade agreements. Our taxes go towards subsidies for Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and sweetheart deals for Blackwater and Haliburton.These two things are tied in together. My only contention is that our taxes go towards subsidizing clothing, housing, healthcare, food and such to make the basic necessities affordable for working and lower classes. Why is that wrong?

Because you're just advocating more of the same - expansion of government power. I think our taxes should not subsidize anybody, including corporations (with some exceptions). Less taxes equals more freedom. I'm also not happy with NAFTA/CAFTA/SHAFTA.

I agree that our freedom will be taken away from us. Your demonization of the Democrats is very short-sighted. Bush set some very dangerous precedents that the next president can take further and suspend constitutional law very easily. Mitt Romney is that type of president. Hillary Clinton may also be.

You're right. Lately there has been little difference between the two parties - the Pubs have been acting like liberals and the Dems are going socialist. We've gone too far left. Frankly, I'm not exactly happy with any of the leading candidates - on both sides of the aisle. But between the two I'll take Mitt Romney over Hillary Clinton any day of the week.

 

[Taomon]

Obama is "no worse"? Evidently not to Senator Clinton. And my hate is not always based on party lines. For example my nickname for McCain is McPain.

Fair enough. but Romney?

The primary mission and victory is to secure Iraq and train the Iraqis to protect themselves. Petraeus is succeeding in that mission. Of course you don't hear about that in the liberal media.

And how many primary missions have we gone through? I mean, you actually buy this shit? Bush is arranging for a long term stay in Iraq: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/25/bush_plan_for_iraq_would_be_a_first/

Hillary is going to gouge the middle class if she gets into office. Just watch your taxes escalate. And watch more middle class jobs go overseas. The only way we can attract more companies to the U.S. is to make it attractive to companies who want to actually make money….that means a lower tax base. Our corporate taxes are the second highest in the world.

No they are not, that is a myth. It is thinking like yours that gives power to companies who threaten capital flight and weaken the position of the worker. We have rights to.

Bigot? LOL. That's the put down label that liberals resort to when they can't defend their position. You can't really define today's liberal "toleration" or "tolerance" because it's just for propaganda use. Obviously I wouldn't get too far in a liberal world because I don't cotton to speech codes, political correctness, and relativism.

You know, the people you feel this bigoted hatred towards are people like you and I. They have feelings, love, hate, and bleed like us.

Of course the government should not be proactively pushing a particular religion but if you are in the public square you must tolerate (haha) other peoples rights to free expression even if their expressions are religious in nature. That is what the word PUBLIC is all about. That is what FREEDOM OF SPEECH is all about. Get it? Nobody can force you to believe them. If you don't want to listen just leave the public square. If a preacher comes to your home, shut the door on him. If he stands on the public sidewalk in front of your house and deliberately harrasses you (highly unlikely) that is a matter of harrassment because he is violating your right to privacy.

So what is the point? You obviously want the preacher to have the right to preach but you don't want anyone to have the right not to be preached to since it is they who must walk away...as if the preacher's rights supercede those of the everyday man.

How is it un-Constitutional for government agency people to say "Merry Christmas"? Sounds like you want to put a clamp on a person's right to free speech. Does this apply to your elected congressman or senator as well? You're going to tell them they can't say "Merry Christmas" too? As long as they are not using their government positions to establish a government religion I see nothing wrong with the occasional expressions of holiday cheer such as Merry Christmas or Happy Soltice or a "God bless you" should you sneeze. Lighten up. You're beginning to sound like an ACLU pinhead.

Merry Christmas in your private life is fine, but if you are a government worker...you cannot answer the phone that way, you cannot have it on faxes & emails, you cannot post it on a display at work. Why do you have a problem with that? It sounds to me as though you believe that Christians have more rights than say, Jews, Muslims, Asians, Pagan and Secularists.

I see. Secular slobs had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. Yarn me another one.

Roe V Wade is about the letter of the law. And the woman has the right to choose, get over it. You cannot oppress women with your ideologies so grow up and accept it.

No, that was just a simple request for you to suspend your hate for a moment and think about the ramifications of the idea that America was founded with the belief that our rights originate from a Higher Power…not a man-made State.

Our country was founded on reason and ethics, on a democratic republic of equality - hypocritical equality - but the words speak louder than the white founders intended.

Are you kidding? The evangelical right is no threat to America or to you. That idea is nothing more than drummed up leftist propaganda and you are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. America was MUCH more religious in years gone by. I'd rather like to see many of those old societal values return to improve the dissolute society we have today. Those evangelicals did not commit any violence at all. Read about it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40929

No thanks. The Evangelicals who shot abortion doctors, bombed clinics, beat up homosexuals and established groups like "Jesus Camp" are hardly pacifists. I think you are the one who is blind to a biased media: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE[/ame]

Because you're just advocating more of the same - expansion of government power. I think our taxes should not subsidize anybody, including corporations (with some exceptions). Less taxes equals more freedom. I'm also not happy with NAFTA/CAFTA/SHAFTA.

So how do we fund our government if we lower or eliminate taxes? Or are you trying to eliminate government? Would you prefer anarchy? Every man for himself? We are a society, not a group of individuals who happen to exist in proximity of each other. So as a society we act as a society and that means we need a set of laws, a government to run civil life and a military to protect us. And to run such a group we need to pay taxes. All of us equally paying our share is fair.

The cost of living is high because of greed. To lower it we should subsidize necessities. You act as though that is bad, but the working classes and the poor should be able to afford to eat, clothe themselves, have shelter, utilities, education and healthcare. And in case you missed it...those are requirements and rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Again, as a Christian, why is that wrong?

You're right. Lately there has been little difference between the two parties - the Pubs have been acting like liberals and the Dems are going socialist. We've gone too far left. Frankly, I'm not exactly happy with any of the leading candidates - on both sides of the aisle. But between the two I'll take Mitt Romney over Hillary Clinton any day of the week.

What? First of all, the country is not left...it is fascist. We are all weakened by the growing power of private tyrannies (corporations) whose maximization of profits supercedes any responsibility to the workers, consumers and the general public.

And regarding Romney, I am from MA. Romney will do worse damage to our country than Bush. Romney passed a law that allowed private security firms working for the Mass Transit Authority to randomly search private bags. If you refuse, you are banned from public transportation and the police notified. Violating our 4th amendment rights is a pretty bad sign.

When Duval Patrick was elected Gov over Mitt Romney's Lt Gov Patricia Healey Romney retaliated by cutting funds to the State's mental health programs. A lot of very dangerous people were released (two that I personally know of) and a lot of very sick people could not get medicine.

When the state's parole system needed to be overhauled, Romney put together experts from corresponding fields (psychology, criminologists, etc) to review and make recommendations. That was the good part. They presented their recommendations and they were ignored by Romney who was too busy stumping during his last two years of office. There are two families who were directly affected when - again - very dangerous men were unleashed upon the public.

MA's greatest industries are fishing, tourism, insurance and education (not necessarily in that order). Romney jeopardized two of those industries (fishing & tourism) by trying to allow oil companies the right to drill offshore. The money was not earmarked for any social programs or education, and would have instead been sunk into the big dig.

Romney saw the healthcare crisis in MA as severe. We had several thousand uninsured adults and even more children. Mostly working class whose wages were stagnant against the rising cost of living, these people simply could not afford the premiums and deductibles. Romney passed a law that requires all people over 18 to buy insurance. Let me repeat this part...HE PASSED A LAW THAT REQUIRES PEOPLE TO BUY INSURANCE! Tax penalties are applied to all who fail to comply.

Romney did not make a bunch of new taxes. Instead he got around that by creating fees for everything. If a fee already existed, he raised it. He is wily one.

This guy is a piece of shit. I implore you to research him more closely before deciding to vote for him. Mark my words, we would all regret it if he is to become president.

 

[Alucard]

This Taomon idiot is a great example of what I have been saying all along...

And the more I hear... the more urgent the situation seems...

Its our duty... to protect our freedoms against this type of ideology... we must eliminate the threat as soon as possible however possible...

Unfortunately...The time has come to organize... Identify... and plan...

The day will be apon us sooner than you think and you have to start somewhere...

Since the local authorities have been rendered useless... Tomarrow ... my group of citizens will be visiting a home in a nearby neighborhood housing illegal immigrants that have taken Americans jobs...

Then we will be visiting their employer...

They will be given an ultimatum...

Your right Taomon... the time for change has come, unfortunately for you ... you and others like you are going to end up at the short end of the stick...

 

[Taomon]

This Taomon idiot is a great example of what I have been saying all along...

And the more I hear... the more urgent the situation seems...

Its our duty... to protect our freedoms against this type of ideology... we must eliminate the threat as soon as possible however possible...

Unfortunately...The time has come to organize... Identify... and plan...

The day will be apon us sooner than you think and you have to start somewhere...

Since the local authorities have been rendered useless... Tomarrow ... my group of citizens will be visiting a home in a nearby neighborhood housing illegal immigrants that have taken Americans jobs...

Then we will be visiting their employer...

They will be given an ultimatum...

Your right Taomon... the time for change has come, unfortunately for you ... you and others like you are going to end up at the short end of the stick...

oooo I am so scared. Alucard, you are all talk and no action.

 

[Taomon]

This Taomon idiot is a great example of what I have been saying all along...

And the more I hear... the more urgent the situation seems...

Its our duty... to protect our freedoms against this type of ideology... we must eliminate the threat as soon as possible however possible...

Unfortunately...The time has come to organize... Identify... and plan...

The day will be apon us sooner than you think and you have to start somewhere...

Since the local authorities have been rendered useless... Tomarrow ... my group of citizens will be visiting a home in a nearby neighborhood housing illegal immigrants that have taken Americans jobs...

Then we will be visiting their employer...

They will be given an ultimatum...

Your right Taomon... the time for change has come, unfortunately for you ... you and others like you are going to end up at the short end of the stick...

And how exactly is what I am saying here in these posts dangerous or wrong? Do you not care about your fellow American citizens?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Fair enough. but Romney?

Romney is supposedly of the more so-called "conservative" candidates. However he does have good hair. Isn't it usually the best hair wins?

And how many primary missions have we gone through? I mean, you actually buy this shit? Bush is arranging for a long term stay in Iraq: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/25/bush_plan_for_iraq_would_be_a_first/

The first mission to depose Saddam was brilliantly executed. It was the followup that was pretty sad - until Petraeus stepped in. Whatever Bush arranges is legitimate as a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement). However, should it reach the level of a treaty the Senate must approve. Otherwise the next President can change the status quo.

No they are not, that is a myth. It is thinking like yours that gives power to companies who threaten capital flight and weaken the position of the worker. We have rights to.

That is not a myth: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html
That is why so many corporations leave the US.
You have the right to organize or to change jobs. It's thoughts like yours that lead to socialism and destroy jobs.

You know, the people you feel this bigoted hatred towards are people like you and I. They have feelings, love, hate, and bleed like us.

What a bleeding heart. The FACT remains that everybody has the SAME Constitutional rights. No discrimination allowed in America. That means positive (i.e., favoritism) as well as negative. We are all equal under the law. I really wish you liberals would get a new theme.

So what is the point? You obviously want the preacher to have the right to preach but you don't want anyone to have the right not to be preached to since it is they who must walk away...as if the preacher's rights supercede those of the everyday man.

The point is you liberals don't really understand freedom of speech. You are a bunch of busybodies attempting to make everyone act "nice" to protect your sensitive "ears" and "feelings" …and in the process you wind up curtailing our Constitutional rights. Get a spine or at least some ear plugs.

Merry Christmas in your private life is fine, but if you are a government worker...you cannot answer the phone that way, you cannot have it on faxes & emails, you cannot post it on a display at work. Why do you have a problem with that? It sounds to me as though you believe that Christians have more rights than say, Jews, Muslims, Asians, Pagan and Secularists.

I have a problem with that because it is the government dictating to the people what they can say. Where is our freedom of speech in that? And you are wrong that I think Christians have more rights…your leftist hatred of Chrisitians is quite obvious…whatever happened to that wonderful liberal "tolerance" you're supposed to have? What's your big beef against Christians anyway? Are you a homo who wants to marry? Or is it you just like aborting babies?

Roe V Wade is about the letter of the law. And the woman has the right to choose, get over it. You cannot oppress women with your ideologies so grow up and accept it.

RvW is about twisting the letter of the law. Where in the Constitution does it say a "woman has the right to choose"? What about the father's right to choose? Or the child's right to choose to live? There are THREE people involved in a pregnancy. You cannot oppress two out of three with your secular "progressive" ideologies. I will not accept it. Whatever happened to the "right to life"? Your secular progressive stance only debases the value of human life in the process of snuffing it out. Hopefully we will soon reverse RvW. It was a sad mistake. Hell, even the woman in the case now opposes the law.

Our country was founded on reason and ethics, on a democratic republic of equality - hypocritical equality - but the words speak louder than the white founders intended.

Our founders stated the source of our rights. No man or State can take away our rights because they come from a Higher Source:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.

No thanks. The Evangelicals who shot abortion doctors, bombed clinics, beat up homosexuals and established groups like "Jesus Camp" are hardly pacifists. I think you are the one who is blind to a biased media: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE

So you want to ignore the proof I presented? Typical for a lib. Re abortion clinics there were maybe one or two doctors shot and both Evangelicals and all Christians abhorred the murders and sought justice. Instead of worrying about Evangelicals and their Jesus camps for kids, why don't you stop sipping the liberal koolaid and worry instead about radical Islamists? Now those are some dangerous dudes. They have really dangerous training camps and they teach their kids to actually kill.

So how do we fund our government if we lower or eliminate taxes? Or are you trying to eliminate government? Would you prefer anarchy? Every man for himself? We are a society, not a group of individuals who happen to exist in proximity of each other. So as a society we act as a society and that means we need a set of laws, a government to run civil life and a military to protect us. And to run such a group we need to pay taxes. All of us equally paying our share is fair.

The cost of living is high because of greed. To lower it we should subsidize necessities. You act as though that is bad, but the working classes and the poor should be able to afford to eat, clothe themselves, have shelter, utilities, education and healthcare. And in case you missed it...those are requirements and rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Again, as a Christian, why is that wrong?

Since when did you subscribe to the UN Declaration of Human Rights? That is not a declaration I would want to follow…you should.read the fine print.

How do we fund our government? By setting Americans free to do what they do best.

Lower tax rates = more investments = more business = more profits = more taxes collected
Higher tax rates = less investments = less business = less profits = less taxes collected

Essentially the pie gets newer and bigger when Americans are not hampered by heavy taxes. Everybody prospers, including the government coffers. Dims just want to take bigger tax bites from the old pie. That just eats up the pie. It leaves less pie (and jobs) for the rest of us, especially when the "cooks"(business people) take their portion of pie and go home (quit, contract, or go elsewhere).

What? First of all, the country is not left...it is fascist. We are all weakened by the growing power of private tyrannies (corporations) whose maximization of profits supercedes any responsibility to the workers, consumers and the general public.

And regarding Romney, I am from MA. Romney will do worse damage to our country than Bush. Romney passed a law that allowed private security firms working for the Mass Transit Authority to randomly search private bags. If you refuse, you are banned from public transportation and the police notified. Violating our 4th amendment rights is a pretty bad sign.

When Duval Patrick was elected Gov over Mitt Romney's Lt Gov Patricia Healey Romney retaliated by cutting funds to the State's mental health programs. A lot of very dangerous people were released (two that I personally know of) and a lot of very sick people could not get medicine.

When the state's parole system needed to be overhauled, Romney put together experts from corresponding fields (psychology, criminologists, etc) to review and make recommendations. That was the good part. They presented their recommendations and they were ignored by Romney who was too busy stumping during his last two years of office. There are two families who were directly affected when - again - very dangerous men were unleashed upon the public.

MA's greatest industries are fishing, tourism, insurance and education (not necessarily in that order). Romney jeopardized two of those industries (fishing & tourism) by trying to allow oil companies the right to drill offshore. The money was not earmarked for any social programs or education, and would have instead been sunk into the big dig.

Romney saw the healthcare crisis in MA as severe. We had several thousand uninsured adults and even more children. Mostly working class whose wages were stagnant against the rising cost of living, these people simply could not afford the premiums and deductibles. Romney passed a law that requires all people over 18 to buy insurance. Let me repeat this part...HE PASSED A LAW THAT REQUIRES PEOPLE TO BUY INSURANCE! Tax penalties are applied to all who fail to comply.

Romney did not make a bunch of new taxes. Instead he got around that by creating fees for everything. If a fee already existed, he raised it. He is wily one.

This guy is a piece of shit. I implore you to research him more closely before deciding to vote for him. Mark my words, we would all regret it if he is to become president.

Romney isn't any worse than the Democrats when it comes to health care. Which is not sayinga whole lot.

There are laws today that require people to buy auto insurance! Frankly, I don't like that law either. Romney's forcing everyone to buy insurance at least prevents the freeloaders from going to the emergency rooms who jack up the costs for others who have to make a regular appointment to see a doctor. Actually Hillary Clinton and other Dems also require the individual and employer mandate in their plans too. The idea is to increase the pool to hopefully lower costs. But just like with auto insurance there are those who still do not pay and the rest of us wind up getting uninsured/underinsured insurance to pay for them. Romney's MA plan has since allowed 20% of the uninsured poor to not pay - so it seems the real problem is still not solved. IMO the top-down government approach does not work.

Instead of government health care, we need to get the government OUT of health care. But we also need to get the insurance companies OUT of health care at least for the most part. Insurance companies should act like insurance companies, not making decisions for you and your doctor (the same goes for government). We also need to get employers OUT of health care (they don't have your best interests at heart either). There are just too many layers of control today which translates into more expense. People need to go back to the old way of paying their own way at the local clinic directly out of their own pockets. Maybe buy some cheap catastrophic insurance strictly for the big ticket items. Get people on HSAs. When there is a direct monetary relationship between the doctor/clinic and the patient prices will come down. Let the market work!

 

[Taomon]

Romney is supposedly of the more so-called "conservative" candidates. However he does have good hair. Isn't it usually the best hair wins?


The first mission to depose Saddam was brilliantly executed. It was the followup that was pretty sad - until Petraeus stepped in. Whatever Bush arranges is legitimate as a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement). However, should it reach the level of a treaty the Senate must approve. Otherwise the next President can change the status quo.


That is not a myth: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html
That is why so many corporations leave the US.
You have the right to organize or to change jobs. It's thoughts like yours that lead to socialism and destroy jobs.


What a bleeding heart. The FACT remains that everybody has the SAME Constitutional rights. No discrimination allowed in America. That means positive (i.e., favoritism) as well as negative. We are all equal under the law. I really wish you liberals would get a new theme.


The point is you liberals don't really understand freedom of speech. You are a bunch of busybodies attempting to make everyone act "nice" to protect your sensitive "ears" and "feelings" …and in the process you wind up curtailing our Constitutional rights. Get a spine or at least some ear plugs.


I have a problem with that because it is the government dictating to the people what they can say. Where is our freedom of speech in that? And you are wrong that I think Christians have more rights…your leftist hatred of Chrisitians is quite obvious…whatever happened to that wonderful liberal "tolerance" you're supposed to have? What's your big beef against Christians anyway? Are you a homo who wants to marry? Or is it you just like aborting babies?


RvW is about twisting the letter of the law. Where in the Constitution does it say a "woman has the right to choose"? What about the father's right to choose? Or the child's right to choose to live? There are THREE people involved in a pregnancy. You cannot oppress two out of three with your secular "progressive" ideologies. I will not accept it. Whatever happened to the "right to life"? Your secular progressive stance only debases the value of human life in the process of snuffing it out. Hopefully we will soon reverse RvW. It was a sad mistake. Hell, even the woman in the case now opposes the law.


Our founders stated the source of our rights. No man or State can take away our rights because they come from a Higher Source:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.


So you want to ignore the proof I presented? Typical for a lib. Re abortion clinics there were maybe one or two doctors shot and both Evangelicals and all Christians abhorred the murders and sought justice. Instead of worrying about Evangelicals and their Jesus camps for kids, why don't you stop sipping the liberal koolaid and worry instead about radical Islamists? Now those are some dangerous dudes. They have really dangerous training camps and they teach their kids to actually kill.


Since when did you subscribe to the UN Declaration of Human Rights? That is not a declaration I would want to follow…you should.read the fine print.

How do we fund our government? By setting Americans free to do what they do best.

Lower tax rates = more investments = more business = more profits = more taxes collected
Higher tax rates = less investments = less business = less profits = less taxes collected

Essentially the pie gets newer and bigger when Americans are not hampered by heavy taxes. Everybody prospers, including the government coffers. Dims just want to take bigger tax bites from the old pie. That just eats up the pie. It leaves less pie (and jobs) for the rest of us, especially when the "cooks"(business people) take their portion of pie and go home (quit, contract, or go elsewhere).



Romney isn't any worse than the Democrats when it comes to health care. Which is not sayinga whole lot.

There are laws today that require people to buy auto insurance! Frankly, I don't like that law either. Romney's forcing everyone to buy insurance at least prevents the freeloaders from going to the emergency rooms who jack up the costs for others who have to make a regular appointment to see a doctor. Actually Hillary Clinton and other Dems also require the individual and employer mandate in their plans too. The idea is to increase the pool to hopefully lower costs. But just like with auto insurance there are those who still do not pay and the rest of us wind up getting uninsured/underinsured insurance to pay for them. Romney's MA plan has since allowed 20% of the uninsured poor to not pay - so it seems the real problem is still not solved. IMO the top-down government approach does not work.

Instead of government health care, we need to get the government OUT of health care. But we also need to get the insurance companies OUT of health care at least for the most part. Insurance companies should act like insurance companies, not making decisions for you and your doctor (the same goes for government). We also need to get employers OUT of health care (they don't have your best interests at heart either). There are just too many layers of control today which translates into more expense. People need to go back to the old way of paying their own way at the local clinic directly out of their own pockets. Maybe buy some cheap catastrophic insurance strictly for the big ticket items. Get people on HSAs. When there is a direct monetary relationship between the doctor/clinic and the patient prices will come down. Let the market work!

get a job

 

[ScreamingEagle]

get a job

whatsamatta? your poor liberal brain go on overload?

 

[Shogun]

I'll say it again. Don't blame us because your 00 and 04 poster boy for a ron reagan wet dream didn't turn into the fairy princess that you were convinced he was. Bush isn't a stain on OUR carpet, dude. That's all you. In fact, you can take your "short end of the stick" joke and cry on it's shoulder this year after you discover how much of an impact the stupidity of your last two presidential choices has on your political affiliation. Yea, dude.. America is going to choose someone MORE conservative after your last collective chance at the oval office.

sure, dude!

 

[midcan5]

Damn another dumb article. Where does this crap come from. These writers can't be real. America was founded on the separation of church and state. Note that God is not mentioned in the constitution. And helping people is not socialism, one item of note in the recent election is a big change. This is the first time healthcare has become an issue in a presidential campaign. Kerry wouldn't touch it. Business now recognizes its importance, so maybe we will have a little of that nice socialism, you know like help each other and stuff like that. Change will come it always does or we would still be living in caves baaing at the moon.

 

[Paulie]

When the media refers to guys like Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee as "conservative", you know the country has literally fallen from grace.

I'm a closet Fred Thompson fan to a certain extent, I'll admit it...I'd have been willing to support him if his foreign policy wasn't so blatantly neo-con.

But when the republican party isn't throwing their full support to a real conservative like him, I see some serious fucked up things that are wrong with this country.

It's sickening to me that republican voters are more about party loyalty, than ideology loyalty. The party can always offer new PEOPLE, but this country actually managed to allow a major party to be hijacked from the bottom up.

To the point where it's "let's vote for WHOEVER is less liberal than the Dems."

I may move to Switzerland next year...who's with me?

 

[Taomon]

whatsamatta? your poor liberal brain go on overload?

No, I work for a living and don't have time for you right now.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, I work for a living and don't have time for you right now.

You're the one who split up the original post into a bunch of mini-sections. I just answered you in kind. You probably thought I'd run from the typical liberal snowball approach. I didn't and proved your claims wrong....so now you whine about no time?

Take your pom poms and go dance for "change" somewhere else. You liberal losers don't fool me for a nano-second.

 

[Shogun]

yea.. you've had your fill of being led around like a lawn donkey in '04, right?


Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Dont want to be a richer man
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Just gonna have to be a different man
Time may change me
But I cant trace time

 

[ScreamingEagle]

yea.. you've had your fill of being led around like a lawn donkey in '04, right?


Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Dont want to be a richer man
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Just gonna have to be a different man
Time may change me
But I cant trace time

Yep. I'd started having my fill of it years ago, especially regarding immigration.

However, displeasure with the GOP does not mean we need the donkeys to lead now.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yep. I'd started having my fill of it years ago, especially regarding immigration.

However, displeasure with the GOP does not mean we need the donkeys to lead now.

Your right. The Republicans have not put up any good conservative since Reagan BUT the Dems are so much worse it leaves one little choice. 2004 is a perfect example of that. The Democrats should have won but instead they pandered to the crazy nuts on the far left and ran one of the guys that was SO bad BUSH beat him. And beat him with the moderate undecided vote. Then they actually kicked out one of the few remaining Democrats the middle could vote for.

 

[Shogun]

Yep. I'd started having my fill of it years ago, especially regarding immigration.

However, displeasure with the GOP does not mean we need the donkeys to lead now.

yea yea yea... you say that every election about anything the republicans do to disappoint you.


You might want to buckle up and brace yourself then.. You're going to HATE the rest of 08.

 

[Shogun]

Your right. The Republicans have not put up any good conservative since Reagan BUT the Dems are so much worse it leaves one little choice. 2004 is a perfect example of that. The Democrats should have won but instead they pandered to the crazy nuts on the far left and ran one of the guys that was SO bad BUSH beat him. And beat him with the moderate undecided vote. Then they actually kicked out one of the few remaining Democrats the middle could vote for.

It's stupidity like that which allows people like bush to promise you one thing and end up where we are today. Demonize the dems, go ahead. It's not like you have the cognitive function evolution gave a a sea cucumber to critically think about anything beyond what your pom pons tell you to say.

 

[nibor]

Let's see REAL political change.......................I'm certain not to gain any "buddies" on this one................REAL political change would be to change the presidential office as we know it with the times.........my suggestion would be to actually gain presidential RESPONSABILITY by creating a presidential PANEL OF EXPERTS of both/all parties,paying them between 10-15 million each for actual expertise.....................maybe four or five, experts in their own field and collectively responsible for the decisions............because what I see is no one able to be expert enough to handle the complex issues of today alone............we look like such lite weights in the world anymore????????????