Obviously, everyone is over Obama's speeches
89- Poppa Blues
- 2349 posts
- Joined: 15 months ago
- Hubs: 66
- Followers: 134
ledefensetech wrote:
Poppa Blues wrote:
He was a republician and he switched parties. Progressive is more like a liberal democrat or a socialist.
Look up Scozzafava. See what her stances were.
Scozzafava is a democrat. She endorsed the democrat candidate. I know she ran under the republican brand, but clearly she wasn't a republican. Not that it matters to me. I don't care what party someone belongs to I only care that they are for smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes and greater individual freedom. Generally speaking the democrats philosophy is exactly opposite of mine.
88- ledefensetech
- 2881 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Followers: 107
Poppa Blues wrote:
Scozzafava is a democrat. She endorsed the democrat candidate. I know she ran under the republican brand, but clearly she wasn't a republican. Not that it matters to me. I don't care what party someone belongs to I only care that they are for smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes and greater individual freedom. Generally speaking the democrats philosophy is exactly opposite of mine.
Funny. Bush campaigned for smaller government, yet until Papa Obama, his administration presided over the largest increase in government since the bad old days of FDR. Just because someone says they're for smaller government, doesn't mean that their actions will follow their words. Actions count, words are meaningless.
- 89
- Poppa Blues
- 2349 posts
- Joined: 15 months ago
- Hubs: 66
- Followers: 134
ledefensetech wrote:
Poppa Blues wrote:
Scozzafava is a democrat. She endorsed the democrat candidate. I know she ran under the republican brand, but clearly she wasn't a republican. Not that it matters to me. I don't care what party someone belongs to I only care that they are for smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes and greater individual freedom. Generally speaking the democrats philosophy is exactly opposite of mine.
Funny. Bush campaigned for smaller government, yet until Papa Obama, his administration presided over the largest increase in government since the bad old days of FDR. Just because someone says they're for smaller government, doesn't mean that their actions will follow their words. Actions count, words are meaningless.
Agreed! Government by it's very nature is corrupt. It is in it's own interest to grow and become bigger. Part of the problem with Bush was that the republicans had a majority in congress while controlling the WH. That's too much power for one party. The other problem is the voters that allowed that to happen.
69- rhamson
- 1751 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Followers: 19
Poppa Blues wrote:
ledefensetech wrote:
Poppa Blues wrote:
Scozzafava is a democrat. She endorsed the democrat candidate. I know she ran under the republican brand, but clearly she wasn't a republican. Not that it matters to me. I don't care what party someone belongs to I only care that they are for smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes and greater individual freedom. Generally speaking the democrats philosophy is exactly opposite of mine.
Funny. Bush campaigned for smaller government, yet until Papa Obama, his administration presided over the largest increase in government since the bad old days of FDR. Just because someone says they're for smaller government, doesn't mean that their actions will follow their words. Actions count, words are meaningless.
Agreed! Government by it's very nature is corrupt. It is in it's own interest to grow and become bigger. Part of the problem with Bush was that the republicans had a majority in congress while controlling the WH. That's too much power for one party. The other problem is the voters that allowed that to happen.
"The other problem is the voters that allowed that to happen" Now this is something that I can agree with you on. How can we ensure that the electorate become more involved and vote? The major problem as I see it is the polarization of the electorate by the two party system and the lack of responsiblity of the voters to get out and vote. So many people take an apathetic attitude towards the process and leave it to others.
- 88
- ledefensetech
- 2881 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Followers: 107
Poppa Blues wrote:
Agreed! Government by it's very nature is corrupt. It is in it's own interest to grow and become bigger. Part of the problem with Bush was that the republicans had a majority in congress while controlling the WH. That's too much power for one party. The other problem is the voters that allowed that to happen.
Our system of government was never set up to deal with the problems of political parties. They cropped up during Washington's administration and coalesced around Hamilton and Jefferson. About the only good thing Aaron Burr did was shoot Hamilton.
The problem is, as Benjamin Franklin said: "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." and: "All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse."
We're seeing today the folly of straying from the wisdom of Franklin and people like him. - 69
- rhamson
- 1751 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Followers: 19
ledefensetech wrote:
Poppa Blues wrote:
Agreed! Government by it's very nature is corrupt. It is in it's own interest to grow and become bigger. Part of the problem with Bush was that the republicans had a majority in congress while controlling the WH. That's too much power for one party. The other problem is the voters that allowed that to happen.
Our system of government was never set up to deal with the problems of political parties. They cropped up during Washington's administration and coalesced around Hamilton and Jefferson. About the only good thing Aaron Burr did was shoot Hamilton.
The problem is, as Benjamin Franklin said: "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." and: "All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse."
We're seeing today the folly of straying from the wisdom of Franklin and people like him.If what you say is true then we are all individuals and should only rely on that which is self serving. Remember this?
"No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
This country was founded on it strength in numbers and it's progress is infinitely tied to it. If we stray from this then we are doomed to fight out our own little wars in our own little serfdoms. - 88
- ledefensetech
- 2881 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Followers: 107
rhamson wrote:
If what you say is true then we are all individuals and should only rely on that which is self serving. Remember this?
"No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
This country was founded on it strength in numbers and it's progress is infinitely tied to it. If we stray from this then we are doomed to fight out our own little wars in our own little serfdoms.Being self reliant isn't the same thing as screwing your neighbor over. In fact it is very often not in your self interest to screw your neighbor over because you never know when you're going to need their help or be in their power. Each man should be an island unto themselves in respects to not being a burden on someone. Once we've taken care of ourselves, then it's our duty to watch out for each other.
You, like so many others either deliberately or out of ignorance, confuse self interest and selfishness.
Ben Franklin also had issues with the Constitution.
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
* Speech to the Constitutional Convention (28 June 1787) - 69
- rhamson
- 1751 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Followers: 19
ledefensetech wrote:
rhamson wrote:
If what you say is true then we are all individuals and should only rely on that which is self serving. Remember this?
"No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
This country was founded on it strength in numbers and it's progress is infinitely tied to it. If we stray from this then we are doomed to fight out our own little wars in our own little serfdoms.Being self reliant isn't the same thing as screwing your neighbor over. In fact it is very often not in your self interest to screw your neighbor over because you never know when you're going to need their help or be in their power. Each man should be an island unto themselves in respects to not being a burden on someone. Once we've taken care of ourselves, then it's our duty to watch out for each other.
You, like so many others either deliberately or out of ignorance, confuse self interest and selfishness.
Ben Franklin also had issues with the Constitution.
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
* Speech to the Constitutional Convention (28 June 1787)That's an interesting read on my comments. The comments by Franklin only warn of the corruption of government not the neccesity. The wisdom of letting us amend the constitution was the remedy to that problem. Jefferson also warned of doom if the lawyers were to gain control of the congress. But deliberately or ignoringly confusing self interest for selfishness you really have to make that call for yourself. Because if that were the case I would try a much different tact. You are confused as to your role as an American and picking and choosing issues that don't seem convenient because you need to take care of yourself first only lends one to believe there is a solitude about you and that your well being as an individual is paramount above all else. I hope this is not the case and that you can refrain from attacks that are judgements indicating a different nature to the conversation. You are better than that.
The fact remains that with the current healthcare system we have there will be a breakdown and it will be impossible to afford very shortly and there is only one organization that can offer a solution. If you wait too long there will be no system you will be able to afford. Other countries have realized this, made the decision and moved on. Just read the comments by other foreign participants before this one. Your bias against government only gets in the way of progress proven by others. If you cannot see it then I am sorry. If you would put your efforts towards helping develop a system that is based on others success and modifying it to fit ours, then you really may have something worthwhile other than just saying no to anything the government may offer. 
93- Ralph Deeds
- 1124 posts
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Hubs: 750
- Followers: 526
Rhamson:The fact remains that with the current healthcare system we have there will be a breakdown and it will be impossible to afford very shortly and there is only one organization that can offer a solution. If you wait too long there will be no system you will be able to afford. Other countries have realized this, made the decision and moved on.
Deeds: Very true.- 89
- Poppa Blues
- 2349 posts
- Joined: 15 months ago
- Hubs: 66
- Followers: 134
ledefensetech wrote:
Poppa Blues wrote:
Agreed! Government by it's very nature is corrupt. It is in it's own interest to grow and become bigger. Part of the problem with Bush was that the republicans had a majority in congress while controlling the WH. That's too much power for one party. The other problem is the voters that allowed that to happen.
Our system of government was never set up to deal with the problems of political parties. They cropped up during Washington's administration and coalesced around Hamilton and Jefferson. About the only good thing Aaron Burr did was shoot Hamilton.
The problem is, as Benjamin Franklin said: "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." and: "All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse."
We're seeing today the folly of straying from the wisdom of Franklin and people like him.I agree 100%!!! Most of the time government interference and legislation just creates problems, inequities, and market disruptions, then gov comes to the rescue with more bad laws!
- 89
- Poppa Blues
- 2349 posts
- Joined: 15 months ago
- Hubs: 66
- Followers: 134
Ralph Deeds wrote:
Rhamson:The fact remains that with the current healthcare system we have there will be a breakdown and it will be impossible to afford very shortly and there is only one organization that can offer a solution. If you wait too long there will be no system you will be able to afford. Other countries have realized this, made the decision and moved on.
Deeds: Very true.I disagree. The present bill does nothing to lower cost. If you look at MA and their health care plan, the costs are rising faster than the national average.
The present bill also contains a mandate to buy insurance. Clearly this is unconstitutional.
As ledefensetech said, we all have a right to pursue happiness, it's not guaranteed. If you choose not to buy health insurance until you get sick and then you can't get it, well that was your choice wasn't it? That's what made you happy at the time, right?
If you really want to insure everybody, the best way is to make everyone in the country wealthy and the best way to do that is not to tax labor, risk, investment and savings and keep government small and regulation to a minimum. - 69
- rhamson
- 1751 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Followers: 19
Poppa Blues wrote:
ledefensetech wrote:
Poppa Blues wrote:
Agreed! Government by it's very nature is corrupt. It is in it's own interest to grow and become bigger. Part of the problem with Bush was that the republicans had a majority in congress while controlling the WH. That's too much power for one party. The other problem is the voters that allowed that to happen.
Our system of government was never set up to deal with the problems of political parties. They cropped up during Washington's administration and coalesced around Hamilton and Jefferson. About the only good thing Aaron Burr did was shoot Hamilton.
The problem is, as Benjamin Franklin said: "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." and: "All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse."
We're seeing today the folly of straying from the wisdom of Franklin and people like him.I agree 100%!!! "Most of the time" government interference and legislation just creates problems, inequities, and market disruptions, then gov comes to the rescue with more bad laws!
This must be one of those "most of the time" moments and no need to investigate further. Just move on to nothing seems to be your answer devoid of any investigation. Your bias sets you up to bury your head in the sand.
- 69
- rhamson
- 1751 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Followers: 19
Poppa Blues wrote:
Ralph Deeds wrote:
Rhamson:The fact remains that with the current healthcare system we have there will be a breakdown and it will be impossible to afford very shortly and there is only one organization that can offer a solution. If you wait too long there will be no system you will be able to afford. Other countries have realized this, made the decision and moved on.
Deeds: Very true.I disagree. The present bill does nothing to lower cost. If you look at MA and their health care plan, the costs are rising faster than the national average.
The present bill also contains a mandate to buy insurance. Clearly this is unconstitutional.
As ledefensetech said, we all have a right to pursue happiness, it's not guaranteed. If you choose not to buy health insurance until you get sick and then you can't get it, well that was your choice wasn't it? That's what made you happy at the time, right?
If you really want to insure everybody, the best way is to make everyone in the country wealthy and the best way to do that is not to tax labor, risk, investment and savings and keep government small and regulation to a minimum.If you wish to cite select failures then I guess you are correct. But if you look to the north and look to the east your argument becomes mute.
Your thinking that by overturning the system with making everybody wealthy through the means you suggest is a pipe dream. Once again power to the individual through the means you express is doomed to fail because just like every other entrepeneur out there in your utopian freedom you will have to find a particular trick or method to succeed. I am sorry but I don't wish to leave my healthcare and my childrens healthcare up to chance. - 93
- Ralph Deeds
- 1124 posts
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Hubs: 750
- Followers: 526
A "californicated" GOP endangers the nation!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opini … ef=opinion - 88
- ledefensetech
- 2881 posts
- Joined: 9 months ago
- Hubs: 16
- Followers: 107
Ralph Deeds wrote:
A "californicated" GOP endangers the nation!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opini … ef=opinionNow I understand. You get all of your "wisdom" from Krugman. You and he are aware, I'm sure, that California has gone broke, right? The high tax has turned an economy that is larger than most nations in the world into one on the brink of collapse.
85- Madame X
- 1645 posts
- Joined: 7 months ago
- Hubs: 21
- Followers: 167
ledefensetech wrote:
Ralph Deeds wrote:
A "californicated" GOP endangers the nation!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opini … ef=opinionNow I understand. You get all of your "wisdom" from Krugman. You and he are aware, I'm sure, that California has gone broke, right? The high tax has turned an economy that is larger than most nations in the world into one on the brink of collapse.
Yep. Thanks to the democrat legislature
- C.J. Wright
- 731 posts
- Joined: 4 months ago
- Hubs: 5
- Followers: 30
rhamson wrote:
Poppa Blues wrote:
ledefensetech wrote:
Funny. Bush campaigned for smaller government, yet until Papa Obama, his administration presided over the largest increase in government since the bad old days of FDR. Just because someone says they're for smaller government, doesn't mean that their actions will follow their words. Actions count, words are meaningless.Agreed! Government by it's very nature is corrupt. It is in it's own interest to grow and become bigger. Part of the problem with Bush was that the republicans had a majority in congress while controlling the WH. That's too much power for one party. The other problem is the voters that allowed that to happen.
"The other problem is the voters that allowed that to happen" Now this is something that I can agree with you on. How can we ensure that the electorate become more involved and vote? The major problem as I see it is the polarization of the electorate by the two party system and the lack of responsiblity of the voters to get out and vote. So many people take an apathetic attitude towards the process and leave it to others.
The Polarization comes from the "NON" or what should be "NON" issues when it comes to congressional elections. These issues are Abortion, Illegal Immigration, Entitlements, etc. These issues are brought to the forfront for the sole purpose of dividing the electorate and creating a constituency. Notice how NONE of these issues ever get solved. Thats because they are just their as guidpost...to tell us what side of ailse we belong on....SAD....
- 85
- Madame X
- 1645 posts
- Joined: 7 months ago
- Hubs: 21
- Followers: 167
C.J. Wright wrote:
The Polarization comes from the "NON" or what should be "NON" issues when it comes to congressional elections. These issues are Abortion, Illegal Immigration, Entitlements, etc. These issues are brought to the forfront for the sole purpose of dividing the electorate and creating a constituency. Notice how NONE of these issues ever get solved. Thats because they are just their as guidpost...to tell us what side of ailse we belong on....SAD....yeah
- 69
- rhamson
- 1751 posts
- Joined: 3 months ago
- Hubs: 1
- Followers: 19
C.J. Wright wrote:
rhamson wrote:
Poppa Blues wrote:
Agreed! Government by it's very nature is corrupt. It is in it's own interest to grow and become bigger. Part of the problem with Bush was that the republicans had a majority in congress while controlling the WH. That's too much power for one party. The other problem is the voters that allowed that to happen."The other problem is the voters that allowed that to happen" Now this is something that I can agree with you on. How can we ensure that the electorate become more involved and vote? The major problem as I see it is the polarization of the electorate by the two party system and the lack of responsiblity of the voters to get out and vote. So many people take an apathetic attitude towards the process and leave it to others.
The Polarization comes from the "NON" or what should be "NON" issues when it comes to congressional elections. These issues are Abortion, Illegal Immigration, Entitlements, etc. These issues are brought to the forfront for the sole purpose of dividing the electorate and creating a constituency. Notice how NONE of these issues ever get solved. Thats because they are just their as guidpost...to tell us what side of ailse we belong on....SAD....
I agree! They kind of dust it off and play it again when the real issues are to much to sway. The sorry thing is the lack of information a majority of the electorate aquire prior to voting. Poor saps.
Genau! That's German for exactly, by the way.
