Socialistic health care goal of the traitors in power

**rb336** · June-25-09, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by mjs

Yes, I do. I think votes can be more effectively explained by examing big money versus other big money than Democrats versus Republicans or even liberals verse conservatives... Its why I love the fringe element pain in the asses like Ventura, Nader, and Kucinich.

I think we are in total agreement on this. most legislators [[and the prez) are some form of corporatist. the differences? how much they hide it under a badge of populism or progressivism and how much lip service they give to fringe religious or market fundies

ccbatson · June-25-09, 08:53 PM

Or Ron Paul? How about Alan Keyes?

**rb336** · June-26-09, 10:30 AM

Alan Keyes is a total corporatist, a blatant liar and a main practioner of the fear and smear.

Ron Paul is either clueless about his own affairs, and therefore incompetent, or a total racist judging by the content of his own newsletters

Lorax · June-26-09, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

I think we are in total agreement on this. most legislators [[and the prez) are some form of corporatist. the differences? how much they hide it under a badge of populism or progressivism and how much lip service they give to fringe religious or market fundies

Succinct, clear, and correct.

Alan Keys is a danger to national security, and to himself- a freak of nature.

Ron Paul is just sadly misguided, and, I'm sorry, I'm not against people of a certain age still wanting to contribute to society, but we don't need ill and infirm people in their 70's, 80's and 90's in the position of making policy decisions for those of us who stand to live more than 5 years from now.

John McCain and Arlen Specter especially. Robert Bird. Ted Kennedy. We the people need to start electing younger officials with younger ideas, and the ability to show up for a vote.

ccbatson · June-27-09, 01:31 AM

Whatever you mean by corporatist...it isn't a bad thing to be in favor of free enterprise [["corporate" or otherwise). Calling Keyes a liar without backing it up is almost as ignorant and weak as saying that he is a practitioner of "fear and smear" [[meaning??).

Paul's weakness is the same as the Libertarian weakness meaning economic isolationism, and myopic views on defense.

**oladub** · June-27-09, 11:40 AM

rb, "Ron Paul is either clueless about his own affairs, and therefore incompetent, or a total racist judging by the content of his own newsletters. "

Lorax, "Ron Paul is just sadly misguided, and, I'm sorry, I'm not against people of a certain age still wanting to contribute to society, but we don't need ill and infirm people in their 70's, 80's and 90's in the position of making policy decisions for those of us who stand to live more than 5 years from now."

Lorax, I don't think that Ron Paul is running in 2012. Ron Paul predicted everything that was going to happen to our economy in the 80's and 90's. Only one thing he predicted hasn't come true: the collapes of the dollar. His mind is nimble and open as illustrated in this recent 5" interview as he blows the interviewers away. Ron Paul on MSNBC - 6/18/2009 [[address corrected)

Since the election, Ron Paul has led the fight against the Federal Reserve and now has over 242 co-sponsors on his bill HR 1207 demanding an audit of the Federal Reserve. Talk about taking on the powers that be. If you had Paul making those policy decisions, we wouldn't be in Mid-east wars, federal spending would be cut in half, our debt reduced, the IRS eliminated, Obama wouldn't be in the process of blowing $4T [[13,000 per American) on his schemes, and we wouldn't have a plethora of civil rights killing Patriot Acts and wiretapping sort of things. But you choose instead to advance age discrimination and the opposite of the above policies.

rb, The head of the Austin NAACP who has personally known Ron Paul for many years said Paul "didn't have a racist bone in his body" and that pretty much put the lid on the simultanious Daily Kos/neocon magazine attack the day before NH primary about his ghostwriten newsletter. Paul apoligized for not overseeing the newsletter, with his name on it, after he left Washington and resumed his duties as an OB in Texas. I think you would have a better shot at establishing that Obama is not a natural born citizen than establishing that Paul discriminates. His campaign chairman, for instance, was gay. Or you could direct your allegations to Ron Paul delegate who ran against Representative Kieth Ellison, Barb Davis White

**Sstashmoo** · June-27-09, 11:53 AM

Quote: "I'm not against people of a certain age still wanting to contribute to society,"

I'll tell you what I'm glad about, you aren't in charge of making any decisions regarding society. Sheesh...

**mjs** · June-27-09, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Ron Paul predicted everything that was going to happen to our economy in the 80's and 90's. Only one thing he predicted hasn't come true: the collapes of the dollar.

The White House is working on it, but so far, no matter how much we borrow, China just won't stop lending us money. And now, with the cap and trade legislation, if they don't grant us a loan to keep that going, we might get crazy enough to compensate for the market disadvantage with tariffs and thats not in their best interests. About the only thing I didn't see in the 1500 page cap and trade were tariffs that were directly tied to how much the trading partner was polluting.

**turkeycall** · June-27-09, 12:33 PM

Quote: "John McCain and Arlen Specter especially. Robert Bird. Ted Kennedy. We the people need to start electing younger officials with younger ideas, and the ability to show up for a vote. "

What's this "we" stuff? You got a mouse in your pocket? How about we in Michigan choose the people we want to represent us, then just step aside and let the voters of Arizona, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Massachusets decide who they want their Senators to be?

Lorax · June-27-09, 01:09 PM

I never said people weren't free to choose whom ever they want to represent them, that doesn't make it necessarily a good or even smart choice.

Ron Paul is smart, nimble, as you suggest, and did predict much of what has come to pass.

So did I, and a million others as well.

All I'm saying is we need younger leadership that will be around a while, can answer for their mistakes, rather than some old dudes who may have a few good ideas- have them in advisory positions, not creating legislation that is binding us to a future that will not include them.

People need to get smart about whom they put in office. Re-electing Robert Byrd decade after decade isn't really working well for W. Virginia, when he misses more votes than he casts. Same with John McCain and many others.

ccbatson · June-27-09, 10:39 PM

Sadly for us all, Obama is about to make Ron Paul's last unproven prediction come true

**mjs** · June-27-09, 10:51 PM

"I'll work harder" said the work horse to the pigs.

**Sstashmoo** · June-27-09, 10:58 PM

Quote: "All I'm saying is we need younger leadership that will be around a while, can answer for their mistakes, rather than some old dudes who may have a few good ideas- have them in advisory positions, not creating legislation that is binding us to a future that will not include them."

So, in your opinion, "old dude" politicians have a propensity for sabotaging future generations, because they won't be around? Kamikaze policy? That's pretty whacked. I'll take experience over lack thereof. Aptitude over attitude and all that. I was young and thought old people were stupid too, then I turned 17 or so and realized they hold a lot of wisdom. Most of them don't say much, because they don't just babble on to hear their brain rattle.

Lorax · June-27-09, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "All I'm saying is we need younger leadership that will be around a while, can answer for their mistakes, rather than some old dudes who may have a few good ideas- have them in advisory positions, not creating legislation that is binding us to a future that will not include them."

So, in your opinion, "old dude" politicians have a propensity for sabotaging future generations, because they won't be around? Kamikaze policy? That's pretty whacked. I'll take experience over lack thereof. Aptitude over attitude and all that. I was young and thought old people were stupid too, then I turned 17 or so and realized they hold a lot of wisdom. Most of them don't say much, because they don't just babble on to hear their brain rattle.

You may trust your future domestic policy to teenagers, I don't.

When I refer to "old dudes" I specifically mentioned those over 70. Guess you didin't read that part.

A legislator in his 30's, 40's, 50's & 60's would be more in tune with society as it is changing, and are less apt to be bought and paid for as well.

Interesting how at 17 you had more on the ball than you have now.

ccbatson · June-28-09, 05:32 PM

I don't care if they are 90...if they are thinking rational people, and the younger progressives are not [[and they are not), then give me the rational person every time.

Lorax · June-28-09, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

I don't care if they are 90...if they are thinking rational people, and the younger progressives are not [[and they are not), then give me the rational person every time.

You still miss the point.

Let them contribute to their heart's content in an advisory role within government, it's just not a great idea to let decades long serving senators who have been bought and paid for many times over to impose legislation on the rest of us, that will impact our futures negatively, when they themselves don't really have any skin in the game.

Their skins will be long dead and buried.

Do you get it now?

**rb336** · June-29-09, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

I don't care if they are 90...if they are thinking rational people, and the younger progressives are not [[and they are not), then give me the rational person every time.

ha ha ha

your sticking to a proven falsehood because of your simple-minded randian philosophy gives us a great example of what rational thinking is not, which makes it particularly humerous when you make comments like that

**Sstashmoo** · June-29-09, 08:42 AM

Quote: "Do you get it now?"

I get it, you don't or can't. Not sure if you realize this, but we humans learn over time, the more time present, the more we learn. You're trying to say ALL younger people are more intelligent and bring more experience to the table, you couldn't be more wrong.

ccbatson · June-29-09, 04:25 PM

You misunderstood me 180 degrees Sstash...try again.

**Detroitej72** · June-29-09, 06:21 PM

Who gives a shit about age, as long as the individual is competent and doing the job their constituents want, let them serve until they are carried out by the undertaker.

Lorax · June-29-09, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "Do you get it now?"

I get it, you don't or can't. Not sure if you realize this, but we humans learn over time, the more time present, the more we learn. You're trying to say ALL younger people are more intelligent and bring more experience to the table, you couldn't be more wrong.

Quit trying to bait me. You really don't read the previous posts, do you?

I don't TRY to say anything, I say it, and if it's not clear, then pick your ears.

Where did I say ALL younger people are more intelligent? Intelligence was not the metric I was using.

I won't repeat my previous posts, you obviously have a learning disability.

Lorax · June-29-09, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Who gives a shit about age, as long as the individual is competent and doing the job their constituents want, let them serve until they are carried out by the undertaker.

If they are physically ill, and cannot be present to vote, then they don't vote. This happens constantly due to age and infirmity, not to mention the many addled members who stand up to speak and don't say anything meaningful.

Like I said in three previous posts, just because the people re-elect these dudes over and over, doesn't mean it 's smart, or in their best interests. Voters need to wise up as well. Guess you're pleased with the Detroit city clowncil.

**mjs** · June-29-09, 10:06 PM

Great example. Yes, the problem with Monica, Kwame, and Christine was that they were too old to know what they were doing and not that they were too conceited to care what they were doing. Yes, I've seen lots of old people with dementia act like Monica. Thank you for making it so clear.

Lorax · June-29-09, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by mjs

Great example. Yes, the problem with Monica, Kwame, and Christine was that they were too old to know what they were doing and not that they were too conceited to care what they were doing. Yes, I've seen lots of old people with dementia act like Monica. Thank you for making it so clear.

The point was, Nostradamus, that the people need to get smart and elect officials smarter than they are if there's going to be change, age has nothing to do with it.

People get the government they deserve. The frothing trolls on the right were successful in stealing two elections for the knuckle dragging George Tush, so we have a national model to refer to as well.

My point on age was well explained in above posts, and unrelated to my comments on the Detroit city clowncil.

But that would involve you actually reading the posts. More than I can expect of you, apparently.

**Detroitej72** · June-29-09, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax

Like I said in three previous posts, just because the people re-elect these dudes over and over, doesn't mean it 's smart, or in their best interests. Voters need to wise up as well. Guess you're pleased with the Detroit city clowncil.

Who said I thought the voters were smart? I just said someone's age shouldn't be the determining factor in wheather they should seek re-election.