WHO are the REAL Constitutionalists?

[Bfgrn]

I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.

I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.

I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?

How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?

I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.

You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.

I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.

30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.


The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.

I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?

How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?

I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.

You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.

I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.

30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.


The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

Please, tell me who got us into this situation.

Andrew Cuomo: Architect of Ruin

 

[Bern80]

I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.

You're still dodging. If that is true than you should be firmly oppossed to policies that make individuals less free, like say removing people's choice in whether to purchase health insurance or not. Removing choice is the definition of restriction on freedom. PUT UP OR SHUT UP personal freedom lover. Are you or are you not opposed to government requiring individuals to make private purchases?

You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.

I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.

30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.

You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be. More government, whether it be regulation of industry or individuals equals less freedom. That isn't open to debate. Corporations are comprised of individuals trying to exercise their freedoms. The freedom to do business how they see fit. More government regulation BY DEFINITION is a restriction of choice and thus freedom. Government regulation of industry doesn't expand the freedom's of individuals. All it does is allow them to remain willfully ignorant, irresponsible consumers. No one held a gun to the head's of all those people that couldn't afford to buy those homes they couldn't really afford. No one stopped them from educating themselves about the terms of their mortgage. No one shoved a few extra slices of pizza down your throat, hastening your way to a heart attack

You are the only that clearly doesn't get why we are we are. It's clear because their is variable in this equation that you liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge as part of the problem, YOURSELVES. Your pissed because the economy is in the tank? Did you or anyone else ever look in a mirror and ask how you may have contributed to the problem? Was it perhaps due to the righteous mentality you have about what you think you deserve and not whether you can actually pay for it? Or maybe your pissed off at the state of health care. Ever ask yourself what you are doing to contribute to that? How many pounds overweight are you? What's your exercise and diet regimen like? People simply not taking care of themselves is probably the biggest contributor to the strain on our health care system.

You 'pea brain' liberals need to give up in thinking things are going to change because as a group you are completely incapable of self accountability.

 

[Bfgrn]

How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?

How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?

I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.

You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.

I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.

30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.


The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

Please, tell me who got us into this situation.

Andrew Cuomo: Architect of Ruin

WOW, you actually brought out the 'selling homes to black people' destroyed the world economy according to a BLOGGER argument...What a FUCKING idiot...

Please tell me again you are a 'classic liberal'...

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy

WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

 

[daveman]

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.

I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?

How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?

I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.

You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.

I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.

30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.

Oh, now I remember where I've heard this before:

War is Peace.

Ignorance is Strength.

Freedom is Slavery​

.

Didn't think anyone was actually stupid enough to advocate it as a basis of government, though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well ok, responding to the OP.

Anyone who would defend everyone who says they're on your side is an idiot. The guy in GA thinks for himself and he is or does whatever that is, but that is meaningless to me.

AMENDING the Constitution is what you are SUPPOSED to do when you don't like it. The conservatives don't mind if the Dems try to change it that way. They may disagree on substance, but not on form. But that's not how the Dems usually try to change the Constitution, is it?

Nope. Instead, they go to the court system. They try to change the law that way. For instance, in the case of abortions. Imagine if you will, it's 1959 and the right to privacy does not exist. If you are a Yale law professor you just say, "Let's try again. Let's see if we can get the police to arrest an unmarried person for buying a condom." After nearly a decade of trying they succeed. They had to get the police in a complete pickle before they would do it, but they did. And Griswold v. Connecticut was born. It goes to the supreme court and a couple justices have a fantasy about penumbra arising like a mist from the 4th, 8th and 9th Amendments. And, presto, now there is a right to privacy just as strong as the ones that you can actually see written there.

So, building on this success the left goes on to tackle the issue they wanted, abortion. Roe v. Wade takes Griswold and extends it. Notice, no Constitutional amendment has taken place, but the Constitution is substantially changed.

I can go on. US v. Darby where the Sct guts the 10th Amendment. Wickard v. Filburn, where the Sct. says that no commerce is actually commerce so the Congress can regulate no commerce as well as real commerce. Look it up if you don't understand that. After that, everything is commerce so Congress can regulate everything because everything is either commerce or no commerce, right? That's the justification for the Health Care law.

The Constitution is changed, and no amendment process.

You are a bit confused and obviously one sided. Let's balance it a bit.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832), conservative activism rejected by Georgia and Andrew Jackson.

Dred Scott (1857), conservative activism to re-nationalize slavery and end any attempt of blacks having standing to sue in federal courts.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), conservative activism to legally segregate based on race..

Kelo v. City of New London (2005), conservative activism to empower big business in land taking for private profit.

 

[Bfgrn]

I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.

You're still dodging. If that is true than you should be firmly oppossed to policies that make individuals less free, like say removing people's choice in whether to purchase health insurance or not. Removing choice is the definition of restriction on freedom. PUT UP OR SHUT UP personal freedom lover. Are you or are you not opposed to government requiring individuals to make private purchases?

You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.

I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.

30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.

You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be. More government, whether it be regulation of industry or individuals equals less freedom. That isn't open to debate. Corporations are comprised of individuals trying to exercise their freedoms. The freedom to do business how they see fit. More government regulation BY DEFINITION is a restriction of choice and thus freedom. Government regulation of industry doesn't expand the freedom's of individuals. All it does is allow them to remain willfully ignorant, irresponsible consumers. No one held a gun to the head's of all those people that couldn't afford to buy those homes they couldn't really afford. No one stopped them from educating themselves about the terms of their mortgage. No one shoved a few extra slices of pizza down your throat, hastening your way to a heart attack

You are the only that clearly doesn't get why we are we are. It's clear because their is variable in this equation that you liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge as part of the problem, YOURSELVES. Your pissed because the economy is in the tank? Did you or anyone else ever look in a mirror and ask how you may have contributed to the problem? Was it perhaps due to the righteous mentality you have about what you think you deserve and not whether you can actually pay for it? Or maybe your pissed off at the state of health care. Ever ask yourself what you are doing to contribute to that? How many pounds overweight are you? What's your exercise and diet regimen like? People simply not taking care of themselves is probably the biggest contributor to the strain on our health care system.

You 'pea brain' liberals need to give up in thinking things are going to change because as a group you are completely incapable of self accountability.

SELF accountability?!?!?! OK...here's a plan asshole. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you should sign a self accountability 'let me die' contract. If you are in an car wreck, and you don't have insurance, you DIE. No emergency medical treatment that I HAVE to pay for in my premiums.

 

[Bern80]

SELF accountability?!?!?! OK...here's a plan asshole. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you should sign a self accountability 'let me die' contract. If you are in an car wreck, and you don't have insurance, you DIE. No emergency medical treatment that I HAVE to pay for in my premiums.

Or I can just choose pay for it. What a fucking concept.

You're STILL dodging. If you are "Mr. I'm all about people's individual freedom' then you ought to be against policies restricting it, which requiring citizens to make private purchases categorically does. Are you or aren't you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Medicare and Social Security are constitutional. End of that subject. Based on those facts, you are on an uphill slippery slope to find health care unconstitutional.

 

[Bfgrn]

I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.

You're still dodging. If that is true than you should be firmly oppossed to policies that make individuals less free, like say removing people's choice in whether to purchase health insurance or not. Removing choice is the definition of restriction on freedom. PUT UP OR SHUT UP personal freedom lover. Are you or are you not opposed to government requiring individuals to make private purchases?

You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.

I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.

30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.

You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be. More government, whether it be regulation of industry or individuals equals less freedom. That isn't open to debate. Corporations are comprised of individuals trying to exercise their freedoms. The freedom to do business how they see fit. More government regulation BY DEFINITION is a restriction of choice and thus freedom. Government regulation of industry doesn't expand the freedom's of individuals. All it does is allow them to remain willfully ignorant, irresponsible consumers. No one held a gun to the head's of all those people that couldn't afford to buy those homes they couldn't really afford. No one stopped them from educating themselves about the terms of their mortgage. No one shoved a few extra slices of pizza down your throat, hastening your way to a heart attack

You are the only that clearly doesn't get why we are we are. It's clear because their is variable in this equation that you liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge as part of the problem, YOURSELVES. Your pissed because the economy is in the tank? Did you or anyone else ever look in a mirror and ask how you may have contributed to the problem? Was it perhaps due to the righteous mentality you have about what you think you deserve and not whether you can actually pay for it? Or maybe your pissed off at the state of health care. Ever ask yourself what you are doing to contribute to that? How many pounds overweight are you? What's your exercise and diet regimen like? People simply not taking care of themselves is probably the biggest contributor to the strain on our health care system.

You 'pea brain' liberals need to give up in thinking things are going to change because as a group you are completely incapable of self accountability.

Hey pea brain, WHAT did our founding fathers create? Here is a clue for pea brains...A GOVERNMENT.

HOW did our founding father's GOVERNMENT treat these 'Corporations comprised of individuals trying to exercise their freedoms.'?

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

 

[Bern80]

I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.

You're still dodging. If that is true than you should be firmly oppossed to policies that make individuals less free, like say removing people's choice in whether to purchase health insurance or not. Removing choice is the definition of restriction on freedom. PUT UP OR SHUT UP personal freedom lover. Are you or are you not opposed to government requiring individuals to make private purchases?

You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.

I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.

30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.

You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be. More government, whether it be regulation of industry or individuals equals less freedom. That isn't open to debate. Corporations are comprised of individuals trying to exercise their freedoms. The freedom to do business how they see fit. More government regulation BY DEFINITION is a restriction of choice and thus freedom. Government regulation of industry doesn't expand the freedom's of individuals. All it does is allow them to remain willfully ignorant, irresponsible consumers. No one held a gun to the head's of all those people that couldn't afford to buy those homes they couldn't really afford. No one stopped them from educating themselves about the terms of their mortgage. No one shoved a few extra slices of pizza down your throat, hastening your way to a heart attack

You are the only that clearly doesn't get why we are we are. It's clear because their is variable in this equation that you liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge as part of the problem, YOURSELVES. Your pissed because the economy is in the tank? Did you or anyone else ever look in a mirror and ask how you may have contributed to the problem? Was it perhaps due to the righteous mentality you have about what you think you deserve and not whether you can actually pay for it? Or maybe your pissed off at the state of health care. Ever ask yourself what you are doing to contribute to that? How many pounds overweight are you? What's your exercise and diet regimen like? People simply not taking care of themselves is probably the biggest contributor to the strain on our health care system.

You 'pea brain' liberals need to give up in thinking things are going to change because as a group you are completely incapable of self accountability.

Hey pea brain, WHAT did our founding fathers create? Here is a clue for pea brains...A GOVERNMENT.

HOW did our founding father's GOVERNMENT treat these 'Corporations comprised of individuals trying to exercise their freedoms.'?

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

Hey pea brain answer the question you chicken shit.

 

[Bern80]

Medicare and Social Security are constitutional. End of that subject. Based on those facts, you are on an uphill slippery slope to find health care unconstitutional.

Who said health care was unconstitutional?

 

[Bfgrn]

SELF accountability?!?!?! OK...here's a plan asshole. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you should sign a self accountability 'let me die' contract. If you are in an car wreck, and you don't have insurance, you DIE. No emergency medical treatment that I HAVE to pay for in my premiums.

Or I can just choose pay for it. What a fucking concept.

You're STILL dodging. If you are "Mr. I'm all about people's individual freedom' then you ought to be against policies restricting it, which requiring citizens to make private purchases categorically does. Are you or aren't you?

You are confusing individual freedom with individual responsibility. If you REALLY want individual freedom, then you have to step up to the plate and sign the 'let me die' contract. Because without insurance, YOUR medical bills will become MY responsibility and the responsibility of others. Sorry, I don't trust you. If you can't afford insurance, why should I believe you will pay for what could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. I need a down payment...$30,000 or I will call a priest for you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.

You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.

I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.

30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.


The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

Please, tell me who got us into this situation.

Andrew Cuomo: Architect of Ruin

WOW, you actually brought out the 'selling homes to black people' destroyed the world economy according to a BLOGGER argument...What a FUCKING idiot...

Please tell me again you are a 'classic liberal'...

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy

WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.

Wow, did you even notice how the government pressured the private sector into making those risky loans? The way this works is it snowballs, and and builds into an avalanche over a period of time.

 

[Bern80]

SELF accountability?!?!?! OK...here's a plan asshole. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you should sign a self accountability 'let me die' contract. If you are in an car wreck, and you don't have insurance, you DIE. No emergency medical treatment that I HAVE to pay for in my premiums.

Or I can just choose pay for it. What a fucking concept.

You're STILL dodging. If you are "Mr. I'm all about people's individual freedom' then you ought to be against policies restricting it, which requiring citizens to make private purchases categorically does. Are you or aren't you?

You are confusing individual freedom with individual responsibility. If you REALLY want individual freedom, then you have to step up to the plate and sign the 'let me die' contract. Because without insurance, YOUR medical bills will become MY responsibility and the responsibility of others. Sorry, I don't trust you. If you can't afford insurance, why should I believe you will pay for what could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. I need a down payment...$30,000 or I will call a priest for you.

Why will you not answer the question?

 

[Bfgrn]

Or I can just choose pay for it. What a fucking concept.

You're STILL dodging. If you are "Mr. I'm all about people's individual freedom' then you ought to be against policies restricting it, which requiring citizens to make private purchases categorically does. Are you or aren't you?

You are confusing individual freedom with individual responsibility. If you REALLY want individual freedom, then you have to step up to the plate and sign the 'let me die' contract. Because without insurance, YOUR medical bills will become MY responsibility and the responsibility of others. Sorry, I don't trust you. If you can't afford insurance, why should I believe you will pay for what could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. I need a down payment...$30,000 or I will call a priest for you.

Why will you not answer the question?

I did, you're just not capable of understanding it. It's that consistent problem you right wingers have...pea brainism.

It's called sound business practice. Would a car dealer give you a $30,000 car without paying for it first?

RIP pea brain...

 

[DiveCon]

You are confusing individual freedom with individual responsibility. If you REALLY want individual freedom, then you have to step up to the plate and sign the 'let me die' contract. Because without insurance, YOUR medical bills will become MY responsibility and the responsibility of others. Sorry, I don't trust you. If you can't afford insurance, why should I believe you will pay for what could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. I need a down payment...$30,000 or I will call a priest for you.

Why will you not answer the question?

I did, you're just not capable of understanding it. It's that consistent problem you right wingers have...pea brainism.

It's called sound business practice. Would a car dealer give you a $30,000 car without paying for it first?

RIP pea brain...

you continue to project your own pea-brainism

 

[Bern80]

You are confusing individual freedom with individual responsibility. If you REALLY want individual freedom, then you have to step up to the plate and sign the 'let me die' contract. Because without insurance, YOUR medical bills will become MY responsibility and the responsibility of others. Sorry, I don't trust you. If you can't afford insurance, why should I believe you will pay for what could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. I need a down payment...$30,000 or I will call a priest for you.

Why will you not answer the question?

I did, you're just not capable of understanding it. It's that consistent problem you right wingers have...pea brainism.

It's called sound business practice. Would a car dealer give you a $30,000 car without paying for it first?

RIP pea brain...

Does government require me to purchase a car in the first place? No. You said you are for expanding individual freedom. Removing choice is a restriction of freedom. Either you are lieing about the former or feel an exception must be made for the later. Pick one.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why will you not answer the question?

I did, you're just not capable of understanding it. It's that consistent problem you right wingers have...pea brainism.

It's called sound business practice. Would a car dealer give you a $30,000 car without paying for it first?

RIP pea brain...

Am I required to buy a car? No. You said you are for expanding individual freedom. Removing choice is a restriction of freedom. Either you are lieing about the former or feel an exception must be made for the later. Pick one.

IF you are in a car wreck and your injuries are life threatening, you are required to either get costly medical care, or DIE...CHOOSE pea brain. No freebies, pay in advance or see 'ya...

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.

I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.

I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

This post should be entitled IRONY and admired as art.