Dr. Rand Paul

[DRIVEWAY]

Snippets of Dr. Rand Paul discussing the 1964 Civil Rights Act are popping up on cable TV. I've watched him answer questions and it's obvious that he's holding back part of his opinion. He straddles the difference between Public and Private enterprises. He clearly answers question when it comes to Public institutions but is vague, deflective and rambles when it comes to Private businesses.

It's almost like he's taken political speak to a new level.

Does anyone understand his position in this matter?

[GameTheory]

Snippets of Dr. Rand Paul discussing the 1964 Civil Rights Act are popping up on cable TV. I've watched him answer questions and it's obvious that he's holding back part of his opinion. He straddles the difference between Public and Private enterprises. He clearly answers question when it comes to Public institutions but is vague, deflective and rambles when it comes to Private businesses.

It's almost like he's taken political speak to a new level.

Does anyone understand his position in this matter?He probably would like to say private business should be able to hire or not hire whoever it likes for whatever reason (including race), but is afraid to say it.

[mostpost]

Snippets of Dr. Rand Paul discussing the 1964 Civil Rights Act are popping up on cable TV. I've watched him answer questions and it's obvious that he's holding back part of his opinion. He straddles the difference between Public and Private enterprises. He clearly answers question when it comes to Public institutions but is vague, deflective and rambles when it comes to Private businesses.

It's almost like he's taken political speak to a new level.

Does anyone understand his position in this matter?
Here is his interview with Rachel Maddow from last night.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#37244354

It seems he thinks government should not discrimnate, but government should also not be able to prevent private enterprise from discriminating.
See what you get out of it.

As usual, Rachel did a great job of holding his feet to the fire, while still remaining courteous and respectful.

[johnhannibalsmith]

As usual, Rachel did a great job of holding his ...

Stop spreading rumors, even though I agree, she may be a he... :p

[mostpost]

Stop spreading rumors, even though I agree, she may be a he... :p
How dumb is that? :rolleyes: You know very well that I was referring to (Ayn) Rand Paul's feet. I think you are confusing Rachel Maddow with Ann Coulter. :lol: :lol: "It's a man, baby"

[GaryG]

It seems he thinks government should not discrimnate, but government should also not be able to prevent private enterprise from discriminating.That gets my vote. Private enterprise should be private. If have my future riding on my company's performance I damn sure want to hire the best people that I can, regardless of race, gender or national origin. I don't want to be told that I need 5 blacks, 4 Mexicans, 3 Pacific Ilanders, 2 eskimos and a bisexual partridge in a bleeping pear tree.

[mostpost]

That gets my vote. Private enterprise should be private. If have my future riding on my company's performance I damn sure want to hire the best people that I can, regardless of race, gender or national origin. I don't want to be told that I need 5 blacks, 4 Mexicans, 3 Pacific Ilanders, 2 eskimos and a bisexual partridge in a bleeping pear tree.
This is typical of the right's vile prejudice against bisexual partridges in bleeping pear trees. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[boxcar]

This is typical of the right's vile prejudice against bisexual partridges in bleeping pear trees. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Go back and read Gary's post again. He only wants to make choices based on people's job qualifications. And you find that vile!? :bang: The only vile thing around here is your aversion to individuals making free choices.

Boxcar

[hazzardm]

This is typical of the right's vile prejudice against bisexual partridges in bleeping pear trees. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

:D

[hazzardm]

That gets my vote. Private enterprise should be private. If have my future riding on my company's performance I damn sure want to hire the best people that I can, regardless of race, gender or national origin. I don't want to be told that I need 5 blacks, 4 Mexicans, 3 Pacific Ilanders, 2 eskimos and a bisexual partridge in a bleeping pear tree.

I thought that was the current law ???

[boxcar]

I thought that was the current law ???

Yeah...then what is Affirmative Action all about? Do you think AC is all about forcing employers to hire who they think are the most qualified people? People who they think would best fit in with the company? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[DRIVEWAY]

That gets my vote. Private enterprise should be private. If have my future riding on my company's performance I damn sure want to hire the best people that I can, regardless of race, gender or national origin. I don't want to be told that I need 5 blacks, 4 Mexicans, 3 Pacific Ilanders, 2 eskimos and a bisexual partridge in a bleeping pear tree.

If Dr. Paul meant this why didn't he say so?

[illinoisbred]

Sometimes it's private until you arrive at the jobsite. A couple years ago we were told to leave an elementary school construction site in Gary, Indiana because the local administrator didn't see any black faces amongst our crew.

[GameTheory]

If Dr. Paul meant this why didn't he say so?Because it would be political suicide to say, "I think an employer should be able to avoid hiring blacks or Jews if he doesn't like blacks or Jews and he doesn't need to have any other reason, even if they are perfectly qualified for the job."

[hazzardm]

Yeah...then what is Affirmative Action all about? Do you think AC is all about forcing employers to hire who they think are the most qualified people? People who they think would best fit in with the company? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

From wiki ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States


In the United States, affirmative action refers to equal opportunity employment measures that Federal contractors and subcontractors are legally required to adopt. These measures are intended to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment, on the basis of "colour, religion, sex, or national origin.


Seems to me it says if you want any part of federal contract dollars, you better not discriminate. I see nothing wrong with that. Not a single word about bisexual partridges. ;)

[mostpost]

:D
Boxcar didn't get it. Boxcar never gets it. :bang:

[46zilzal]

Go back and read Gary's post again. He only wants to make choices based on people's job qualifications.



That will never happen..over and over again I have seen nepotism trump ability and will continue forever.

[DRIVEWAY]

Because it would be political suicide to say, "I think an employer should be able to avoid hiring blacks or Jews if he doesn't like blacks or Jews and he doesn't need to have any other reason, even if they are perfectly qualified for the job."

I agree that saying the above would be political suicide.

However, Dr. Paul said that he would not do business with any company that would not serve minorities. He didn't refer directly to hiring in any of his statement. He said if he were alive during the day that he would have marched side by side with Martin Luther King.

I'm sure he'll continually be asked questions about his comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Legislation. Sooner or later we should know where he stands.

If he refuses to clarify his position, I wonder how the good people of Kentucky could vote for him as U. S. Senator.

The TEA Party has supported him. I'm sure they would like him to clarify his position. Several political commentators have unfairly questioned the Tea Party's position regarding racial matters. This would not help their cause.

Maybe Bill O'Reilly can interview him and get to the bottom of this.

[GameTheory]

I agree that saying the above would be political suicide.

However, Dr. Paul said that he would not do business with any company that would not serve minorities. He didn't refer directly to hiring in any of his statement. He said if he were alive during the day that he would have marched side by side with Martin Luther King.

I'm sure he'll continually be asked questions about his comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Legislation. Sooner or later we should know where he stands.

If he refuses to clarify his position, I wonder how the good people of Kentucky could vote for him as U. S. Senator.

The TEA Party has supported him. I'm sure they would like him to clarify his position. Several political commentators have unfairly questioned the Tea Party's position regarding racial matters. This would not help their cause.

Maybe Bill O'Reilly can interview him and get to the bottom of this.It is hard to comment because you are being vague as well. And since you didn't link to any quotes or even repeat what he said, I don't know what Rand Paul said either. What is your position? What are you getting at? What did Rand Paul say exactly? What was he asked and what did he answer?

[bigmack]

Here is his interview with Rachel Maddow from last night.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#37244354
The only outlets picking up this 'story' are the usuals. Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Post, & what a surprise MSNBC.

This is a non-story. If anyone thinks this will have any backlash on RP come Nov they're as delusional as Maddow & Olbermann put together.

Her little 'gotcha' interview fell flat on its can. :D

[Ocala Mike]

If it's a non-story, why is the good Dr. issuing "clarification" of how he stands on the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky will decide if he's an "outlier" or not in a few months; extremists rarely advance in American politics.


Ocala Mike

[johnhannibalsmith]

How dumb is that? ...

I figure it's just the right amount of dumb to belong in a thread praising the brilliance of Mz. Maddude.

[hazzardm]

The TEA Party has supported him. I'm sure they would like him to clarify his position. Several political commentators have unfairly questioned the Tea Party's position regarding racial matters. This would not help their cause.

Maybe Bill O'Reilly can interview him and get to the bottom of this.

I bet the Tea Party hopes for a 4 month case of laryngitis(sp?)

[bigmack]

extremists rarely advance in American politics.
He's an extremist? :lol: :lol:

Ring the bell. We got another dunderhead aboard supporting wacko train of thought.

Welcome aboard. :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

If it's a non-story, why is the good Dr. issuing "clarification" of how he stands on the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky will decide if he's an "outlier" or not in a few months; extremists rarely advance in American politics.


Ocala Mike

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I believe you're desperately in need of a crane to extricate your head from wherever you buried it.

Boxcar

[Tom]

...extremists rarely advance in American politics.
:lol::lol::lol:
Ovomit is the most extreme we have had...since the last miserable progressives, the ones who FORCED sterilization on many citizens.

[Tom]

I bet the Tea Party hopes for a 4 month case of laryngitis(sp?)

This Tea Partier hopes for non-stop talking.
We have to have our people get the truth out there. The progs and libs have long relied on repetitive lying to confuse people, with such lying slogans as "tax breaks for the rich" and "comprehensive immigration reform."

The best defense against the left is to engage them in conversation. They will always look like fools and come out on the short end. The TP is proof of that.


Talk, baby, talk.

[hazzardm]

This Tea Partier hopes for non-stop talking.
We have to have our people get the truth out there. The progs and libs have long relied on repetitive lying to confuse people, with such lying slogans as "tax breaks for the rich" and "comprehensive immigration reform."

The best defense against the left is to engage them in conversation. They will always look like fools and come out on the short end. The TP is proof of that.


Talk, baby, talk.

Did you say truth, as in TRUTHER :lol: :lol:

[ArlJim78]

I guess this is what you call an outlier?

_______________________________________________
Rand Paul, riding the momentum of his big Republican Primary win on Tuesday, now posts a 25-point lead over Democrat Jack Conway in Kentucky’s U.S. Senate race, but there’s a lot of campaigning to go.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Kentucky, taken Wednesday night, shows Paul earning 59% of the vote, while Conway picks up 34% support. Four percent (4%) percent prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

Since winning the primary, Paul has gained ground among Republican voters and is now supported by 82% of the GOP faithful. That figure is up from 69% earlier. Paul also earns 73% support from unaffiliated voters at this time. That, too, reflects a huge bounce following the primary victory …

Conway, on the other hand, attracts support from just 59% of Democrats. Most conservative Democrats currently prefer Paul over the Democratic nominee. Conservative Democrats represent just under 15% of all Kentucky voters.

[boxcar]

From wiki ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States


In the United States, affirmative action refers to equal opportunity employment measures that Federal contractors and subcontractors are legally required to adopt. These measures are intended to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment, on the basis of "colour, religion, sex, or national origin.


Seems to me it says if you want any part of federal contract dollars, you better not discriminate. I see nothing wrong with that. Not a single word about bisexual partridges. ;)

It's IMPLIED! And how does one "prevent discrimination"? By meeting minority quotas! "X" amount of employed "colored" people = non-discrimination. Conversely, "Y" amount of white people can only mean discrimination. Affirmative Action is a DISCRIMINATORY law by nature because it forces employers to PROVE they're NOT discriminating by giving PREFERENCES to "people of color". When you give preferences to certain types of people of "color", the opposite MUST be equally as true, i.e. you have prejudiced yourself against other people of different color. Wake up and smell the coffee, already will ya? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

That will never happen..over and over again I have seen nepotism trump ability and will continue forever.

It happens every day -- just not in your alternate universe that is polluted with racism and hatred -- which you project unto others.

Boxcar

[ddog]

I guess this is what you call an outlier?

_______________________________________________
Rand Paul, riding the momentum of his big Republican Primary win on Tuesday, now posts a 25-point lead over Democrat Jack Conway in Kentucky’s U.S. Senate race, but there’s a lot of campaigning to go.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Kentucky, taken Wednesday night, shows Paul earning 59% of the vote, while Conway picks up 34% support. Four percent (4%) percent prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

Since winning the primary, Paul has gained ground among Republican voters and is now supported by 82% of the GOP faithful. That figure is up from 69% earlier. Paul also earns 73% support from unaffiliated voters at this time. That, too, reflects a huge bounce following the primary victory …

Conway, on the other hand, attracts support from just 59% of Democrats. Most conservative Democrats currently prefer Paul over the Democratic nominee. Conservative Democrats represent just under 15% of all Kentucky voters.

On Iran, Paul asserts: “Our national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon” (speech to Ron Paul for President supporters in Burlington, Vt., October 1, 2007).
On the defense budget, Paul says we should cut what “we are doing militarily” (speech to Ron Paul for President supporters in Chattanooga, Tenn., February 2, 2008). On terror suspects held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center, Paul once said, “They should mostly be sent back to their country of origin or, to tell you the truth, I’d drop them back off into battle.…You’re unclear, drop ’em off back into Afghanistan. It’d take them a while to get back over here” (speaking in Paducah, Ky., May 8, 2009).
On Iraq, in an interview on “Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton” in May 2009, Paul said: “Yeah, I say not ‘out of Iraq now,’ I say ‘out of Iraq two or three years ago’ — or ‘never go in,’ even better. But I think that when you get out the only thing that you need to propose and that people will accept is that you do it in an orderly fashion.”

On September 11th terrorists: “When my dad stood up to Giuliani and said that our foreign policy caused us some of what we got on 9/11, he didn’t say that it justified what those people did to us. But we have to understand that there is blowback from our foreign policy” (remarks at Western Kentucky University, April 7, 2009).

On the Patriot Act: “I am absolutely opposed to the PATRIOT Act, would’ve voted no on it and would vote to sunset any provisions as quickly as we could” (Rand Paul on Freedom Watch, Fox News, May 20, 2009




Finally a voice of sanity and realism with a chance to get elected.

A shame Mr. Paul , the elder doesn't have another dozen or so that could run in other states. I do recall the slow-bus types on here who threw around the nutjob and crazy remarks when one of the FEW truth tellers was running last time.

Funny how they are coming around , slowly but better than never.

Like I said back before the LAST POTUS election, Mr. Paul was SO FAR AHEAD OF you and those clowns, that it was funny to see any of them even dispute things they couldn't and still don't understand.

GO RAND! THen on to the WH! YEAH BABAY YEAH!!!!

[mostpost]

I guess this is what you call an outlier?

_______________________________________________
Rand Paul, riding the momentum of his big Republican Primary win on Tuesday, now posts a 25-point lead over Democrat Jack Conway in Kentucky’s U.S. Senate race, but there’s a lot of campaigning to go.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Kentucky, taken Wednesday night, shows Paul earning 59% of the vote, while Conway picks up 34% support. Four percent (4%) percent prefer some other candidate, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

Since winning the primary, Paul has gained ground among Republican voters and is now supported by 82% of the GOP faithful. That figure is up from 69% earlier. Paul also earns 73% support from unaffiliated voters at this time. That, too, reflects a huge bounce following the primary victory …

Conway, on the other hand, attracts support from just 59% of Democrats. Most conservative Democrats currently prefer Paul over the Democratic nominee. Conservative Democrats represent just under 15% of all Kentucky voters.
I will wait until I see polls from someone other than Republican pollster Rasmussen before I start to worry. In fact I have seen other polls which put the margin under five points. Really it is way too early to take these polls seriously.

[Tom]

Not according to hcap.

[GameTheory]

In the Maddow interview he is clearly trying to avoid giving anyone a soundbite to attack him with, but seems to hold the libertarian position that private property rights should trump the government's ability to dictate who you choose to hire or serve. (More people would agree with the hiring part than the serving part.) It is hardly an extremist position, although it is a minority position these days. Mainly it is a position people are afraid to voice because it gets you accused of racism and also because it is only an academic argument for the majority of the people that hold it (because most people holding that view wouldn't actually discriminate on the basis of race anyway).

[ArlJim78]

Paul will stand out amongst Republicans, but they could use a healthy dose of libertarianism. It would be good to have a solid libertarian wing in the Republican party to pull them away from their bad tendencies.

[bigmack]

In the Maddow interview he is clearly trying to avoid giving anyone a soundbite to attack him with, but seems to hold the libertarian position that private property rights should trump the government's ability to dictate who you choose to hire or serve. (More people would agree with the hiring part than the serving part.) It is hardly an extremist position, although it is a minority position these days. Mainly it is a position people are afraid to voice because it gets you accused of racism and also because it is only an academic argument for the majority of the people that hold it (because most people holding that view wouldn't actually discriminate on the basis of race anyway).
Bingo. He intellectualized the bill and expressed his thoughts on the nuance of its implementation.

Maddow, ever the dolt, simply postured with a "You better say what I want you to say, or we're comin' after ya".

mostpost & co licked it up in earnest.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/9529.gif

[mostpost]

Bingo. He intellectualized the bill and expressed his thoughts on the nuance of its implementation.

Maddow, ever the dolt, simply postured with a "You better say what I want you to say, or we're comin' after ya". mostpost & co licked it up in earnest.

No, he (Paul) didn't. He tried to equivocate what he said originally. What sense does it make to say no one should be discriminated against and then to say there should be no enforcement of a law against discrimination. You can't legislate people's opinions, but you can legislate their actions when those actions impact others. Allowing a business owner to decide which race to serve impacts others and is a legitimate focus of such a law.

A business is never a wholly private enterprise. As soon as you allow customers access to your business, you become a public entity.

Keep thinking Rachel Maddow is a dolt. Last I looked there were not a lot of Rhodes scholars who are dolts. Maddow did not say, "You better say what I want you to say, or we're comin' after ya". She said, "You better be honest about what you said or we are coming after you."

[ddog]

maddow and obe and Obama and the like will be hung for treason within 5 years or should be. Of course, mcconnell and most of his cronies should be as well.

Throw em into the GULF all of 'em.


tar babies may come back into style!

:lol:


"not a lot of Rhodes scholars who are dolts." :D

You got to be kidding, hmmm maybe you really believe this crap.

so sad.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Keep thinking Rachel Maddow is a dolt. Last I looked there were not a lot of Rhodes scholars who are dolts.

If I'm grading her test, maybe she isn't a dolt. If I'm listening to her bullshit, she's a dolt.

I'd be willing to call her an intellectual dolt if we can compromise.

[GaryG]

Regardless of the spin by Butchie and her NBC pals Paul's position is that of mainstream America. But to the socialist left....He Racist!!

[BluegrassProf]

This may be shocking: I'm a traditional liberal, and in this vote, I support Rand Paul.

(Before you get all lathered, I'm a real-world liberal, not a Pelosi liberal...there's a very clear difference - believe it or not, multiple perspectives on policy is a good thing, and a fundamental of democracy, so please, get the hell over it.)

Problem is, in mainstream gubment, liberals aren't liberal anymore; they're arm-flapping mouthpieces with deep concern for the most irrelevant, time-consuming, resource-stealing crap. Conservatives aren't conservative anymore; they're neoliberals with a bizarre long-arm-government ideology. Both are devoted to filling coffers, and both jump as fast as they can toward whatever issue makes the most noise (even if they know damned well it'll wind up a disaster)...and increasingly-so. The more divisive, the merrier! Bring on the squawking jabs and the symbolic votes!

It's paralyzing government's ability to do the things it's supposed to do, like provide the basic framework for equal opportunity for all. The mainstream political act of "we know what's good fer you" has gotten way, WAY old, and it's time for a change.

The refreshing thing about Rand Paul is that he ignores party line approaches to policy (his affiliation with the Tea Party, for example, is reasoned and almost seemingly tenuous, which is a really, really big deal...he largely mirrors Ron's libertarian perspective, which is hugely refreshing and is helping to define and legitimize the TP movement). Certainly, I don't always agree with him - this is a GOOD thing - we agree and disagree, because he's a real politician, and that's how government should work. His policies reflect fundamental issues important to BOTH liberals and conservatives - the sad thing is, it's almost shocking that someone could approach government that way, crisscrossing party lines, and both agreeing and disagreeing with members of both parties...how ridiculous is that, that we're so amazed?? That should be the norm, by gawd! The real-world doesn't care about party lines, and doesn't care about damned "party solidarity." The needs and concerns of the American people, the fundamentals of government, they don't care about party lines. They provide nothing in today's politics, outside an excuse to demonize and spar, over and over and over, in tight, inward-looking circles.

Time to break out.

[ddog]

Yep X100000.

:ThmbUp:


people that don't understand that he is saying that the gvt has a god complex brought on by a very few good works will take any chance to paint him as a nut or worse.

Hope the normal voters can take the time to reason through the bullshit media crap.

[boxcar]

Problem is, in mainstream gubment, liberals aren't liberal anymore; they're arm-flapping mouthpieces with deep concern for the most irrelevant, time-consuming, resource-stealing crap.

Then, Prof, what would you call these "phony" liberals, as opposed to the "real McCoys" such as profess to be? Progressives? Socialists? Marxists?

And what are "neocons" since they're not neolibs in your world?

Boxcar

[BluegrassProf]

Then, Prof, what would you call these "phony" liberals, as opposed to the "real McCoys" such as profess to be? Progressives? Socialists? Marxists?

And what are "neocons" since they're not neolibs in your world?

BoxcarI would call them "liberals in office." And neocons are neolibs, parading around under a different moniker.

But I'm not here to debate the rhetoric, if that's what you're after. It's absolutely pointless, and I don't have the time.

What say we celebrate the win together, as well as the freedom to disagree.

[NJ Stinks]

The refreshing thing about Rand Paul is that he ignores party line approaches to policy (his affiliation with the Tea Party, for example, is reasoned and almost seemingly tenuous, which is a really, really big deal...he largely mirrors Ron's libertarian perspective, which is hugely refreshing and is helping to define and legitimize the TP movement). Certainly, I don't always agree with him - this is a GOOD thing - we agree and disagree, because he's a real politician, and that's how government should work. His policies reflect fundamental issues important to BOTH liberals and conservatives - the sad thing is, it's almost shocking that someone could approach government that way, crisscrossing party lines, and both agreeing and disagreeing with members of both parties...how ridiculous is that, that we're so amazed?? That should be the norm, by gawd! The real-world doesn't care about party lines, and doesn't care about damned "party solidarity." The needs and concerns of the American people, the fundamentals of government, they don't care about party lines. They provide nothing in today's politics, outside an excuse to demonize and spar, over and over and over, in tight, inward-looking circles.

Time to break out.

There is a lot I like about Rand Paul too. Although I don't care how he phrases it, I don't want people barred from a public restaurant, etc. based on the owner's personal preferences.

And I'll add this because it's true. Arlen Specter not only literally criss-crossed party lines, the guy ignored party lines many times when he voted in Congress. As you noted, BluegrassProf, it takes guts to do it and Specter did it for 30 years. Of course, Arlen was roasted here when he got beat the other day. What else is new? :rolleyes:

And no - I didn't always agree with Specter. But I admired the guy's independent streak.

[DRIVEWAY]

Dr. Paul has adjusted his support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Today he changed his support from 90% to 100% for this legislation. He also stated that he would not seek to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Politically he no longer has to explain his disagreement with the legislation.

The only question left is "Do the voters believe him or is he just like Obama saying what is necessary to get elected?".

Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Tea Party - it seems they all sell out sooner or later. Paul is just another slippery politician.:liar:

[ArlJim78]

oh man what a fraud this Paul is, to go from 90% support to 100% support on an issue that was settled years ago and has no bearing on anything happening today. just another big fat liar like Obama.

they're all the same.

[bigmack]

oh man what a fraud this Paul is, to go from 90% support to 100% support on an issue that was settled years ago and has no bearing on anything happening today.
You're in.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/5_20_10_19_02_02.png

[Ocala Mike]

Ring the bell. We got another dunderhead aboard supporting wacko train of thought.

Welcome aboard. :ThmbUp:


Thanks for the welcome. If I'm a dunderhead with a wacko train of thought and my head up my butt, I oughta fit right in with the majority of posters in this group! ;)


Ocala Mike

[boxcar]

Thanks for the welcome. If I'm a dunderhead with a wacko train of thought and my head up my butt, I oughta fit right in with the majority of posters in this group! ;)


Ocala Mike

Most especially with all the "progressives"....

Boxcar

[Ocala Mike]

What's that "vCash 400" notation mean, anyway?

By the way, the opposite of progressive is regressive. Bill Maher said it best the other night, "I WANT MY COUNTRY FORWARD"


Ocala Mike :5: :10: (my lucky numbers)

[boxcar]

What's that "vCash 400" notation mean, anyway?

By the way, the opposite of progressive is regressive. Bill Maher said it best the other night, "I WANT MY COUNTRY FORWARD"


Ocala Mike :5: :10: (my lucky numbers)

Bone up on history. The Commies used this term euphemistically to mask their true ideology. And we have seen (at least some of us have) just how enlightened and advanced communism is, haven't we? Communism is a real shaker and mover on the world stage, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. BO's rat is smarter than Maher.

[46zilzal]

Bone up on history. The Commies used this term euphemistically to mask their true ideology. And we have seen (at least some of us have) just how enlightened and advanced communism is, haven't we? Communism is a real shaker and mover on the world stage, isn't it?
.
You and those loonies J Edgar and old Tail Gunner Joe are still looking for these mythical and never to be found Commonists (that's the way Hoover used to call them while changing his dresses)

[46zilzal]

What's that "vCash 400" notation mean, anyway?

vcash is used to contests here.

[boxcar]

You and those loonies J Edgar and old Tail Gunner Joe are still looking for these mythical and never to be found Commonists (that's the way Hoover used to call them while changing his dresses)

You're like the Slickster: I bet you have never met a commie you didn't like. Am I warm? Feel free one day to enlighten us, Zil, by contrasting your political beliefs with Communism. That would truly be a hoot!

5) The Communist Manifesto makes use of the term "Progressive." I'm sure this is not the only, or first, time the term is used in historically significant documents, but it certainly seems appropriate considering the context. Most notably, compare the principles of the Bull-Moose Party to the ten measures of communist takeover listed in Section II of the Manifesto. For instance, a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Moreover, the insistence that Progressives bill themselves as a political ideology more than a political party is strikingly similar to the notions of a Marxist ideology.

http://aaronopine.blogspot.com/2010/02/communist-manifesto-summary-and.html

Admittedly, "progressivism" started out "innocently" here in America late in the 19th Century and actually attracted for a while a fair following, especially among White Anglo-Saxon Protestant types. But it the "movement" eventually evolved into code for socialism and communism.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Keep thinking Rachel Maddow is a dolt. Last I looked there were not a lot of Rhodes scholars who are dolts.
Give me a drum roll...

Behold the work of a Rhodes Scholar within a 24 hour period..

2JFKsV0SKDA

She's either dishonest or real farkin dizzy. The former is a shoe in.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
Keep thinking Rachel Maddow is a dolt. Last I looked there were not a lot of Rhodes scholars who are dolts.


I can name one off hand.

[hazzardm]

I can name one off hand.


I bet he likes cigars :D

[Tom]

In that case, I can name TWO! :D

[cj's dad]

Since this is being discussed here, I thought it might be interesting to revisit how the "progressives", "the party of the people" a.k.a. Democrats voted in regard to the 1964 CRA-

House of Representatives:
Democrats for: 152
Democrats against: 96 = 38.7 %
= 61.3 %

Republicans for: 138
Republicans against: 34 = 19.8%
= 80.2%

Senate:
Democrats for: 46
Democrats against: 21 = 31.4%
=68.6%

Republicans for: 27
Republicans against: 6 = 18.2%
= 81.8%


I guess all those KKK members in the Dem. party were able to "whip" up some anti- Civil Rights votes.

[hazzardm]

George Stephanopoulos, Michael Kinsley, Kris Kristofferson, Byron White

Did not know these were in the group ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rhodes_Scholars

[cj's dad]

BTW, that great man of the people, the father of our global warming savior

Al Gore Sr. voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 !!

[hazzardm]

Since this is being discussed here, I thought it might be interesting to revisit how the "progressives", "the party of the people" a.k.a. Democrats voted in regard to the 1964 CRA-

House of Representatives:
Democrats for: 152
Democrats against: 96 = 38.7 %
= 61.3 %

Republicans for: 138
Republicans against: 34 = 19.8%
= 80.2%

Senate:
Democrats for: 46
Democrats against: 21 = 31.4%
=68.6%

Republicans for: 27
Republicans against: 6 = 18.2%
= 81.8%


I guess all those KKK members in the Dem. party were able to "whip" up some anti- Civil Rights votes.


Also interesting to view the disparity of votes by geography ....

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)

Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

[mostpost]

Give me a drum roll...

Behold the work of a Rhodes Scholar within a 24 hour period..

2JFKsV0SKDA

She's either dishonest or real farkin dizzy. The former is a shoe in.
antics with semantics

[46zilzal]

BTW, that great man of the people, the father of our global warming savior

Al Gore Sr. voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 !!
I was always under the impression that elected officials are bound to represent the will of the people from their state......Kentucky is another one, less than the deep South, still fighting the civil war, so that vote is hardly surprising.

[mostpost]

I can name one off hand.

Bobby Jindal?

[mostpost]

I was always under the impression that elected officials are bound to represent the will of the people from their state......Kentucky is another one, less than the deep South, still fighting the civil war, so that vote is hardly surprising.
This would be incorrect. Elected officials ought to consider the views of their constituents, but their votes should be based on their view of what is right. Al Gore's father was wrong. John F. Kennedy's book "Profiles in Courage" was about politicians who voted their conscience at great political cost.

[illinoisbred]

I was always under the impression that elected officials are bound to represent the will of the people from their state......Kentucky is another one, less than the deep South, still fighting the civil war, so that vote is hardly surprising.
Kentucky was not a member state in the CSA.

[bigmack]

antics with semantics
Another forgiving gesture on your part when in fact it was a punk, dishonest move with scrolling names for effect. She can't even fact check her own show from the day before.

Semantics. :lol:

[boxcar]

This would be incorrect. Elected officials ought to consider the views of their constituents, but their votes should be based on their view of what is right.

Then if each politician does what is right in his own eyes, how can the people be represented? How does the representative form of government come in to play? Don't The People elect politicians to represent US? If ultimately they ignore our collective voice, how are we being represented? :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. I bet you're in full agreement with Woody Allen and his desire for an Obama dictatorship, right?

[hazzardm]

Then if each politician does what is right in his own eyes, how can the people be represented? How does the representative form of government come in to play? Don't The People elect politicians to represent US? If ultimately they ignore our collective voice, how are we being represented? :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. I bet you're in full agreement with Woody Allen and his desire for an Obama dictatorship, right?


So in your opinion, why was the South so adamantly against Civil Rights Act?

[boxcar]

So in your opinion, why was the South so adamantly against Civil Rights Act?

Would that be Republicans or Democrats from the South?

Boxcar

[hazzardm]

Would that be Republicans or Democrats from the South?

Boxcar

Both if you care to elaborate the differences.


House
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

Senate
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)

[Tom]

Bobby Jindal?

No, Butch and Billy Boy.

[mostpost]

Then if each politician does what is right in his own eyes, how can the people be represented? How does the representative form of government come in to play? Don't The People elect politicians to represent US? If ultimately they ignore our collective voice, how are we being represented? :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. I bet you're in full agreement with Woody Allen and his desire for an Obama dictatorship, right?
It is assumed that the people will elect representatives who agree with their views in general. That does not mean the people are correct in every instance. (See Arizona SB1070). If a representative strays too far we can always unelect him.

P.S. Why would anybody agree with the Woody Allen?
Obama dictatorships are fantasies of the right.

[boxcar]

It is assumed that the people will elect representatives who agree with their views in general. That does not mean the people are correct in every instance. (See Arizona SB1070). If a representative strays too far we can always unelect him.

P.S. Why would anybody agree with the Woody Allen?
Obama dictatorships are fantasies of the right.

It is assumed that the people will elect representatives who agree with their views in general. That does not mean the people are correct in every instance. (See Arizona SB1070). If a representative strays too far we can always unelect him.

P.S. Why would anybody agree with the Woody Allen?
Obama dictatorships are fantasies of the right.

So, Woody is conservative? :bang: :bang: That was HIS fantasy!

Yes, we can always unelect them after they have imposed their will upon us. It's extremely difficult to "undo" all the damage rogue politicians have done.

The AZ example isn't even a close analogy. The pols in AZ acted according to the will of their People. Get up to speed on the situation out there.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to reply to my post #19 in the Completely Lost their Minds thread. You are working on that, right? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hazzardm]

The only outlets picking up this 'story' are the usuals. Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Post, & what a surprise MSNBC.



And don't forget your favorite ad-sellers .... :D

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/21/tea-party-activists-defend-rand-paul-amid-civil-rights-controversy/

The Tea Party movement faces a dilemma. The conservative grassroots phenomenon that has shaken up the political landscape in the past year has faced accusations from the left of racism. Now it must decide how to deal with the fallout over Paul's comments, which have given Democrats more ammunition for November's midterm elections.

[bigmack]

And don't forget your favorite ad-sellers ....
Yeah, this story is huge. In a week MSNBC should have a two hour special in place while the rest of the world simply yawns.

2JFKsV0SKDA

[mostpost]

So, Woody is conservative? That was HIS fantasy!
Woody is liberal. That doesn't mean he can't be a nutjob too. The conservative fantasy I was referring to is their believing Obama wants to be a dictator. If anything he is too willing to acquiesce to the right. IMO.
The AZ example isn't even a close analogy. The pols in AZ acted according to the will of their People.
My reference was not to the fact that the pols voted for a measure the people supported 70% to 30%. It was to the fact that the people of Arizona were wrong to support the measure.

[GameTheory]

The Tea Party movement faces a dilemma. The conservative grassroots phenomenon that has shaken up the political landscape in the past year has faced accusations from the left of racism. Now it must decide how to deal with the fallout over Paul's comments, which have given Democrats more ammunition for November's midterm elections.Is it really a dilemma? Only if the Tea Party thinks there are a bunch of die-hard liberals (who are the only ones who take these over-hyped racism charges seriously anymore because they've cried wolf a million times) who are susceptible to being converted to Tea Partiers. The people that matter to them already would find such charges absurd or irrelevant. It is a total non-issue, just something silly for liberals to agree about and stroke their self-importance.

[bigmack]

My reference was not to the fact that the pols voted for a measure the people supported 70% to 30%. It was to the fact that the people of Arizona were wrong to support the measure.
You should get a cabinet post.

Senate committee meeting questioning mostpost:

Sen: Mr. Post are you aware of the tremendous amount of support this bill has received from not only the people of AZ but the people of the US?

Mr. Post: I have read something to that effect but it is my stance and the policy of the administration that we really don't give a rats ass what they think and they are just plain wrong.

Sen: Mr. Post are you aware that there is a Federal law on the books that is far more liberal in rounding up and asking for papers from anyone without any unlawful activity.

Mr. Post: Huh?

[boxcar]

Woody is liberal. That doesn't mean he can't be a nutjob too. The conservative fantasy I was referring to is their believing Obama wants to be a dictator. If anything he is too willing to acquiesce to the right. IMO.

My reference was not to the fact that the pols voted for a measure the people supported 70% to 30%. It was to the fact that the people of Arizona were wrong to support the measure.

Good. Now, tell us why, apart from engaging in circular reasoning! Again, I refer you to post #19 over in the "Completely Lost Their Minds" thread -- just in case it has slipped your mind. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[toetoe]

Here is his interview with Rachel Maddow from last night.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#37244354

It seems he thinks government should not discrimnate, but government should also not be able to prevent private enterprise from discriminating.
See what you get out of it.

As usual, Rachel did a great job of holding his feet to the fire, while still remaining courteous and respectful.



So if citizens discriminate against Arizona, all patriots should demand that the government step in and punish said citizens. Okay --- glad we cleared that up.

This Paul guy's evil, man. :rolleyes: .



P.S. I'm damn envious that PowderPostBeetle is on a first name basis with Miss Madcow. :mad: .

[hazzardm]

I bet the Tea Party hopes for a 4 month case of laryngitis(sp?)

Cough, cough, first case may be settling in ....

News is going around Twitter that Rand Paul is now trying to cancel a Sunday appearance on Meet The Press that he committed to doing on Wednesday.


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

[Robert Goren]

Why not. What would expect from a tea partier. If his elected, will he pull a Palin and quit because he could make ton of money from speaking fees? Inquiring minds want to know.;)

[Robert Goren]

So if citizens discriminate against Arizona, all patriots should demand that the government step in and punish said citizens. Okay --- glad we cleared that up.

This Paul guy's evil, man. :rolleyes: .



P.S. I'm damn envious that PowderPostBeetle is on a first name basis with Miss Madcow. :mad: . There is a difference between refusing to buy and refusing to sell. That said I support Arizona and not the boycott. I am however taking the suggestion of a poster in another thread that if I didn't like what was happening in NJ and Monmouth park and not bet there. I am temporarily boycotting Mth.

[DRIVEWAY]

Cough, cough, first case may be settling in ....

News is going around Twitter that Rand Paul is now trying to cancel a Sunday appearance on Meet The Press that he committed to doing on Wednesday.


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

Dr. Rand Paul is a classic example of an Ivory Tower Logician suffering from an inability to reconcile his theories with common sense.

He needs to have a prayer meeting with the Reverand Jesse Jackson. Afterwards, Jesse can then certify that Rand has been cured.:lol:

[cj's dad]

Good. Now, tell us why, apart from engaging in circular reasoning! Again, I refer you to post #19 over in the "Completely Lost Their Minds" thread -- just in case it has slipped your mind. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Boxcar- many months ago, Post Toasties refused to reply to the fact that I had stated that ABORTION was a part of Osama's Health care Package.

When it became obvious that ABORTION would be included in BHO's health care package, he hid under a rock !! Don't hold your breath waiting for a response.

[Tom]

The conservative grassroots phenomenon that has shaken up the
political landscape in the past year has faced accusations from the left of racism.

Bring it on. Stupid dem/lib/prog shit is not going to stop this movement.
You guys can keep phrasing fiction like it was fact all you want - no intelligent Americans are falling for it. We see the forest through the trees and we are sharpening our axes. :lol:

Bring it on.

http://biggovernment.com/category/tea-party/

[boxcar]

Boxcar- many months ago, Post Toasties refused to reply to the fact that I had stated that ABORTION was a part of Osama's Health care Package.

When it became obvious that ABORTION would be included in BHO's health care package, he hid under a rock !! Don't hold your breath waiting for a response.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I just posted on that thread. I asked if Mosty had bought a time share so that he could hide under Zilly's rock. :lol: :lol:

I knew that Federal Immigration Law was substantially tougher than the AZ law. But he feigned ignorance of Federal Law and instead of answering my question, he erected a straw man objection to the "reasonable suspicion" phrase in the AZ law -- no doubt taken from some talking points of other blind sheeple. As I was destroying that stupid objection, JR goes and post a YouTube of Megan Kelly shining the Light of Truth on that much tougher Federal Law, which was the really the purpose behind my question to him in post #19 of that thread. Haven't heard from Mosty since. But who knows? He could be consulting with some SpinMeister Medium. Stay tuned....

Boxcar
P.S. No wonder at all BO wants to seize control of the Internet. Far, far too much useful information out here in cyberspace that makes it easy to reveal the depravity of libs by exposing all their lies with facts. Libs' answer to all this information: Control it -- just like they want to with everything else!

[toetoe]

There is a difference between refusing to buy and refusing to sell. That said I support Arizona and not the boycott. I am however taking the suggestion of a poster in another thread that if I didn't like what was happening in NJ and Monmouth park and not bet there. I am temporarily boycotting Mth.



But that's discrimination, and that makes you a ... um, racist ... I .. think. Yeah, that's right. My teacher told me. Yeah, my Language of the English Oppressor teacher. She told me to keep it between she and I, so please don't tell.

[NJ Stinks]

P.S. No wonder at all BO wants to seize control of the Internet.

When are you going to do yourself a favor and turn off the radio? Take my word for it. It's ruining your usually sweet disposition. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Boxcar- many months ago, Post Toasties refused to reply to the fact that I had stated that ABORTION was a part of Osama's Health care Package.

When it became obvious that ABORTION would be included in BHO's health care package, he hid under a rock !! Don't hold your breath waiting for a response.
I probably ignored you because you made no sense. HR 3590 (which becam Public Law 111-148) makes no changes concerning abortion. Federal funding for abortion is still prohibited. Section 1303 clearly states that no health plan, can be refused certification for refusing to cover abortions; as long as it is otherwise qualified. It also states that the criterion for federal funding of abortions will be the law as in effect at the time. Which means if the law changes, federal funding would be allowed. If it doesn't. as is very likely, the staus quo will be maintained. The health care bill itself did not change anything.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I probably ignored you because you made no sense. HR 3590 (which becam Public Law 111-148) makes no changes concerning abortion. Federal funding for abortion is still prohibited. Section 1303 clearly states that no health plan, can be refused certification for refusing to cover abortions; as long as it is otherwise qualified. It also states that the criterion for federal funding of abortions will be the law as in effect at the time. Which means if the law changes, federal funding would be allowed. If it doesn't. as is very likely, the staus quo will be maintained. The health care bill itself did not change anything.

Forgive my ignorance, and while I am uncertain as to your Rhodes Scholar status (though I hear Sean Hannity is petitioning to be certified as such at which time I can ask for his counsel on all important issues), I will nonetheless ask in sincerity since you are up on such matters...

Why was El Barto Stupak defiantly holding up the passage of the health care bill that WAS signed into law until he got some silly signature? Just an obstructionist? Or are those that find this issue important, like Stupak and CJ's Dad all just nonsensical?

[boxcar]

Forgive my ignorance, and while I am uncertain as to your Rhodes Scholar status (though I hear Sean Hannity is petitioning to be certified as such at which time I can ask for his counsel on all important issues), I will nonetheless ask in sincerity since you are up on such matters...

Why was El Barto Stupak defiantly holding up the passage of the health care bill that WAS signed into law until he got some silly signature? Just an obstructionist? Or are those that find this issue important, like Stupak and CJ's Dad all just nonsensical?

Excellent question. Right on target. :ThmbUp: Here's more on the abortion issue in this bill:

Abortion Coverage in President Obama's Health Care Reform Bill

President Obama has put forward another variant of health care reform whose foundation is H.R. 3590. Nearly a year after the President launched the health reform process with a White House summit, public opinion has moved even more strongly in the direction of keeping longstanding prohibitions on federal financing of abortion and plans that cover abortion. Despite this fact, H.R. 3590 includes multiple provisions that facilitate abortion funding, including new grants to federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) that contain no restriction on abortion payments whatsoever.

snippet #2

It is clear that the Obama Administration and congressional leadership are intent on providing taxpayer funds for the coverage of elective abortion. Direct subsidies to FQHCs, exclusion of the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, and refusal to include clarifying language excluding such coverage all indicate that the Hyde Amendment is on the chopping block.

What the above paragraph is saying is very easy to understand. It's essentially saying there are so many huge loopholes in this bill, a naval armada could sail through it unobstructed! These loopholes were put there by design. With respect to abortion, these loopholes will provide the "backdoor" access to this murderous procedure. Therefore, Mack was dead on the money with his take on this issue.

Only people like Mosty won't get it because libs could be likened to drug addicts. They must get their daily fix of Lies from the Left to perpetuate their feel good stupor as the darkness embraces them -- the same way a heroin addict must inject the junk into his veins to perpetuate his high.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Abortion-Coverage-in-President-Obamas-Health-Care-Reform-Bill

Boxcar

[cj's dad]

I probably ignored you because you made no sense. HR 3590 (which becam Public Law 111-148) makes no changes concerning abortion. Federal funding for abortion is still prohibited. Section 1303 clearly states that no health plan, can be refused certification for refusing to cover abortions; as long as it is otherwise qualified. It also states that the criterion for federal funding of abortions will be the law as in effect at the time. Which means if the law changes, federal funding would be allowed. If it doesn't. as is very likely, the staus quo will be maintained. The health care bill itself did not change anything.

No, because it took 6 months for you to come up with a lame answer!

Simply admit when you are incorrect and move on.

You know, I have this vision of you sitting at a keyboard with a winter type USPS hat on and typing away madly trying to disprove every post that is right of center.

BTW- Have you ever been on line at the same time that Robert Gibbs
is holding a press conference ???

Clark Kent and Superman were never seen in the same place at the same time. And you're no Clark Kent !!

[jballscalls]

Dr. Rand Paul is a classic example of an Ivory Tower Logician suffering from an inability to reconcile his theories with common sense.

He needs to have a prayer meeting with the Reverand Jesse Jackson. Afterwards, Jesse can then certify that Rand has been cured.:lol:

the guy just needs to stay off the cameras because he keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

[hazzardm]

No, because it took 6 months for you to come up with a lame answer!

Simply admit when you are incorrect and move on.

You know, I have this vision of you sitting at a keyboard with a winter type USPS hat on and typing away madly trying to disprove every post that is right of center.

BTW- Have you ever been on line at the same time that Robert Gibbs
is holding a press conference ???

Clark Kent and Superman were never seen in the same place at the same time. And you're no Clark Kent !!


You vent with no retort what so ever.

[DRIVEWAY]

Rand Paul on Fox News Monday at 9:45 Eastern (http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/05/rand-paul-on-fox-news-monday-at-945-eastern/)

Rand will be on Fox News at 9:45 Eastern Monday morning.

[cj's dad]

You vent with no retort what so ever.

No retort necessary !! It's been covered, thanks to

Boxcars post #96

[Rookies]

This is a non-story. If anyone thinks this will have any backlash on RP come Nov they're as delusional as Maddow & Olbermann put together.

Her little 'gotcha' interview fell flat on its can


Yeah, that happened. :rolleyes: Three days later, it's one of the lead political stories on every Sunday morning news show, including FOX. 'Rube' Paul had better realize as the first Tea Person standard bearer, he'd better get his stories straight- pronto.

Either, he's all in on his Libertarian views, which include the right of private enterprise to discriminate on the basis of race, etc. or he starts with the exemptions to his personal philosophies- just like everyone else!
I'm betting on Door #2 or this Red State will have a Democrat come November.

[Robert Goren]

If they can't get him, they can always get his dad. He never turns down anyone, not even Olbermann.

[NJ Stinks]

Rand Paul on Fox News Monday at 9:45 Eastern (http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/05/rand-paul-on-fox-news-monday-at-945-eastern/)

Rand will be on Fox News at 9:45 Eastern Monday morning.

What a bold move by the good doctor! No doubt the Tea Bag news station will tell Rand how unfair the MSM has been lately. :( Then they will grill Rand until they uncover his favorite sunglasses. :p

[bigmack]

No doubt the Tea Bag news station will tell Rand how unfair the MSM has been lately.
Ugly post from no doubt one ugly (on the inside) person.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/9529.gif

[NJ Stinks]

Ugly post from no doubt one ugly (on the inside) person.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/9529.gif

Mack, has anyone ever told you how perceptive you are?

Just curious. :sleeping:

[mostpost]

No retort necessary !! It's been covered, thanks to

Boxcars post #96
Boxcar's post # 96 is answered by the bill. The bill that was actually passed and is now law. Not someone's opinion based on outdated information or someone's opinion formulated out of a desire to stop health care reform.

HR 3590 Section 1303:
(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of this title (or any amendment made by this title), and
subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D)—
(i) nothing in this title (or any amendment made
by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified
health plan to provide coverage of services described
in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of its essential
health benefits for any plan year; and

Subparagraph (B) (i) refers to abortions for which public funding is prohibited.
Subparagraph (B) (ii) refers to abortions for which public funding is allowed. This is based on the law at the time. Currently there is no federal funding of abortions. The section above states that this law does not change that.

DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary
may not determine, in accordance with subparagraph
(A)(ii), that the community health insurance option
established under section 1323 shall provide coverage
of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) as part
of benefits for the plan year unless the Secretary—
(I) assures compliance with the requirements
of paragraph (2);

Subparagraph (A) (ii) states that the issuer of a qualified health plan can determine whether the plan covers abortion. The shaded area above means the Secretary can approve a decision to cover abortions only if the plan complies with paragraph (2). Paragraph 2, copied below is titled:
PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.—

(III) notwithstanding section 1323(e)(1)(C) or
any other provision of this title, takes all necessary
steps to assure that the [B]United States does not
bear the insurance risk for a community health
insurance option’s coverage of services described
in subparagraph (B)(i).

This simply says, if a community health insurance plan covers abortions,
the cost of those procedures must be taken from individual premiums paid and not from federal funds.


(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—If a qualified health plan provides
coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the
issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable
to any of the following for purposes of paying for such
services:
(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of
the advance payment of the credit under section 1412
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).
(ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402
of thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and
the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the
reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act).
This section does precisely what the title says. It prohibits the use of Federal Funds to pay for abortions; either directly or indirectly as a credit from other sources.


(1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise
have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of
(or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural require-
ments on abortions, including parental notification or consent
for the performance of an abortion on a minor.

This section says you can't interpret any part of HR 3590 to overturn or abrogate a state law regarding abortion. For instance if a state requires parental notification, the federal government can not say a minor in that state can have an abortion without notifying her parents.
(A) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be con-
strued to have any effect on Federal laws regarding—
(i) conscience protection;
(ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and
(iii) discrimination on the basis of the willingness
or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion
or to provide or participate in training to provide abor-
tion.

This section verifies that this HR 3590 changes no Federal laws on abortion.


This is what HR 3590 AKA public Law 111-148, says on abortion. That is what counts; not what some uninformed or deliberately deceptive person claims it says.

[bigmack]

This is what HR 3590 AKA public Law 111-148, says on abortion. That is what counts; not what some uninformed or deliberately deceptive person claims it says.
You dissect every letter yet when some talking head lies about what was said on her show from one day to the next you claim, antics with semantics.

Can you say raging hypocrite?

2JFKsV0SKDA

[NJ Stinks]

This is what HR 3590 AKA public Law 111-148, says on abortion. That is what counts; not what some uninformed or deliberately deceptive person claims it says.

You can't get it (understanding the actual law) if you don't want to get it, Mostpost. And many here prefer not to get it. Obviously. (shrug)

[mostpost]

You dissect every letter yet when some talking head lies about what was said on her show from one day to the next you claim, antics with semantics.

Can you say raging hypocrite?

2JFKsV0SKDA
This is the fourth time you have posted this video in this thread. You seem to think that it is meaningful. Paul said it is "not unusual" for the Courier-Journal to not endorse a Republican. He said they "typically" don't endorse Republicans and that they are a "very Democratic" paper. True, this is not the same as "Never". But, all of Paul's words indicate that he believes the C-J does not endorse Republicans. "Never" is different only in degree from what Paul said.

I'm sure if Rachel had realized what nitpickers we have on Pace Advantage, she would have chosen her words more carefully. More likely she would have just said, "You've got to be kidding me."

We would not even be having this discussion if Paul had answered the question Rachel asked instead of trying muddy the waters.

[boxcar]

This is what HR 3590 AKA public Law 111-148, says on abortion. That is what counts; not what some uninformed or deliberately deceptive person claims it says.

For all your long-winded, hot air-filled verbosity, you failed to point to one explicit prohibition against direct and indirect federal funding or subsidies on elective abortion. If abortion were not allowed, then answer John's question about why Stupak was so concerned about abortion? All BO did was sign a piece of paper with some promise on it that has no legal force and whose words are as worthless as a $3. bill. Where in the bill are the explicit prohibitions? The irrefutable fact is that there are NO statutory prohibitions within the bill against federal funding or subsides (directly or indirectly) against elective abortion.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/William-Saunders-Democrats-EO-offer-shows-Obamacare-does-fund-abortion--88766547.html

And why did BO consider an executive order to correct this little legislative oversight, which, again, would have about as much worth as a wooden nickle if he had signed such an order? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[mostpost]

For all your long-winded, hot air-filled verbosity, you failed to point to one explicit prohibition against direct and indirect federal funding or subsidies on elective abortion. If abortion were not allowed, then answer John's question about why Stupak was so concerned about abortion? All BO did was sign a piece of paper with some promise on it that has no legal force and whose words are as worthless as a $3. bill. Where in the bill are the explicit prohibitions? The irrefutable fact is that there are NO statutory prohibitions within the bill against federal funding or subsides (directly or indirectly) against elective abortion.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/William-Saunders-Democrats-EO-offer-shows-Obamacare-does-fund-abortion--88766547.html

And why did BO consider an executive order to correct this little legislative oversight, which, again, would have about as much worth as a wooden nickle if he had signed such an order? :rolleyes:

Boxcar
See NJ Stinks' post # 109 in this thread. Because you refuse to admit you are wrong, does not make you right. It just makes you look foolish.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
I'm sure if Rachel had realized what nitpickers we have on Pace Advantage, she would have chosen her words more carefully...

If she was a journalist she would have quoted someone accurately, not merely chosen her words carefully. Luckily, the standards for being a Rhodes Scholar are lower.

I eat infrequently. But if I never ate, I'd be dead. Is "infrequently" like "not unusually" or "typically" or whatever else differ from absolutes like "never" in degree only?

Come on now, I'm not trying to hammer you on any subject other than the lovefest for that dolt on TV, but you seem to have a pretty forgiving standard when she/he/it does something amateurish/Hannity-esque.

[bigmack]

See NJ Stinks' post # 109 in this thread. Because you refuse to admit you are wrong, does not make you right. It just makes you look foolish.
Just imagine what your complete lack of understanding on AZ1070 which is a mere 10 pages makes you look like? It's almost like you don't want to understand or you're a dishonest liar like Maddow. Can't be a lack of intellect. Nah... :rolleyes:

[Tom]

Post the clause prohibiting it, mostie.
Nothing else matters.

[mostpost]

Post the clause prohibiting it, mostie.
Nothing else matters.
Prohibiting what?????????????????

[boxcar]

See NJ Stinks' post # 109 in this thread. Because you refuse to admit you are wrong, does not make you right. It just makes you look foolish.

So, the answer is you can't. Instead you point me to one of NJ's stupid replies that lacks any substance. (BO's mole is capable of providing a better answer than NJ! :rolleyes: ) I will gladly admit that I'm wrong as soon as you point to the explicit federal funding or subsidy prohibitions (directly and indirectly) against elective abortions.

Just because a bill says that something isn't required does NOT mean that that something can't be provided under the measure. This is especially true with this bill because the Secretary and his bureaucratic underlings have humongous discretionary powers. This is why this gazillion-page, all-but-incomprehensible bill is replete with deliberately vague, ambiguous language. These are the loopholes, sir. And we know, historically, how congress has been so fond of planting these within the tax code, right?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Prohibiting what?????????????????

Tom, if this were anyone else, we'd accuse him of merely playing stupid. But Mosty is the real deal. This is his natural state.

Boxcar

[cj's dad]

Prohibiting what?????????????????

OK postmosties - lets bring this down to your level of comprehension shall we ???

Abortion is funded each and every day by local municipalities ( hope these words are not too big for you), The locals are funded by Gub'mint- you know, the ones who paid you for delivering the mail :lol::lol:

ergo ( this means therefore) Gbmint funds abortion and will continue to do so as per the POS in charge, your hero Barry Hussein Obama !!!

[Tom]

What was I thinking? I fell like Lewis Black and candy corn.
L8yuvMsvNqY

[PaceAdvantage]

I was always under the impression that elected officials are bound to represent the will of the people from their statePardon me while I laugh uncontrollably....

[Ocala Mike]

This Tea Partier hopes for non-stop talking.

Talk, baby, talk.


Hey, Tom, did you catch him on Meet The Press on Sunday? Mmmm..., me neither. Guess he's waiting for the "friendly confines" of Faux News. He'll soon be as irrelevant as the ex-Governor of AK.


Ocala Mike :5: :10:

[jballscalls]

) I will gladly admit that I'm wrong
Boxcar

this is something i dont think we'll ever see while here at PA

[boxcar]

this is something i dont think we'll ever see while here at PA

Pay better attention. I corrected myself yesterday in the "...lost their minds" thread.

Boxcar
P.S. But you are right in that such occasions are pretty rare. ;)

[Tom]

Hey, Tom, did you catch him on Meet The Press on Sunday? Mmmm..., me neither. Guess he's waiting for the "friendly confines" of Faux News. He'll soon be as irrelevant as the ex-Governor of AK.


Ocala Mike :5: :10:

Bill Clinton?

[Robert Goren]

Bill Clinton?:lol: :lol: :lol:

[GameTheory]

Let's say Rand Paul "continues" to trip over himself, and everyone agrees he is a big schmuck. So what?

Therefore what is going to happen? The Tea Party movement will far apart? All incumbents will win in the fall, what? Please find me one Tea Party-type person (from somewhere besides KY) that is now reconsidering, and is either going to vote for the same-old, same-old or stay home because of they don't like Rand Paul's answers to completely irrelevant questions about decades-old issues. Can someone tell me why (to use Maddow's words) "Rand Paul matters"?

[ddog]

In the narrow sense, he "matters" because he is against 99% of the nanny state b.s.

Nobody is pure, including Maddo.

If the country has to elect only those who are in the "mainstream middle" and practice the approved doublespeak , then to hell with it, deserves what it gets, which is what it has had with the last few "middle men".

[ArlJim78]

staterun media trying once again to work the "tea partiers are kooky angry racists" angle, that's all it is.

meanwhile nobody is talking about the tea party endorsed candidate who won the open seat in Hawaii, a seat held by democrats for 20 years.

[GameTheory]

In the narrow sense, he "matters" because he is against 99% of the nanny state b.s.

Nobody is pure, including Maddo.

If the country has to elect only those who are in the "mainstream middle" and practice the approved doublespeak , then to hell with it, deserves what it gets, which is what it has had with the last few "middle men".Yes, and I think he matters in that sense. What I don't understand is why liberals seem to think a successful attack on Paul is going to somehow undermine the whole movement? (And their attack isn't even successful -- it's a joke because of its utter irrelevancy and probably only hurts them more.) I suppose it is more of a way to mobilize their own even though they act as if they are somehow crumbling support among the Tea Partiers themselves. (i.e. "Don't let these crazy RACISTS into office!!!")

[Tom]

I submit that people who are turned of by Paul's answers were looking a reason to be before they were asked.

People who have Tea in their veins are not put off by this liberal nonsense, and many of us are only fueled by it.

Madcow.......doesn't have a clue and we all now it.

[jballscalls]

I submit that people who are turned of by Paul's answers were looking a reason to be before they were asked.

People who have Tea in their veins are not put off by this liberal nonsense, and many of us are only fueled by it.

Madcow.......doesn't have a clue and we all now it.

Are the people who have tea in their veins put off by Paul's nonsense though?

[ddog]

I hope the demoncrats and middle thuglicans and their ilk are so stupid that they only know one playbook.

If that's how they are going to call it, then I hope there will be massive losses come the next elections. I hope people are so fed up with the "current middle" that any criticism from there will only help the criticized.

I do realize that to take that too far can bring in some nastiness but I don't see that in the next couple of cycles.

I really think there's only 1 or at most 2 more elections with a chance to matter and then all hell is coming down if major changes are not made.

We will become something a little worse than France but with a large military and millions of illegals to support.

[bigmack]

Despite the dog & pony show over @ MSNBC RP is up by 25% over the dim dem.

Since winning the primary, Paul has gained ground among Republican voters and is now supported by 82% of the GOP faithful. That figure is up from 69% earlier. Paul also earns 73% support from unaffiliated voters at this time. That, too, reflects a huge bounce following the primary victory

Vilifying Paul is simply a little game they like to play. It's akin to swimming in a pool of their own dung while the candidate only gets more popular. Funny stuff really.

[Tom]

Are the people who have tea in their veins put off by Paul's nonsense though?

I'm not. Polls say most others are not either.
Maybe we don't consider it nonsense on his side.

[ArlJim78]

Are the people who have tea in their veins put off by Paul's nonsense though?
what exactly is the nonsense that would cause people to be put off?
please be specific because I don't know what it is.

[riskman]

It is also noted that Ron Paul (Rep.Tex) Rands father and Presidential candidate in 2008 won the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, ending Mitt Romney's three year winning streak.

[DRIVEWAY]

In late April 2010, a deepwater oil rig burst open in the Gulf of Mexico, with unquantifiable consequences for the wateres and lands surrounding it.Kahn, Chris, "Federal Law Could Limit BP's Liability Over Oil Spill, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/bp-could-face-billions-in_0_n_562271.html)" The Huffington Post, May 3, 2010(10)Kahn, Chris, "Federal Law Could Limit BP's Liability Over Oil Spill, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/bp-could-face-billions-in_0_n_562271.html)" The Huffington Post, May 3, 2010 While the company that ran the rig, British Petroleum (BP), received widespread criticism for the mistake and inability to staunch the oil from spreading, Paul was a lone political voice defending BP and attacking the Obama administration (http://www.whorunsgov.com/administration_officials_A_to_H)'s response.

Following the spill, the federal government tried to figure out how much liability BP would hold, even possibly increasing the highest limit the company would owe for damages from lawsuits (the May 2010 level is up to $75 million). Paul, on the other hand, defended the oil group against increased liability.

"I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen," said Paul.

Paul also criticized Obama (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Barack_Obama) for attacking BP. "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" said Rand. "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."Salcedo, Michele, "Rand Paul: Obama's criticism of BP 'un-American, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052101452.html?hpid=topnews)'" The Washington Post, May 21, 2010(11)

[Ocala Mike]

Tom and Robert Goren:

AK = Alaska (You know, where you can see Russia from your back yard).
AR = Arkansas (You know, where the sex addicted ex-president is from).

Of course, these two-letter official state abbreviations have only been around since 1963; I'm sure for you they were "rammed down our throats" by the commie-pinko United States Postal Service.


Ocala Mike :5: :10:

[mostpost]

In late April 2010, a deepwater oil rig burst open in the Gulf of Mexico, with unquantifiable consequences for the wateres and lands surrounding it.Kahn, Chris, "Federal Law Could Limit BP's Liability Over Oil Spill, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/bp-could-face-billions-in_0_n_562271.html)" The Huffington Post, May 3, 2010(10)Kahn, Chris, "Federal Law Could Limit BP's Liability Over Oil Spill, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/bp-could-face-billions-in_0_n_562271.html)" The Huffington Post, May 3, 2010 While the company that ran the rig, British Petroleum (BP), received widespread criticism for the mistake and inability to staunch the oil from spreading, Paul was a lone political voice defending BP and attacking the Obama administration (http://www.whorunsgov.com/administration_officials_A_to_H)'s response.

Following the spill, the federal government tried to figure out how much liability BP would hold, even possibly increasing the highest limit the company would owe for damages from lawsuits (the May 2010 level is up to $75 million). Paul, on the other hand, defended the oil group against increased liability.

"I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen," said Paul.

Paul also criticized Obama (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Barack_Obama) for attacking BP. "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" said Rand. "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."Salcedo, Michele, "Rand Paul: Obama's criticism of BP 'un-American, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052101452.html?hpid=topnews)'" The Washington Post, May 21, 2010(11)
Do you find it ironic that Rand Paul is complaining about Obama's criticism of British Petroleum and calling that criticism unamerican? British Petroleum.

[boxcar]

Do you find it ironic that Rand Paul is complaining about Obama's criticism of British Petroleum and calling that criticism unamerican? British Petroleum.

You don't read too swell, do you? Paul is saying essentially that BO is always criticizing business, i.e. the private sector -- BP just being the latest in a long line list of businesses or industries that have come under BO's boots. Doctors are crooks, pharmaceutical companies are crooks, Wall St. is crooked, banks are crooks, oil companies are crooks, insurance companies are crooks -- everyone and everything in the private sector, according to BO, is evil. This is how Big Gov appoints itself as the guardian of all Goodness, Virtue and Justice. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: And this non-stop bashing of the private sector, i.e. capitalism, is thoroughly un-American and anti-American!

Boxcar

[DRIVEWAY]

Do you find it ironic that Rand Paul is complaining about Obama's criticism of British Petroleum and calling that criticism unamerican? British Petroleum.

Obama wants strong restrictions on capitalism and Paul is a disciple of laissez faire. They are close to being on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

[mostpost]

You don't read too swell, do you? Paul is saying essentially that BO is always criticizing business, i.e. the private sector -- BP just being the latest in a long line list of businesses or industries that have come under BO's boots. Doctors are crooks, pharmaceutical companies are crooks, Wall St. is crooked, banks are crooks, oil companies are crooks, insurance companies are crooks -- everyone and everything in the private sector, according to BO, is evil. This is how Big Gov appoints itself as the guardian of all Goodness, Virtue and Justice. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: And this non-stop bashing of the private sector, i.e. capitalism, is thoroughly un-American and anti-American!

Boxcar
Once again you don't get it. I was commenting on the irony of Paul's using a British company to call Obama unAmerican.
Now to the even sillier part of your post. If a doctor bills Medicare for tests he did not conduct, he is a crook. if Wall Street urges its customers to buy stock, then buys insurance that hopes that stock will fall, Wall Street is a crook. If a bank posts a withdrawal before it posts a deposit that was in its possession so they can charge an overdraft fee, the bank is a crook. If an insurance company drops a client so they don't have to pay for a procedure or if they collude to keep premiums artificially high, they are crooks.
Calling them what they are is not unamerican it is very American.

[Tom]

Tom and Robert Goren:

AK = Alaska (You know, where you can see Russia from your back yard).
AR = Arkansas (You know, where the sex addicted ex-president is from).

Of course, these two-letter official state abbreviations have only been around since 1963; I'm sure for you they were "rammed down our throats" by the commie-pinko United States Postal Service.


Ocala Mike :5: :10:

My bad.
BUT, if you think Sara is not relevant, I guess ignorance is bliss.
Nice try with the age-old shotgun reply, thought. I thought that went out of style a few years ago. Nice to see it still has it's followers.

[Tom]

Obama's repeated attacks on businesses IS un-American.
But then, so is Obama.
The Great Divider.

[boxcar]

Once again you don't get it. I was commenting on the irony of Paul's using a British company to call Obama unAmerican.
Now to the even sillier part of your post. If a doctor bills Medicare for tests he did not conduct, he is a crook. if Wall Street urges its customers to buy stock, then buys insurance that hopes that stock will fall, Wall Street is a crook. If a bank posts a withdrawal before it posts a deposit that was in its possession so they can charge an overdraft fee, the bank is a crook. If an insurance company drops a client so they don't have to pay for a procedure or if they collude to keep premiums artificially high, they are crooks.
Calling them what they are is not unamerican it is very American.

In BO's world, the Capitalistic System is crooked and needs to be fundamentally transformed. To use broad brush strokes to paint the entire private sector as evil is un and anti-American. He has never said anything good about the private sector, which is par for the course for a Marxist. If he had his way, we'd following the China model of "capitalism" as I write this.

And your solution is what? For Evil Big Gov to guard us chickens from Evil Big Biz? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Big Gov is just as wicked as any business can be in the private sector -- in fact, even more so because Government has more power at its disposal. Government is inherently more powerful because it can make laws through the legislative process AND through activist, radical courts as well. Businesses cannot make laws. Therefore, Big Gov wields the bigger stick through the force of its laws.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Calling them what they are is not unamerican it is very American.

That is what we are doing - calling Obama what he is....un-American.

Would you prefer "The Kenyan Krackpot?"

[boxcar]

In addition to what I just wrote in my last post, Mosty, you have also forgotten another very important fact about the U.S. Government. So, listen up and learn something for once in your life. A government that establishes a double standard social and legal system is as corrupt as it can be. A government that mandates one system of conduct or social behavior for its citizens, but follows a very different system for itself is a hypocritical, deceitful, cheating, thieving government. In the real world, any individual or corporation who operates with two sets of rules is typically thought of in not very flattering terms -- and rightfully so. But when it comes to the government, too many citizens are quick and eager to turn a blind eye to this kind of hypocrisy, which makes these people just as morally bankrupt as the government it embraces!

In the past, I have listed several ways in which our government is thoroughly hypocritical. So...feel free to trash everyone in the private sector. But no matter how evil you or that Marxist in the white house try to make the private sector, it cannot hold a candle to the utter wickedness of the U.S. Government!

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

Tom and Robert Goren:

AK = Alaska (You know, where you can see Russia from your back yard).
AR = Arkansas (You know, where the sex addicted ex-president is from).

Of course, these two-letter official state abbreviations have only been around since 1963; I'm sure for you they were "rammed down our throats" by the commie-pinko United States Postal Service.


Ocala Mike :5: :10: Sorry Sometimes I forget these abbreviations, since I was out grade school by 63. Old habits die hard. some don't even die after 50 years. You'll be old some day too. Now get over yourself, you young whipper snapper.;)

[Ocala Mike]

You'll be old some day too. Now get over yourself, you young whipper snapper.;)

I was in my senior year in college in 1963; went to the same school that produced Michael Savage (Weiner), Paul Simon, and Jerry Seinfeld. They became famous, and I'm posting on PaceAdvantage with "age-old shotgun replies". C'est la vie!


Ocala Mike :5: :10:

[Ocala Mike]

the utter wickedness of the U.S. Government!

Boxcar


Seems like you're a throwback to the likes of Abbie Hoffman and the 60's Weathermen.

Look, the U.S. Government is us. The Preamble to the Constitution starts with "We the people", not "We the corporations".

I'll take the wicked government, as imperfect as it is, and you can have BP, Exxon, AIG, Enron, Union Carbide, Countrywide, and all the other "pillar of society" companies out there that exist solely for the enrichment of their shareholders, and "the public be damned."



Ocala Mike :5: :10:

[Tom]

As opposed to the government and the unions saying the public be damned?

[Robert Goren]

Seems like you're a throwback to the likes of Abbie Hoffman and the 60's Weathermen.

Look, the U.S. Government is us. The Preamble to the Constitution starts with "We the people", not "We the corporations".

I'll take the wicked government, as imperfect as it is, and you can have BP, Exxon, AIG, Enron, Union Carbide, Countrywide, and all the other "pillar of society" companies out there that exist solely for the enrichment of their shareholders, and "the public be damned."



Ocala Mike :5: :10: Actually anymore, it is the enrichment of its corporate officers and the shareholders be damned.

[ArlJim78]

we are also the corporations Mike, they consist of people and shareholders and many of the disasters that you ascribe to corporations were in fact enabled by government. there is no bigger disaster than what the federal government has caused.

We'd be living large and carefree if the government operated half as well as BP does. Things happen, disasters happen, and this thing in the gulf is a biggie. But the governments response has been one of disinterest and posturing. They fly overhead in helicopters and someone takes a picture of important government officials looking concerned and pointing to the oil slicks. Then they make bold statements about how angry they are, and about how this is BP's mess and the boot of government will be on the neck of BP. Oh government is doing what it does best, its raising the tax on oil fourfold. never let a crisis go to waste as they say.

Salazar yesterday said if BP doesn't fix this soon the government will have them step aside. Then the secretary of the coast guard had to point out that the government has no equipment or expertise in the deep water, that it's BP or nothing. So maybe we should ease up on the boot and lower the rhetoric a bit and help in any way possible to actually cap off the well head. There will be plenty of time for the lawsuits and congressional inquisitions, fines, etc.

[ArlJim78]

Actually anymore, it is the enrichment of its corporate officers and the shareholders be damned.
the shareholders are damned with a 7.7% dividend.

[boxcar]

Seems like you're a throwback to the likes of Abbie Hoffman and the 60's Weathermen.

Look, the U.S. Government is us. The Preamble to the Constitution starts with "We the people", not "We the corporations".

I'll take the wicked government, as imperfect as it is, and you can have BP, Exxon, AIG, Enron, Union Carbide, Countrywide, and all the other "pillar of society" companies out there that exist solely for the enrichment of their shareholders, and "the public be damned."



Ocala Mike :5: :10:

Hey, Mikey....psst, come here close, I have something to ask you: Guess who comprises the private sector -- Is it "we the people" or "we the Big Gov"?

You have a good day, Mike, as you mull that over.

Boxcar
P.S. Also, are shareholders in corporations "we the people" or "we BIG BAD Gov"? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

As opposed to the government and the unions saying the public be damned?

Exactly! When was the last time a corporation forced something down your throat and said, "If you don't buy this product from me (health coverage, as an example :rolleyes: ), we're going to fine you stiffly and if you don't have the money, we'll toss you in prison"?

I rest my case.

Boxcar

[DRIVEWAY]

Rand Paul wants to entend retirement age under Social Security to age 70. Early retirement would be age 65.

[DRIVEWAY]

Article on Rand Paul and Social Security reform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/ask-rand-paul-what-he-wou_b_588094.html

The idea of adjusting retirement age for Social Security is not without merit. If you change current Social Security to ages 70 and 65, you could then open the door for additional products. Let's call the SS at age 70/65 Plan A. Now Plan A might not fit everyone's timeframe, so let's invent Plan B.
Plan B would include the Plan A benefit at age 65 and the core Medicare benefit at age 65 but starting at an earlier age.

Let's say an individual could contribute an additional 5% of his/her income in an optional Plan B Social Security. This could from an employee benefits standpoint be matched or not-matched by your employer. When an individual receives their annual Social Security statement, it would also show Plan B credits etc.

Wouldn't it be nice to know after being in Plan B for say 15-20 years that your projected early retirement age with Medicare is now age 59.

It's time for the government to think outside the box and actually come up with popular and fiscally responsible solutions.

Dr. Rand Paul may have started something of merit.

[boxcar]

Article on Rand Paul and Social Security reform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/ask-rand-paul-what-he-wou_b_588094.html

The idea of adjusting retirement age for Social Security is not without merit. If you change current Social Security to ages 70 and 65, you could then open the door for additional products. Let's call the SS at age 70/65 Plan A. Now Plan A might not fit everyone's timeframe, so let's invent Plan B.
Plan B would include the Plan A benefit at age 65 and the core Medicare benefit at age 65 but starting at an earlier age.

Let's say an individual could contribute an additional 5% of his/her income in an optional Plan B Social Security. This could from an employee benefits standpoint be matched or not-matched by your employer. When an individual receives their annual Social Security statement, it would also show Plan B credits etc.

Wouldn't it be nice to know after being in Plan B for say 15-20 years that your projected early retirement age with Medicare is now age 59.

It's time for the government to think outside the box and actually come up with popular and fiscally responsible solutions.

Dr. Rand Paul may have started something of merit.

Here's a novel idea: Why not hold the U.S. government to the same standard as the private sector when it comes to Ponzi Schemes by eventually outlawing it altogether? How's that for thinking outside Big Gov's little [socialist] box?

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

Here's a novel idea: Why not hold the U.S. government to the same standard as the private sector when it comes to Ponzi Schemes by eventually outlawing it altogether? How's that for thinking outside Big Gov's little [socialist] box?

BoxcarIf they did that then the government could go even deeper in debt. Can you imagine if the government was allowed leverage at 40-1 like our banks. Geez, it is bad enough now.

[DRIVEWAY]

Here's a novel idea: Why not hold the U.S. government to the same standard as the private sector when it comes to Ponzi Schemes by eventually outlawing it altogether? How's that for thinking outside Big Gov's little [socialist] box?

Boxcar

I quess you disagree with Dr. Paul.

Social Security was not started as a Ponzi Scheme. Longevity improvements and the baby boom have changed the calculations affecting Social Security. If you change Social Security to have the same life expectancy that was in play when the plan was introduced, Social Security will be solvent and not referred to as a Ponzi Scheme.

Pushing back the retirement age, increasing the contributions or phasing out the Plan are all possible solutions.

Put to a vote our citizens will overwhelmingly support continuation of Social Security.

Please name a current or prospective Senator or Congressman that seeks to outlaw Social Security.

You may be all alone in your quest to outlaw Social Security.

[DRIVEWAY]

Life Expectancy Tables

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

Life expectancy has increased by at least 17 years since Social Security was first introduced.

Adjustments to retirement age and contributions have and continue to be necessary to keep Social Security solvent.

[boxcar]

I quess you disagree with Dr. Paul.

Social Security was not started as a Ponzi Scheme. Longevity improvements and the baby boom have changed the calculations affecting Social Security. If you change Social Security to have the same life expectancy that was in play when the plan was introduced, Social Security will be solvent and not referred to as a Ponzi Scheme.

You're dancing on a pinhead. SS is inherently a Ponzi Scheme. You need to get up to speed on what a Ponzi Scam is.

Can you appreciate a little irony?: Puff on this Big Gov link for a while:

http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm

Here's an excerpt:


What is a Ponzi scheme?

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity.
Pushing back the retirement age, increasing the contributions or phasing out the Plan are all possible solutions.

Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[DRIVEWAY]

You're dancing on a pinhead. SS is inherently a Ponzi Scheme. You need to get up to speed on what a Ponzi Scam is.

Can you appreciate a little irony?: Puff on this Big Gov link for a while:

http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm

Here's an excerpt:


What is a Ponzi scheme?

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity.
Pushing back the retirement age, increasing the contributions or phasing out the Plan are all possible solutions.

Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Your opinion of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme is wrong. Longevity increased by at least 17 years which has made changes to Social Security necessary.

Social Security was not started as a Ponzi Scheme.

Reread the definition of a Ponzi Scheme. It doesn't apply to Social Security.

Please name anyone in government who calls for the outlawing of Social Security.

[Tom]

SS does one thing - take away from your retirement.
I would be far better off with the contributions I have made throughout my life with no interest. A good chunk of my hard earned money is going to others who did not work so hard.

SS is no different than an armed robber.

[boxcar]

Your opinion of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme is wrong. Longevity increased by at least 17 years which has made changes to Social Security necessary.

Social Security was not started as a Ponzi Scheme.

Reread the definition of a Ponzi Scheme. It doesn't apply to Social Security.

Please name anyone in government who calls for the outlawing of Social Security.


You're a joke! What part of the government's definition of "Ponzi Scheme" didn't you understand!? It was always a Ponzi Scheme. Never called one by this corrupt government because why would the government want to shoot itself in the foot by looking hypocritical to the public when it enacted a law that permits this scam in the public sector while outlawing it in the private one?

And why would any corrupt politician within the the corrupt system call for dismantling this scam?

Moreover...I'll take this little discussion to the next level. This law is also thoroughly tyrannical in nature (this is the operative term here that is not be associated with "Ponzi Scheme -- two separate issues :rolleyes: ) . And I'd bet my very last dollar (literally) that neither you nor any other lib here would have the first inkling as to why!

But allow me to give you a hint via this question: What is the central purpose behind Laws?

Boxcar

[DRIVEWAY]

SS does one thing - take away from your retirement.
I would be far better off with the contributions I have made throughout my life with no interest. A good chunk of my hard earned money is going to others who did not work so hard.

SS is no different than an armed robber.

I can appreciate what you're saying. Many people are receiving less than they and their employer paid into the system. Add simple 10 year government bond interest to your balance and the payout is even worse. Reforming Social Security is necessary but will be incredibly difficult.

Too much government tinkering with an otherwise reasonable system. First we initiate minimum payments, then there's disability payments, then there's widow and child payments and the minimum threshold is still only 40 quarters to qualify. Add the increase of 17 years in longevity and the baby boom along the way and there is trouble. At least Rand Paul is discussing changes.

But as bad as it is, how may people would have saved enough on their own. Whether we like it or not, there needs to be a safety net. How many civilized nations offer nothing as a safety net?

Be grateful that Boxcar is not in charge of Social Security. You'd be receiving zippo.

[bigmack]

This is the fourth time you have posted this video in this thread.
Looks like more lies by Maddow. I'm happy to see my little video made in into NJ.com. :ThmbUp:

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/05/rachel_maddow_-_lying_weasel.html

[boxcar]

Be grateful that Boxcar is not in charge of Social Security. You'd be receiving zippo.

Boxcar would never support or condone, let alone be in charge of, something as inherently crooked and evil as Social Security. And the industrious and responsible-minded among us would be receiving far more than the mere pittance SS pays out by investing it wisely over the course of our working years. SS is a huge ripoff!

And I'm still waiting to answers to my questions in my last post to you. Don't be a wuss. Step up boldly to the plate and take your best shot at my pitches.

Boxcar

[DRIVEWAY]

Boxcar would never support or condone, let alone be in charge of, something as inherently crooked and evil as Social Security. And the industrious and responsible-minded among us would be receiving far more than the mere pittance SS pays out by investing it wisely over the course of our working years. SS is a huge ripoff!

And I'm still waiting to answers to my questions in my last post to you. Don't be a wuss. Step up boldly to the plate and take your best shot at my pitches.

Boxcar

Name one Senator or Congressman that agrees with you assessment of Social Security?

As far as your pitches go, they all appear to be screwballs.

[boxcar]

Name one Senator or Congressman that agrees with you assessment of Social Security?

Why would any pol cast himself in bad light -- or for that matter the political establishment? You really expect a politician to portray SS for what it really is -- a scam? And one that is guaranteed to fail, which is why it's outlawed in the private sector!

As far as your pitches go, they all appear to be screwballs.

How would you know? You're blind as a bat. Must be since you missed the government's definition of "Ponzi Scheme".

Boxcar

[DRIVEWAY]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQVREKmjiAG7r_74Bs--OoD5dyugD9G00GP84
Dr. Rand Paul speaks on illegal immigration. His position makes sense.

[tboy4]

Boxcar would never support or condone, let alone be in charge of, something as inherently crooked and evil as Social Security. And the industrious and responsible-minded among us would be receiving far more than the mere pittance SS pays out by investing it wisely over the course of our working years. SS is a huge ripoff!

And I'm still waiting to answers to my questions in my last post to you. Don't be a wuss. Step up boldly to the plate and take your best shot at my pitches.

Boxcar



I have been reading this forum for about 4 years now, and I must say you are the first person I've noticed who feels as I do. It doesn't matter that no politician will ever espouse it, it is still the absolute truth. Social Security is, and always has been, wrong. It is nothing more than legalized theft. It is not the government's place to take care of us. We are to take care of ourselves, and to help those less fortunate as we are able. Personally, I don't understand how on earth this program (or any of the other entitlements) ever got passed in the first place. All I can figure is that we've been saddled with corruption in government for much longer than I ever would have believed. It would truly be great if we could finally get some people elected who believe in doing what's right, rather than what feels good.

[boxcar]

I have been reading this forum for about 4 years now, and I must say you are the first person I've noticed who feels as I do. It doesn't matter that no politician will ever espouse it, it is still the absolute truth. Social Security is, and always has been, wrong. It is nothing more than legalized theft. It is not the government's place to take care of us. We are to take care of ourselves, and to help those less fortunate as we are able. Personally, I don't understand how on earth this program (or any of the other entitlements) ever got passed in the first place. All I can figure is that we've been saddled with corruption in government for much longer than I ever would have believed. It would truly be great if we could finally get some people elected who believe in doing what's right, rather than what feels good.

Here's the way I feel: If I was so weak, so insecure, so full of self-doubt and self-loathing that I couldn't live my own life, I would have have never left home. I would have stayed with my mommy and daddy. I would have gotten far more legitimate love and care from them than from the Nanny State.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

I have been reading this forum for about 4 years now, and I must say you are the first person I've noticed who feels as I do. It doesn't matter that no politician will ever espouse it, it is still the absolute truth. Social Security is, and always has been, wrong. It is nothing more than legalized theft. It is not the government's place to take care of us. We are to take care of ourselves, and to help those less fortunate as we are able. Personally, I don't understand how on earth this program (or any of the other entitlements) ever got passed in the first place. All I can figure is that we've been saddled with corruption in government for much longer than I ever would have believed. It would truly be great if we could finally get some people elected who believe in doing what's right, rather than what feels good.
I feel bad that the first thing I have to say to a new poster is "you're as bad as Boxcar." That is not a compliment!!
For every rich person like you and Boxcar who is able to fund their own retirement, there are ten thousand who are barely making ends meet. The necesities of everyday life make it very difficult to put anything aside for retirement. Any kind of disaster or illlness can destroy any nest egg one may have accumulated.
I'm sure you don't care that someones grandma is eating cat food and freezing in a one room apartment, but I do.
Quit crying about how you have to pay for someone else's retirement. Someone else is also paying for your retirement. And since contributions are capped at $108,000 rich guys like you and Boxcar pay a smaller percentage of your income to Social Security than us honest working folk.

[mostpost]

Here's the way I feel: If I was so weak, so insecure, so full of self-doubt and self-loathing that I couldn't live my own life, I would have have never left home. I would have stayed with my mommy and daddy. I would have gotten far more legitimate love and care from them than from the Nanny State.

Boxcar
When I see someone continuously going on and on about how special he is, I can't help but think he really feels just the opposite. All your posturing and braggadocio is a sign of a very insecure person.
When I was a young lad my mother told me "Don't be a braggart; if you do something worth bragging about people will notice."
Mom was smart. :cool:

[bigmack]

Let me help the new guy understand the mind of mostposty.

I feel bad that the first thing I have to say to a new poster is "you're as bad as Boxcar." That is not a compliment!!
You've already stated that you agree with Boxcar but mosty wants you to know that "you're bad" for thinking the way you do.
For every rich person like you and Boxcar who is able to fund their own retirement, there are ten thousand who are barely making ends meet.
He has a tendency to assume that if you're for self sufficiency and ask little in the way of $ from the Government, you're rich.
Any kind of disaster or illlness can destroy any nest egg one may have accumulated.
For him, we must help out everyone. Any day they could be the victim of a flood or a stroke. They need Government help because they haven't the slightest idea what insurance is or how to get it.
I'm sure you don't care that someones grandma is eating cat food and freezing in a one room apartment, but I do. :rolleyes:
Because you believe it is not the government's place to take care of us he takes that to mean that you don't care about indigent people. Make no mistake. You're uncaring. He's very caring. In fact, he's super duper caring.
Quit crying about how you have to pay for someone else's retirement. Someone else is also paying for your retirement.
Even though you state: We are to take care of ourselves, and to help those less fortunate as we are able, he takes that for you crying about paying for someone else's retirement.
Since contributions are capped at $108,000 rich guys like you and Boxcar pay a smaller percentage of your income to Social Security than us honest working folk.
He assumes your level of income and would like to let you know that he and his ilk are honest. Unlike you & boxcar who are dishonest because you don't believe Governement was intended to care of people.

Glad to be of help.

[boxcar]

When I see someone continuously going on and on about how special he is, I can't help but think he really feels just the opposite. All your posturing and braggadocio is a sign of a very insecure person.
When I was a young lad my mother told me "Don't be a braggart; if you do something worth bragging about people will notice."
Mom was smart. :cool:

If she was really all that smart, she wouldn't have had you...at any cost. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I feel bad that the first thing I have to say to a new poster is "you're as bad as Boxcar." That is not a compliment!!
For every rich person like you and Boxcar who is able to fund their own retirement,

Why would you ASSume that I'm "rich"? Have I not repeatedly stated on this forum that I'm anything but? And have I not stated more than once that I'm really pretty frugal with my money; for I live well within my means?
I would ask a normal, rational person how he could make these kinds of assumptions based upon what I have revealed about myself....but any resemblance between rationality and you would be purely coincidental.

Boxcar
P.S. Take a deep breath and calm down, lest you make more typos than you already have below. ;)

there are ten thousand who are barely making ends meet. The necesities of everyday life make it very difficult to put anything aside for retirement. Any kind of disaster or illlness can destroy any nest egg one may have accumulated.
I'm sure you don't care that someones grandma is eating cat food and freezing in a one room apartment, but I do.
Quit crying about how you have to pay for someone else's retirement. Someone else is also paying for your retirement. And since contributions are capped at $108,000 rich guys like you and Boxcar pay a smaller percentage of your income to Social Security than us honest working folk.

P.S.S. Since there are only "ten thousand who are barely making ends meet", why do you get all lathered up and your panties in a wad over such a meager number? :rolleyes:

[Valuist]

Very disappointed in Rush (the band, not the talk show host) for demanding Rand Paul stop using their songs in his ads. Ever hear of free publicity, guys? Does every entertainer have to be left wing?

[mostpost]

Let me help the new guy understand the mind of mostposty.

I feel bad that the first thing I have to say to a new poster is "you're as bad as Boxcar." That is not a compliment!!
1
You've already stated that you agree with Boxcar but mosty wants you to know that "you're bad" for thinking the way you do.
For every rich person like you and Boxcar who is able to fund their own retirement, there are ten thousand who are barely making ends meet.
2
He has a tendency to assume that if you're for self sufficiency and ask little in the way of $ from the Government, you're rich.
Any kind of disaster or illlness can destroy any nest egg one may have accumulated.
3
For him, we must help out everyone. Any day they could be the victim of a flood or a stroke. They need Government help because they haven't the slightest idea what insurance is or how to get it.
I'm sure you don't care that someones grandma is eating cat food and freezing in a one room apartment, but I do. :rolleyes:
4
Because you believe it is not the government's place to take care of us he takes that to mean that you don't care about indigent people. Make no mistake. You're uncaring. He's very caring. In fact, he's super duper caring.
Quit crying about how you have to pay for someone else's retirement. Someone else is also paying for your retirement.
5
Even though you state: We are to take care of ourselves, and to help those less fortunate as we are able, he takes that for you crying about paying for someone else's retirement.
Since contributions are capped at $108,000 rich guys like you and Boxcar pay a smaller percentage of your income to Social Security than us honest working folk.
6
He assumes your level of income and would like to let you know that he and his ilk are honest. Unlike you & boxcar who are dishonest because you don't believe Governement was intended to care of people.

Glad to be of help.
Permit me to comment on your "Help" to tboy4. I've taken the liberty to number each of your comments for ease of reference.
1
Not exactly. I think the way he thinks is bad and misguided but I would not presume to judge him personally.
2
Do you know that he is not rich? To say that a rich person never asks anything from the government is just false. Ever hear of the bank bailouts. or tax breaks for businesses.
3
The system is stacked in favor of those with money and against those without. It is increasingly difficult to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
I heard on the radio that the single greatest determining factor in which economic class a person will end up is not education, not effort, but the class of that person's parents. We are becoming a caste system.
As for insurance; haven't you been listening? More and more insurance is being priced out of reach.
4
Whether he is uncaring or whether I am super duper caring is irrelevant.
Neither one of us on his own can do much to help those who need help. Government is the team that enables us to do more. In the case of Social Security the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
5
What am I supposed to think? Social Security is a system where we all help to provide retirement security for all of us. tboy4 is opposed to Social Security. Of course he thinks Social Security is a plot to make him pay for someone elses retirement.
6
What I think is Government is necessary to take care of those who through no fault of their own are unable to take care of themselves. This is not limited to those who are physically unable but should include those impacted by financial hard times. That there are those who game the system, should not stop the help from being provided

[boxcar]

Permit me to comment on your "Help" to tboy4. I've taken the liberty to number each of your comments for ease of reference.
1
Not exactly. I think the way he thinks is bad and misguided but I would not presume to judge him personally.
2
Do you know that he is not rich?

The better question would have been: Since you don't know him personally due to your reluctance to judge him on that basis, how do you know that he is rich?


To say that a rich person never asks anything from the government is just false. Ever hear of the bank bailouts. or tax breaks for businesses.
3
[/quote]The system is stacked in favor of those with money and against those without. It is increasingly difficult to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
I heard on the radio that the single greatest determining factor in which economic class a person will end up is not education, not effort, but the class of that person's parents. We are becoming a caste system.
As for insurance; haven't you been listening? More and more insurance is being priced out of reach. [/quote]

And "I heard on the radio" BO is really the pope in disguise. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
4
Whether he is uncaring or whether I am super duper caring is irrelevant.
Neither one of us on his own can do much to help those who need help. Government is the team that enables us to do more. In the case of Social Security the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

No! Big Gov is the con artist whose number one specialty is to wield the big stick of the force of tyrannical laws to rob Peter to pay Paul. This is the same government that relishes the constant use of double standards. This is the same government who is also expert at dividing people through its Identity Politics. This is the same government that actually promotes and encourages laziness and underachievement through its welfare system. (Small wonder that Welfare Moms produce Welfare Kiddies. ) :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar
5

[tboy4]

Boxcar, I would like to thank you for your comments on my behalf. You are able to express your beliefs much more eloquently than I. I admire that. As I said before, I can't believe there is someone who thinks so much like I do. Most of the folks I'm around are belligerently against any changing of social security. It is like a breath of fresh air to find someone of like mind.

Mostpost, I must say, you are certainly a character. Please know that I don't mean any offense when I say that your post gave me quite a chuckle. You see, I am so far from rich that I almost fell off my chair when I read that. I have no money of my own whatsoever. None. I don't even have a job at the moment. However, I spent 15 years as a rural mail carrier, and made pretty good money doing that. I remember, when I first started, how shocked I was by how well it paid. It was the easiest job I'd ever done, and paid far and away the most money. I'd done farm jobs, restaurant work, nursing homes, movie theatres, flea markets, and factory work prior to the post office. Quite often I was working more than one job at a time to make ends meet. I just couldn't get over how little those physical jobs paid, as opposed to the postal salary

By no means do I begrudge anyone their earnings. I feel a person is worth whatever someone is willing to pay them. The thing that I had a problem with was the UNION. I couldn't understand how, or why, the union could condone, and even encourage, the kind of stuff that was going on. In all other jobs I'd had, you knew the way to get ahead was to work hard and do your best. If you put in 110% you would be rewarded with advancement, opportunities, and better pay, than the person who was only putting in the bare minimum. It was something that gave you a sense of pride and satisfaction in a job well done. Not so at the post office. Because of the union, it didn't matter how hard you worked, you would still be paid the same as the fella who just squeaked by. Seniority determined everything, performance nothing. And just try to get rid of the slacker - HA -not happening! Short of a person "going postal" they could never be fired. How absurd is that? How can you not be able to fire someone for unsatisfactory job performance? I sure wouldn't want to be the owner of the business that couldn't decide that himself.

At any rate, I wound up quitting the best job I ever had(monetarily) because I just couldn't stand for it anymore. I would far rather work my fingers to the bone for every scrap I get, than to be a part of something that rewards you for nothing. That is what is wrong with society today. Too many people would rather get something for nothing. This is most certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind. My folks always said,"If you don't work, you don't eat." I realize not everyone can work, which is why there are charities and agencies that help. But I feel that it is up to the individual states how they choose to handle that, not the federal government. There is a reason why there are finite, and enumerated, powers for the federal government, and indefinite powers to the states.

[lsbets]

Very disappointed in Rush (the band, not the talk show host) for demanding Rand Paul stop using their songs in his ads. Ever hear of free publicity, guys? Does every entertainer have to be left wing?

Rush isn't left wing at all. I would imagine the reason Paul used their music is the inspiration for a lot of their lyrics in Ayn Rand. They are about as far from left wing as anyone can get.

From what I just read, the reason they told him to stop is he hadn't paid for the rights to use the song. Pretty capitalist I would say.

[mostpost]

At any rate, I wound up quitting the best job I ever had(monetarily) because I just couldn't stand for it anymore. I would far rather work my fingers to the bone for every scrap I get, than to be a part of something that rewards you for nothing
You quit a job because it was too easy? Are you nuts? They were paying you for doing a necessary function. Mail had to be delivered to those rural addresses. I could see your point if a relative had hired you and told you your job was to count paper clips. If you thought it was too easy you should have parked your vehicle 100 yards away from each box and run back and forth.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Short of a person "going postal" they could never be fired. How absurd is that? How can you not be able to fire someone for unsatisfactory job performance?
This in not true. Most folks here know that I worked for the United States Postal Service. In my office we had a number of employees let go because they could not maintain standards. Yes, they do have appeals and they can't be fired on the whim of a supervisor but it can and has been done.
In my case, I started as a carrier and passed my probation, but I was having difficulty completing my route in the appointed time. (I was one to two hours over and I was hustling) I was in danger of losing my job. But, my supervisor sent an experienced carrier out with me to observe what I was doing. He gave me a number of tips that drastically reduced my time. Ironically, the fact that I was hustling was hurting my performance. I would race through the first hours and be so worn out that I could not keep up the pace. Slow and steady wins the race.

[NJ Stinks]

I have been reading this forum for about 4 years now, and I must say you are the first person I've noticed who feels as I do. It doesn't matter that no politician will ever espouse it, it is still the absolute truth. Social Security is, and always has been, wrong. It is nothing more than legalized theft. It is not the government's place to take care of us. We are to take care of ourselves, and to help those less fortunate as we are able. Personally, I don't understand how on earth this program (or any of the other entitlements) ever got passed in the first place. All I can figure is that we've been saddled with corruption in government for much longer than I ever would have believed. It would truly be great if we could finally get some people elected who believe in doing what's right, rather than what feels good.

Maybe you would be better off reading about the reasons why FDR wanted to pass SS in the first place. Or maybe not. And FYI the GI Bill was passed shortly after WWII. Obviously, you are not aware of the positive impact this entitlement program has had on our country.

At any rate, if you find Boxcar inspiring, you are going to love it here.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I began a quest, oh, an hour ago to find some of the limitless posts on Rand Paul and the Tea Party and their racist natures.

There were a lot of good ones. Goren really padded his post count over the last five years making essentially the same comment about Paul over and over again. :D

Anyway, I decided to stick the post in this thread since it was began by a poster that hasn't been around much and the connection of Rand Paul/Racism/Tea Party was actually the subject instead of a detour in another thread. (That and the embedded NPR link actually includes the subject of this thread as part of its piece)



"He's a different voice in the arena that we don't traditionally hear," says Lorraine Miller, acting head of the NAACP, who expects to invite Paul to speak at the organization's July national conference in Las Vegas.

"He's an engaging guy — that's why we want to talk to him," Miller says. Miller is not the only black leader who has been intrigued by Paul, whose father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, had three unsuccessful presidential runs and amassed a fervent Libertarian following.

Miller's predecessor, Benjamin Jealous, has previously hailed Paul's position on reforming drug and sentencing laws, which disproportionately affect African-American individuals and families...


I guess we can all now wait patiently to hear about how the NCAA is a bunch of loons and wingnuts for giving this covertly (or overtly if you like attention) racist maniac a place and forum to spew his lunacy.


Edited: Stayed up too late reading the archives and laughing my ass off. Forgot the source link. If you want to read more, click the link to the NPR article. Kind of interesting.

http://theweek.com/article/index/260293/speedreads-naacp-head-praises-rand-paul

[Robert Goren]

Good for the NAACP. They can see first hand what Rand Paul is or isn't close up. I am all for giving people a chance to speak in forums they wouldn't normally. The light of day shows off what they really are.

[Tom]

I hope he does better than Ross Perot, who referred to them as "you people!" :eek:

[tucker6]

I hope he does better than Ross Perot, who referred to them as "you people!" :eek:
that was classic! :lol:

[Clocker]

I hope he does better than Ross Perot, who referred to them as "you people!" :eek:

Well, at least he wasn't totally condescending, saying something like, "They're going to put y'all back in chains."

[johnhannibalsmith]

Good for the NAACP. They can see first hand what Rand Paul is or isn't close up. I am all for giving people a chance to speak in forums they wouldn't normally. The light of day shows off what they really are.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Agree.

I think his earlier speeches (an odd departure by itself that probably earned him a buncha points) targeting minorities and blacks in particular prompted this and part of it is the fact that he doesn't pander or talk condescendingly (well, not at ordinary levels) on the edges of any issue that might get him in hot water.

There's a part of this decision by NAACP that makes me think that they are a bit tired of being, once again, property in the realm of politics that hear a lot and get little in terms of results and the contrast of a straight shooter seems suddenly preferable. The other thought is that he's simply leverage to scare the home team into putting a few points on the board for them. :D

[Saratoga_Mike]

Good for the NAACP. They can see first hand what Rand Paul is or isn't close up. I am all for giving people a chance to speak in forums they wouldn't normally. The light of day shows off what they really are.

Agreed. Maybe some prominent Dems can speak about why they oppose school vouchers and charter schools, both of which disproportionally help poor minority kids. Polling typically shows white suburbanites opposing both. It's almost as if the Dems support a de facto racist policy. Strike that - remove "it's almost as if."

[TJDave]

why they oppose school vouchers and charter schools, both of which disproportionally help poor minority kids.

Because only those minority kids who are disproportionally fortunate enough to get in are helped by charter and private schooling. Understandably, private schools are reluctant to admit minorities based solely on their ability to pay the admittance. The same subtle discriminatory policies also restrict admittance to charter schools.

[Robert Goren]

Agreed. Maybe some prominent Dems can speak about why they oppose school vouchers and charter schools, both of which disproportionally help poor minority kids. Polling typically shows white suburbanites opposing both. It's almost as if the Dems support a de facto racist policy. Strike that - remove "it's almost as if."The book is still out on charter schools. The book is closed on vouchers. Well to do white kids get the best schools under a voucher system. In fact the whole voucher system was dreamed up for white parents who want to send their kids to a private school and have tax payers pick up part of the tab. The best thing for poor minority kids is that we demand that they meet national standards for their grade level. A kid that starts 2 steps behind when he enters the school system should not be 5 steps behind when he leaves it. We have to hold schools accountable and provide extra help for the kids start out behind. It is not the kids fault he has bad parents. Every kid that comes out the school system should have a minimum level of knowledge no matter his race or his social-economic background.

[TJDave]

Every kid that comes out the school system should have a MAXIMUM level of knowledge no matter his race or his social-economic background.

FIFY.

In a nutshell, that's the problem with public education.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... The best thing for poor minority kids is that we demand that they meet national standards for their grade level. ...

Sounds great.

How?

[TJDave]

National standards are a joke.

For anything

[Clocker]

The book is closed on vouchers. Well to do white kids get the best schools under a voucher system. In fact the whole voucher system was dreamed up for white parents who want to send their kids to a private school and have tax payers pick up part of the tab.

Something is closed there, but I don't think it is a book. Holder's DOJ recently tried to stop the voucher program in Louisiana, claiming without proof that it promoted segregation. From an editorial in the very liberal Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-justice-department-bids-to-trap-poor-black-children-in-ineffective-schools/2013/09/01/2173e5a6-0f77-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html):

NINE OF 10 Louisiana children who receive vouchers to attend private schools are black. All are poor and, if not for the state assistance, would be consigned to low-performing or failing schools with little chance of learning the skills they will need to succeed as adults. So it’s bewildering, if not downright perverse, for the Obama administration to use the banner of civil rights to bring a misguided suit that would block these disadvantaged students from getting the better educational opportunities they are due.

[Saratoga_Mike]

1) Because only those minority kids who are disproportionally fortunate enough to get in are helped by charter and private schooling. Understandably, private schools are reluctant to admit minorities based solely on their ability to pay the admittance. 2) The same subtle discriminatory policies also restrict admittance to charter schools.


1) RIGHT! Thank you for making my point - we need school vouchers for ALL poor kids!

2) Factually incorrect statement not worthy of response.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The book is still out on charter schools. The book is closed on vouchers. Well to do white kids get the best schools under a voucher system. In fact the whole voucher system was dreamed up for white parents who want to send their kids to a private school and have tax payers pick up part of the tab. The best thing for poor minority kids is that we demand that they meet national standards for their grade level. A kid that starts 2 steps behind when he enters the school system should not be 5 steps behind when he leaves it. We have to hold schools accountable and provide extra help for the kids start out behind. It is not the kids fault he has bad parents. Every kid that comes out the school system should have a minimum level of knowledge no matter his race or his social-economic background.

Blather - visit NYC sometime and we'll talk.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Something is closed there, but I don't think it is a book. Holder's DOJ recently tried to stop the voucher program in Louisiana, claiming without proof that it promoted segregation. From an editorial in the very liberal Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-justice-department-bids-to-trap-poor-black-children-in-ineffective-schools/2013/09/01/2173e5a6-0f77-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html):

Stay away from facts when exchanging information with Goren - he likes to spout off on everything, even if he knows nothing about the matter at hand.

[rastajenk]

National standards are a joke. For anything

Including horse racing? :p

I tend to agree.

[TJDave]

we need school vouchers for ALL poor kids!


So they can go where and do what, exactly?

Do you honestly think they would have access to the same quality of private schooling as rich kids?

[Tom]

Do you think many them would take advantage of it if they did?

[Saratoga_Mike]

So they can go where and do what, exactly?

Do you honestly think they would have access to the same quality of private schooling as rich kids?

Is this a joke?

Where? Let's see if a kid is poor and lives in Harlem, they (their parent(s)) might opt to use a voucher to attend St. Aloysius for their K-8 education. St Aloy takes kids of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds, but given the location it's mostly black and Hispanic kids. Over 90% graduate from high school (and many go onto college), compared with roughly 40% for the surrounding public schools. Or they could stay in the crappy NYC schools in the area, and seal their life's fate. St Aloy is just one option a kid (their parent) might select. In addition, vouchers introduce competition, perhaps causing the surrounding schools to get their act together. God forbid that happened.

And do what, exactly? What the hell does that mean? Because a kid is poor they shouldn't aspire to anything? Here's exactly: LEARN in an environment conducive to learning.

[Robert Goren]

I agree that the national standards are too low, but I have yet to see a school system move away from no child left behind or common core because they wanted to do higher standards. Today, the reality is that local control means they do not want to spend the money for higher standards. It means a rotten education. We need higher standards for all students whether they are in Nebraska or NYC. Students need to be better prepared for the world out there.

[Robert Goren]

Is this a joke?

Where? Let's see if a kid is poor and lives in Harlem, they (their parent(s)) might opt to use a voucher to attend St. Aloysius for their K-8 education. St Aloy takes kids of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds, but given the location it's mostly black and Hispanic kids. Over 90% graduate from high school (and many go onto college), compared with roughly 40% for the surrounding public schools. Or they could stay in the crappy NYC schools in the area, and seal their life's fate. St Aloy is just one option a kid (their parent) might select. In addition, vouchers introduce competition, perhaps causing the surrounding schools to get their act together. God forbid that happened.

And do what, exactly? What the hell does that mean? Because a kid is poor they shouldn't aspire to anything? Here's exactly: LEARN in an environment conducive to learning.Maybe the parochial schools there are better than the public schools. Not so here. I know because I used to employ quite a few recent high school grads. There are reasons to send your kid to a parochial school, but whether they will learn more depends on where you live.

[Tom]

Students need to be better prepared for the world out there.

Then get government out of it.
They are not competent to teach children.
Privatize education and put a profit motive in it. Then you will attact winners to the field instead of losers. Educatin of the kids in not the goal of the current system.

[Robert Goren]

Then get government out of it.
They are not competent to teach children.
Privatize education and put a profit motive in it. Then you will attact winners to the field instead of losers. Educatin of the kids in not the goal of the current system.Then the kids with rich parents will get an education and the kids with poor parents won't.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I agree that the national standards are too low, but I have yet to see a school system move away from no child left behind or common core because they wanted to do higher standards. Today, the reality is that local control means they do not want to spend the money for higher standards. It means a rotten education. We need higher standards for all students whether they are in Nebraska or NYC. Students need to be better prepared for the world out there.

The correlation between per pupil spending and educational outcomes is specious (exhibit A: Washington DC).

[Saratoga_Mike]

Maybe the parochial schools there are better than the public schools. Not so here. I know because I used to employ quite a few recent high school grads. There are reasons to send your kid to a parochial school, but whether they will learn more depends on where you live.

Thanks for making the case for vouchers. Let the parents decides what school is best for their kids at the local level. If that's a public school in your area, then parents should send their kids to a public school. I'm fine with that.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Then the kids with rich parents will get an education and the kids with poor parents won't.

I assume Tom would also implement vouchers in his privatization example. Therefore, your above claim would be incorrect.

[Tom]

Then the kids with rich parents will get an education and the kids with poor parents won't.

Not necessarily.
What Mike said.
There are many clever ways to do this.

[classhandicapper]

I'm against most government standards in education for one reason.

The curriculum becomes politically motivated and agenda based. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell I would ever send a child of mine to a public school. I wouldn't want my child to become some pre programmed zombie whose values are being taught by people I believe are delusional or wrong on multiple levels.

[Robert Goren]

I'm against most government standards in education for one reason.

The curriculum becomes politically motivated and agenda based. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell I would ever send a child of mine to a public school. I wouldn't want my child to become some pre programmed zombie whose values are being taught by people I believe are delusional or wrong on multiple levels.If you want to see a pre programmed zombie, check out the kids coming from parochial schools.

[Robert Goren]

The correlation between per pupil spending and educational outcomes is specious (exhibit A: Washington DC).While spending the money does not guarantee anything, not spending it does guarantee a bad education. Everything in life cost somebody something. Not spending on education in poor neighborhoods means those kids will not be able to move out of poverty and we will continue to have gangs and gang violence. We can pay for good schools or we can pay maximum security prisons. Those are the choices.
Leaving schools for kids of poor people aside for the minute. We need better schools for the rest of the kids. I think we have found out if we leave it to the locals, we don't get the kind results we need. No child left behind improved the results of schooling and its testing improved our schools by leaps and bounds. The problem with it is that it did not go far enough. The kids today need to know more than the kids of ten years ago. There is no way to make that happen without harder test for all kids whether they are in public school, private school or home schooled. Unfortunately the trend is to make those test easier because locally controlled schools do want to devote the resources to teaching kids what they need to know. Looking at it from the outside, it seems that is especially true in the areas of Math and Science. In today's world for instance, every student should have some basic knowledge of code writing. That knowledge will be as important as reading was to the people of my age. In the last few years that I worked, I could see that my lack of knowledge of computer programing was hurting my productivity. It is not enough just to know how to run a program. You must understand how the program works in order to use it to full capabilities.

[Tom]

If you want to see a pre programmed zombie, check out the kids coming from parochial schools.

Total BS.

[Robert Goren]

Total BS.Oh, really, try talking religion with one once.

[Tom]

I know quite q few of them.
Grew up with many of them and went to Religious Instruction at the local Catholic Church. Gadzooks! I was this close to them. :rolleyes:

Maybe they are saying the same thing about YOU.

[Clocker]

Oh, really, try talking religion with one once.

Try talking religion with most people posting in the Religious thread here. Did all those folks go to parochial school?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Oh, really, try talking religion with one once.

Is this an effort to just elicit responses OR do you really believe it? If the latter, you're clueless.

[Robert Goren]

I know quite q few of them.
Grew up with many of them and went to Religious Instruction at the local Catholic Church. Gadzooks! I was this close to them. :rolleyes:

Maybe they are saying the same thing about YOU.They probably are.

[Robert Goren]

Try talking religion with most people posting in the Religious thread here. Did all those folks go to parochial school?I doubt it, but I am sure some did.

[Robert Goren]

Is this an effort to just elicit responses OR do you really believe it? If the latter, you're clueless.The people who run them will tell you that the purpose of their religious school is to teach THEIR religion. Just ask them. A Catholic school does not teach Methodist beliefs. I have never heard of one where the religious courses are optional.

[Robert Goren]

This thread has moved away from the topic of Rand Paul and I am sorry to say I was part of it. I apologize. :blush:

[Tom]

The people who run them will tell you that the purpose of their religious school is to teach THEIR religion. Just ask them. A Catholic school does not teach Methodist beliefs. I have never heard of one where the religious courses are optional.


DUH!?

[Clocker]

I have never heard of one where the religious courses are optional.

I have. Generally non-Catholic students in a parochial school have study hall during the religion class.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The people who run them will tell you that the purpose of their religious school is to teach THEIR religion. Just ask them. A Catholic school does not teach Methodist beliefs. I have never heard of one where the religious courses are optional.

You seem to celebrate your own ignorance on a daily basis. Come to NYC and I'll set up a school tour for you.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I have. Generally non-Catholic students in a parochial school have study hall during the religion class.

I think he's putting us on again - it's not possible that any one individual could be confused on so many issues.

[Robert Goren]

You seem to celebrate your own ignorance on a daily basis. Come to NYC and I'll set up a school tour for you.All I know is what kids who went to Catholic or Lutheran schools told me. I'll take their word for it. Maybe things are different where you live, but I doubt it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

All I know is what kids who went to Catholic or Lutheran schools told me. I'll take their word for it. Maybe things are different where you live, but I doubt it.

You know very little about the schools in my area, and I know very little about schools in your area. In most cases, the parents know what's best for their kids. Let them decide with vouchers. If they opt for public schools in your area, that's great.

[Robert Goren]

You know very little about the schools in my area, and I know very little about schools in your area. In most cases, the parents know what's best for their kids. Let them decide with vouchers. If they opt for public schools in your area, that's great.Vouchers are way for parents to use religious schools with out paying the full price. I object on constitutional grounds to having the government pay for religious training. I am the equivalent of a NRA member on the second amendment when it comes to separation of church and state.

[Tom]

Vouchers are way for parents to use religious schools with out paying the full price. I object on constitutional grounds to having the government pay for religious training. I am the equivalent of a NRA member on the second amendment when it comes to separation of church and state.
They use the vouchers for EDUCATION.
It is their business what the content includes.
And btw, separation of church and state is absolutely NOT what the constitution calls for, no matter WHAT the idiot KKK Kourt says about it.

What about when the Religious schools are just plain better and offer the better education? You would deny kids that opportunity just because you are narrow minded and biased?

[newtothegame]

Vouchers are way for parents to use religious schools with out paying the full price. I object on constitutional grounds to having the government pay for religious training. I am the equivalent of a NRA member on the second amendment when it comes to separation of church and state.


You are so far off base it isn't even funny.......
You assume that religious schools ONLY teach religion. Religion is a part of the curriculum but heres a clue...they teach Math, English, Foreign Language, Sciences, history, PE, etc etc....WOW, can you believe the nerve of those religious schools teaching such!! :lol:

There is a reason parents want their kids in these schools, and I assure you it is not for the religion (although that is part).

[Robert Goren]

You are so far off base it isn't even funny.......
You assume that religious schools ONLY teach religion. Religion is a part of the curriculum but heres a clue...they teach Math, English, Foreign Language, Sciences, history, PE, etc etc....WOW, can you believe the nerve of those religious schools teaching such!! :lol:

There is a reason parents want their kids in these schools, and I assure you it is not for the religion (although that is part).If they teach it at all, it is unconstitutional to receive government money. As my dad use to say, "just because you can do cartwheels, you aren't any less pregnant."

[Tom]

Third strike.....BS.