The threat of ultra-conservatism in America

reply to post by beezzer

And you are for open boarders? Awesome. They can all stay at your house.

Did I say I was for open boarders? No I did not, what I said was, that I was against having every American's citizenship stripped from them so that only the select few are granted citizenship and only the select few are able to run for office. Don't you understand that if the 14th Amendment is repealed, you will no longer be a citizen of these United States and YOU WILL HAVE NO PROTECTIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION! This is what they want.

Since the inception of the Dept. of Education, grade levels have been falling. Instead of spending more money on teacher unions and salaries for high paid union members, spend it on the children.

They want to completely privatize the education system so that only the wealthy can have access to education. They want to make sure that only their ilk have the tools and opportunities in life.

I say get rid of the EPA and move protections to the individual state. If a state wants to have clean air and water, let the people vote on it. Or are you into the whole "nanny-state" thing?

How is wanting clean air, water, and land a nanny state? Would you rather your state be filled with toxic waste? Would you rather your rivers catch fire? Would you rather be able to taste and see your air? This is common sense stuff here, one shouldn't destroy the environment for profit, unfortunately multinational corporations who back the conservative movement would rather trash this planet for profit than be responsible. They believe that lawsuits can be settled out of court and just chalk this up to cost of doing business.

Yeah, *snort* and the goverment wants to TAKE my social security and spend it how THEY see fit. Where as, if I invested it, I'd be MY RESPONSIBILITY.

The problem with this idea is that you are guaranteed that money when you retire, but if you invest it yourself, you run the risk of loosing everything to greedy wall street thieves. The myth that social security is broke is fundamentally flawed because if the government defaulted on it's obligation to that they could be sued. Whereas if you loose everything in the stock market, well, too bad, that's the breaks.

reply to post by Rockpuck


The basic idea of libertarianism is very nice, but when you really look into it, you find out that libertarians want a corporate oligarchy. The problem with a corporate state is that corporations only care about their own best interests rather than the best interests of the people of the United States. See, if corporations actually cared about this country they wouldn't ship our jobs overseas.

Now some aspects of libertarianism is appealing, I do believe that corporate taxes should be lowered, I believe in more personal responsibility, however I don't think that commerce should be completely deregulated, I don't think that everything in the United States should be privatized either.

Originally posted by whatukno

Did I say I was for open boarders? No I did not, what I said was, that I was against having every American's citizenship stripped from them so that only the select few are granted citizenship and only the select few are able to run for office. Don't you understand that if the 14th Amendment is repealed, you will no longer be a citizen of these United States and YOU WILL HAVE NO PROTECTIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION! This is what they want.

Alarmist much? Prove you assertation, sir.

They want to completely privatize the education system so that only the wealthy can have access to education. They want to make sure that only their ilk have the tools and opportunities in life.

Not true. They want to run it so it is effective. They want to educate, not indoctrinate. (I made a rhyme)

How is wanting clean air, water, and land a nanny state? Would you rather your state be filled with toxic waste? Would you rather your rivers catch fire? Would you rather be able to taste and see your air? This is common sense stuff here, one shouldn't destroy the environment for profit, unfortunately multinational corporations who back the conservative movement would rather trash this planet for profit than be responsible. They believe that lawsuits can be settled out of court and just chalk this up to cost of doing business.

Having the government dictate to us on ANY level is the nanny state. What evil minded consrvatives wants is clean trout steams for evil fishing, and beautiful countryside for evil hunting and clean water to put in their scotch.

The problem with this idea is that you are guaranteed that money when you retire, but if you invest it yourself, you run the risk of loosing everything to greedy wall street thieves. The myth that social security is broke is fundamentally flawed because if the government defaulted on it's obligation to that they could be sued. Whereas if you loose everything in the stock market, well, too bad, that's the breaks.

Point 1. So the government gets to determine where I live, how I live, what I eat, what I do for fun, based on how much of my money they are giving back to me?
Point 2. LOL! You seriously think the government is going to be doling out social security checks in a few years? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Point 2. If I lose it, I lose it. I'm an adult. Not some whining sissy begging the government to give me some money that they took from me.

It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

edit on 15-2-2011 by beezzer because: Im conservative

reply to post by Sestias

...I am now retired because of a disability that makes me no longer able to work...

I guess I am one of those "lazy" people who would rather collect a pittance from the government than be comfortable financially. I understand that under a conservative administration my pittance would be taken from me and invested in the stock market, which we all know recently crashed because of greed, theft and lack of regulation.

I, for one, am glad there is a government that will give me sustenance when I can do longer do it for myself....The establishment of Social Security is one of the best things that came out of that century.

First if the SS system had been as promised, a government supervised nation wide pension plan where you and who every you worked for contributed, I do not think anyone would have a problem. Instead vote hungry politicians used it to create a Ponzi scheme where the baby boomers funded all sorts of give away programs used to buy votes.

You and I are both dependent on SS and so are many others because companies never keep their workers long enough for them to "earn a pension" Unfortunately the Ponzi scheme called Social Security is about to come to a crashing halt and sooner than we think.

Reagan started the economic plunge with the leveraged buyout feeding frenzy of the 1980's that destroyed the US industrial base. Clinton took it further by exporting jobs via WTO and NAFTA and China's entry into the WTO. But the worse thing Clinton did was setting up the USA for the current economic crash with the passage of several banking laws. Quick list of Banking laws

Bush was responsible for the AIG bailout and Obama set up homeowners with his "Loan Modification Program" that lured the unwary into foreclosure so the banks could grab all the tax payer money from AIG Credit Default Swaps on top of the house and land they foreclosed on.

That brings us to the present messed up economy. So what has the Obama Admin done to fix it???


50% of the US labor force work for small business. Obamacare makes a change in the tax law governing 1099's that is going to be a NIGHTMARE for ALL businesses and force many small businesses to close their doors. Worse it will greatly impede the start of new small businesses.

With this change in the tax code, every time $600/year or more is spent for supplies or services at a different vendor, the business must FIRST get a TIN (SS#) BEFORE the purchase is made. Then each quarter or at year's end he must fill out forms for the IRS and the vendor detailing how much was spent. Worse if even ONE of those TIN's are wrong, he is required by the IRS to do withholding tax on ALL his vendors and contractors! (been there done that) Can you see the mess as salesmen, buyers and sales clerks try to deal with confidential information like TIN's ? Can you see the absolute chaos as a salesmen filling the gas tank on his company car argues with a gas station attendant (who only speaks broken English) and tries to explain WHY he is withholding 28% of the purchase prices???

FOOD FOOD RIOTS and the NEW FOOD SAFETY LAW:
If you read no other references do read this: www.wanttoknow.info... It shows what was happening behind the scenes and why Dan Amstutz went to work for Sachs Goldman after writing the WTO Agreement on Ag. and the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 that lead to the food riots of 2008.

The second fiasco is the Food Safety Law. Most American farmers, despite the media's hype, have to work a second job to support their farm. The average net income for US farms is $19K. Very few farms actually get tax payer money and those are normally the large corporate farms. So where are these small farmers going to get the time or money to comply with all the paperwork and regulations? The addition of food safety regulation and the new 1099 tax changes are going to push many out of business and the Tester Amendment Does NOT Help Small Food Producers. A Lawyer says the new law may even effect home gardens.

The USA produces 25% of the world's grain. 40% of the USA is farmland and come 2012 when the Food Safety Law goes into effect, the US government will have just put out of business the majority of the 2,055,230 family farms leaving just the 73,752 Corporate farms. (2002 Ag Census)


This destruction of American farming is intentional and started right after WWII. The key moves were the 1995 World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag and the 1996 farm bill called the "Freedom to Farm Act" both written by the VP of Cargill Dan Amstutz. Those two not only wiped out many farmers in the US but all over the world. The "Freedom to Farm Act" also got rid of the US strategic grain reserve. As of 2008 the USDA reported "The Cupboard is bare"

The economic disparity between industrial farms and those that retain locally owned and controlled farms may be due in part, to the degree in which money stays in the community. Locally owned and controlled farms tend to buy their supplies and services locally, thus supporting a variety of local businesses. This phenomenon is known as the economic “multiplier” effect, estimated at approximately seven dollars per dollar earned by the locally owned farm. PEW REPORT

The total economic impact of farming for my state, North Carolina, was over $704 million in 2002. Only 171 Farms of the 53930 NC farms are not Family held.


MORE GOVERNMNET IDIOCY
Obama-Dodd financial bill would further enrich Goldman Sachs The "bill would reward the firm with potentially billions of dollars by instituting a so-called “resolution authority” that would, in practice, be a permanent bailout fund."

Barack Obama has reshuffled his staff, bringing in the trio who under Clinton gave us WTO, NAFTA, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and China’s entry into the WTO. These are the same dudes who are responseble for exporting millions of American jobs. www.economyincrisis.org...

Now the monster we call a government is after our life savings.
US Departments of Labor and Treasury Schedule Hearing on Confiscation of Private Retirement Accounts


Leveraged Buyout References:
en.wikipedia.org...
www.econlib.org...
www.economicnoise.com...
lawprofessors.typepad.com...
rismedia.com...
www.nytimes.com...

References on Housing Market Crash:
www.webofdebt.com...
www.realtytrac.com...
www.democracynow.org...
www.suite101.com...

Farm References
FOOD SAFETY:
John Munsell's Comment in this article is the best description of the food safety problem I have seen: www.marlerblog.com...
www.forbes.com...
(Tester amendment is scam) www.activistpost.com...
(Home Gardens) www.examiner.com...

Background and History
www.opednews.com...
1996rFeedom to farm Act: archive.corporatewatch.org...
domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov...

www.smirkingchimp.com...
www.smirkingchimp.com...
www.smirkingchimp.com...

reply to post by whatukno

Don't you understand that if the 14th Amendment is repealed, you will no longer be a citizen of these United States and YOU WILL HAVE NO PROTECTIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION!

No, it will just mean that citizenship will be inherited only, not also granted just by place of birth. As common sense dictates. Repealing the amendment will not strip anyone of citizenship, it just changes the way citizenship is granted. Stripping of citizenship is regulated by other laws.

WUK

You got to be Joking. This is the Progressive's Agenda. There's Progressives on the Right and left. Just remember who wrote the Patriot Act YOUR favorite Leftest Jack ass Joe BIden and signed by a progessive RIght equally as Bad George Bush. its the biggest anti American Rights bill ever!!!!!

SS was from FDR and He even said this system will not work.

Everything that has happened in the last 100 years has been planned by the progressive to take down our Country.

I can go on for ever, but I feel its a wast of time trying to educate you. SORRY

Get your facts straight

P.S
Listen to Glenn Beck then you'll have a litte more insight on whats going on.

reply to post by whatukno

They want to make sure that the wealthiest people in the world have all the power and that the people have nothing. They want to make sure that multinational corporations can drain every natural resource out of this planet, polute every drop of water, polute the air, destroy every tree, mine every mountain, and leave you, the pesant with a baron wasteland while you chear them on.

I used to think it was just greed and ignorance because even industrialists have children. This is a deliberate agenda to destroy the planet, use it up and let the devil take the hind quarters in order to fulfill a prophecy. Sad really but thats what I think now. Who are these crazy people?

reply to post by Maslo

No, it will just mean that citizenship will be inherited only, not also granted just by place of birth. As common sense dictates.....

The biggest problem is once a Constitutional Convention is convened that can rewrite as much of the Constitution as they wish.

I rather leave it strictly alone!

With all your alleged sources, there are many out there that would refute or debunk your theory. Your hypothesis, though a valid attempt, drew all the wrong conclusions. nice try though~

reply to post by whatukno

The basic idea of libertarianism is very nice, but when you really look into it, you find out that libertarians want a corporate oligarchy.

Really.. I associate very personally with many Libertarians, most of my friends are Libertarian and I've attended local Libertarian political action groups (which .. were honestly either hosted by nutcases or republicans trying to explain why Libertarians should really just be Republicans) and I find that most Libertarians are rather anti-corporate.

It should be made clear: Capitalism is NOT the same thing as Corporatism. Corporations do not need to exist for Capitalism to function. In fact, Corporatism is basically an anti-Capitalism, because it stifles competition unless checked by Government. I would say nearly all Libertarians are Capitalist, yes, not Corporatist.

The problem with a corporate state is that corporations only care about their own best interests rather than the best interests of the people of the United States. See, if corporations actually cared about this country they wouldn't ship our jobs overseas.

No, Corporations don't care about us. We know that. It's impossible for them to, because funding is not limited to one nationality. What I mean is, our major corporations are flooded with money from all over the world.. so favoring one nation would piss off the share holders in Europe, Asia, etc.

However..

Corporatism, Globalism, what ever you want to call it, transcends political boundaries. Fascism is a far-left ideology on a different authoritarian scale.. both the Plutocracy (wealthy supporters of Republicans) and Socialist Progressives (wealthy supporters of Democrats) support Corporatism because it's the life blood of the countries funding..

Oil. Did you know the tax receipts from oil are the second largest source of funding for the entire country? And since 2007 it's % of the revenue has been growing as personal and business taxes fall.. in fact this year it's possible oil taxes will exceed tax revenue because of it's continued decline and the continued increase in the cost of oil. Are Republicans or Democrats going to fight oil companies? Hell no .. that's why Obama shamefully allowed BP to destroy the gulf and slap us in the face with their farce of a "clean up".

And then there's that god awful Obamacare..

I'd have been happy to see people taken care of if it replaced Medicaid/care .. but no .. what we got was a pseudo-corporate/socialist monstrosity known as Fascism in it's place. Privately owned hospitals banking off mandated private insurance all forced by a government, paid by taxes, enforced by law.

!% that.

Why include the middle man? Because Insurance is one of the largest employers in the country, the 7th largest holder of government debt, and one of the largest corporate sources of tax revenue and long term capital investments.

So we suffer.. at the hands, once again, of government and corporations.

Can't you see? Federal consolidation of power will result in the continued prostitution of politicians to corporations for the sake of money to continue the expansion of power. A never ending cycle in which we, the middle class mostly, get royally screwed. The poor will be helped just enough to get their vote, then left to suffer. And the Plutocracy will always get richer.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by Janky Red

 

How about Conservative quietly trying to deregulate financial speculation again???

WHOA! WHO the heck messed with the banking laws in the FIRST place. Your good friend Billy Clinton! (I am an equal opportunity politician hater BTW

)

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999

WHOA what is this Gramm Leach Bliley

Oh ya lets play fantasy

Three Conservatives who penned the bill

Oh ya

and one on them thar was Mccain's financial man during 08 election tooooo -

Lets all pretend that the conservative senators did not want to follow the rules of Ronald Reagan free market dictate when the penned the concept

[Sort]
State
[Sort]
Representative
[Sort by Name] [Sort by Party]
Alabama
Yea AL Sessions, Jefferson [R]
Yea AL Shelby, Richard [R]
Alaska
Yea AK Murkowski, Frank [R]
Yea AK Stevens, Ted [R]
Arizona
Yea AZ Kyl, Jon [R]
Yea AZ McCain, John [R]
Arkansas
Yea AR Hutchinson, Tim [R]
Nay AR Lincoln, Blanche [D]
California
Nay CA Boxer, Barbara [D]
Nay CA Feinstein, Dianne [D]
Colorado
Yea CO Allard, Wayne [R]
Yea CO Campbell, Ben [R]
Connecticut
Nay CT Dodd, Christopher [D]
Nay CT Lieberman, Joseph [D]
Delaware
Nay DE Biden, Joseph [D]
Yea DE Roth, William [R]
Florida
Nay FL Graham, Bob [D]
Yea FL Mack, Connie [R]
Georgia
Nay GA Cleland, J. [D]
Yea GA Coverdell, Paul [R]
Hawaii
Nay HI Akaka, Daniel [D]
Nay HI Inouye, Daniel [D]
Idaho
Yea ID Craig, Larry [R]
Yea ID Crapo, Michael [R]
Illinois
Nay IL Durbin, Richard [D]
Present IL Fitzgerald, Peter [R]
Indiana
Nay IN Bayh, Evan [D]
Yea IN Lugar, Richard [R]
Iowa
Yea IA Grassley, Charles [R]
Nay IA Harkin, Thomas [D]
Kansas
Yea KS Brownback, Samuel [R]
Yea KS Roberts, Pat [R]
Kentucky
Yea KY Bunning, Jim [R]
Yea KY McConnell, Mitch [R]
Louisiana
Nay LA Breaux, John [D]
Nay LA Landrieu, Mary [D]
Maine
Yea ME Collins, Susan [R]
Yea ME Snowe, Olympia [R]
Maryland
Nay MD Mikulski, Barbara [D]
Nay MD Sarbanes, Paul [D]
Massachusetts
Nay MA Kennedy, Edward [D]
Nay MA Kerry, John [D]
Michigan
Yea MI Abraham, Spencer [R]
Nay MI Levin, Carl [D]
Minnesota
Yea MN Grams, Rod [R]
Nay MN Wellstone, Paul [D]
Mississippi
Yea MS Cochran, Thad [R]
Yea MS Lott, Trent [R]
Missouri
Yea MO Ashcroft, John [R]
Yea MO Bond, Christopher [R]
Montana
Nay MT Baucus, Max [D]
Yea MT Burns, Conrad [R]
Nebraska
Yea NE Hagel, Charles [R]
Nay NE Kerrey, J. [D]
Nevada
Nay NV Bryan, Richard [D]
Nay NV Reid, Harry [D]
New Hampshire
Yea NH Gregg, Judd [R]
Yea NH Smith, Bob [R]
New Jersey
Nay NJ Lautenberg, Frank [D]
Nay NJ Torricelli, Robert [D]
New Mexico
Nay NM Bingaman, Jeff [D]
Yea NM Domenici, Pete [R]
New York
Nay NY Moynihan, Daniel [D]
Nay NY Schumer, Charles [D]
North Carolina
Nay NC Edwards, John [D]
Yea NC Helms, Jesse [R]
North Dakota
Nay ND Conrad, Kent [D]
Nay ND Dorgan, Byron [D]
Ohio
Yea OH DeWine, Michael [R]
Yea OH Voinovich, George [R]
Oklahoma
Not Voting OK Inhofe, James [R]
Yea OK Nickles, Don [R]
Oregon
Yea OR Smith, Gordon [R]
Nay OR Wyden, Ron [D]
Pennsylvania
Yea PA Santorum, Richard [R]
Yea PA Specter, Arlen [R]
Rhode Island
Yea RI Chafee, John [R]
Nay RI Reed, John [D]
South Carolina
Yea SC Hollings, Ernest [D]
Yea SC Thurmond, J. [R]
South Dakota
Nay SD Daschle, Thomas [D]
Nay SD Johnson, Tim [D]
Tennessee
Yea TN Frist, William [R]
Yea TN Thompson, Fred [R]
Texas
Yea TX Gramm, Phil [R]
Yea TX Hutchison, Kay [R]
Utah
Yea UT Bennett, Robert [R]
Yea UT Hatch, Orrin [R]
Vermont
Yea VT Jeffords, James [I]
Nay VT Leahy, Patrick [D]
Virginia
Nay VA Robb, Charles [D]
Yea VA Warner, John [R]
Washington
Yea WA Gorton, T. [R]
Nay WA Murray, Patty [D]
West Virginia
Nay WV Byrd, Robert [D]
Nay WV Rockefeller, John [D]
Wisconsin
Nay WI Feingold, Russell [D]
Nay WI Kohl, Herbert [D]
Wyoming
Yea WY Enzi, Michael [R]
Yea WY Thomas, Craig [R]

www.govtrack.us...

OH WOOOOOW!!!!!


SO this information says

EVERY

single Republican voted FOR GLB - less one who voted present

AND

Every SINGLE Democrat voted nay less one


GEEEE

You have a great point!

That is almost Perfect double thought and execution!!!

Interesting piece with a lot of facts to back it up, but it is one side of the issue at hand.
Starting with the 14th amendment, and it deals around the issue of illegal immigration. Part of the problem that is faced by society today is that there is a strong illegal immigrant presence in a majority of the states. There are those who would like to crack down on the problem and those who would see it flourish. As these people have come here breaking the law, there is also the issue of what to do with the children who are born here. To split a family is wrong, and what happens to the child who is born here to parents who are not allowed in the country in the first place? It is an issue that will have to be addressed, along with what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants who are already here. They are a group that can and sometimes is exploited by people. So the question is do we split a family up, as the parents are departed, and thus having a burden on the state and the tax payer to support the child till he or she grows up, and is released at the age of 21, or simply send the child back with the parents? Do you desire to have parentless children, and a generation that are raised by the state? That seems a bit cold and heartless. We can not ignore the problem, as it gets worse everyday, and for every person who comes here wanting to better themselves honestly, there seems to be those who are ensnared to do such, no matter the costs. This issue has been around for years, with the federal government promising to do something, and never fulfills the promises made, or cuts funding. Time to stop the flow and, as cruel as it may seem, cut the anchor chains and redefine what is a natural born citizen of the United States of America. Many other countries around the world do such, even some of the more modern and progressive ones, have some of the toughest and strictest immigration laws and policies set forth, maybe it is time to do such ourselves.
The department of Education is mentioned, yet no one can answer the following question: What all does a teacher or a school need to teach children? The simplest answer is: Chalk, blackboard, books, pencil, pen and paper. Nothing more should be required to teach the basic fundamentals for educating children. Yet any more, children do not learn how to write in cursive, nor do they actually sit down and read a book. After talking with a parent about what her child’s education was like, I was rather shocked to find out, that the school district did away with books, and it was all online, where the students were given laptop computers to do the assignments. Too much has technology, some of it for the good, has gotten into the lives of the students on every day things, now it is texting and doing other things online, instead of having to use their brains for once to figure out things. Take a chunk out of education, means that the schools would have to cut out the modern marvels of the world and get back to basics, ensuring that the children can read, write and do arithmetic, by hand, rather than by machine.
Eliminating the EPA is a mistake, however curtailing its ability to affect business and industry is a must, if the economy is to get going. In many states, and this disturbing trend is growing, in order to open a business, or even consider building on land to develop it, often means dealing with the potential lawsuits to bring such to a halt. There is a business out there, where the impacts to the environment has to be analyzed by more than one firm in order to start building, and ultimately it is the EPA that writes the regulations. Any violation, means the entire project would get shut down. It is also becoming very painfully clear that the EPA often will walk into a company and put out hefty fines, over exceeding its authority in that aspects, to the point of numerous lawsuits against it. And right now there is the energy problem that the United States has going on. We sit on large reserves of oil around the country, yet due to the large mountain of paperwork to just even test drill, all thanks to the EPA, the United States is going to be dependent on energy coming from a foreign countries, and if we loose favor in say Saudi Arabia, are you prepared to pay 5 to 10 dollars for a gallon of gas, and say about 13 dollars for a gallon of milk?
It is mentioned about the social security, and how the republicans want to take part and have people invest in it. However, what is failed to mention, is that for a very long time, through both the democratic and republican controlled governments, they often raid social security funds to fill in gaps in the budget. Perhaps taking such out of government controls, putting the fund in a form where the federal government can not touch or access would be a wiser choice, that way it will be around for those who need such.
It is mentioned about the healthcare, yet it fails to mention how the insurance industry is a monopoly in all 50 states and that the healthcare bill if it survives in all of the courts, would open a door that would allow the federal government to mandate inactivity of the citizens. There is no clause in the Constitution of the United States that says to be a citizen one has to purchase something, it is not there, nor was it intended to be there by the founding fathers. It went too far by the federal government to overstep its bounds. And during the entire process, the people were lied to, and like a ponzi scheme, is just going to be a large mess.
As it is pointed out, Islamic Extremist did launch an attack against the United States of America, and continue to threaten the security and safety of the country. The current administration has tried to build bridges, yet fail to inspire the confidence of the citizens. The current administration has not acted in a decisive manner, nor shown leadership in finishing what the prior president started. Make no mistake, we all believe in the freedom of religion, however, when someone speaks out against another, what is often seen or heard is that the offended group screams foul and claims discrimination.
The racial equality is mentioned in this country, yet what they do not want people to know, is that many of the problems that are originating from Latin America are hitting the country. Not all Latinos are bad people, however, their actions speak louder than any words could be. When Arizona passed that bill, funny how it was the Latino population that committed acts of aggression and rioting. They did not speak in a whisper and show that they were decent, but rather let their emotions speak out and used violence towards those who were present to ensure that both sides were protected. During the last 5th of May, there were protests and threats, coming from the Latino side of the fence towards anyone who would dare raise the flag of the United States of America, and called anyone who dared show pride in this country, racist. That is not correct and should not be tolerated. It is the acts of a few, that give the whole a bad name, as it is those acts that make the rest of the country step back and think, just maybe, there is some validity on what is being said.
We can not be sure what religion the President is, however, based off of those who he associates with, it can be stated, as his own words were: Judge me by the company I keep, a socialist. When his closest advisors are communist and socialist, then it can only be concluded, that he has the base values of such.
According to the article that is present, what is proposed would deal with if a person who receives any title or honor of a title, accept the profits there of said title, from any foreign power, will no longer be a citizen of the United States of America and no longer eligible to hold any office in the country. That means that if a person accepts say the title of Duke from England, and receives any sort of money from such, would not be allowed to hold any publicly elected office in the United States. That makes sense, as many would want to know that the person who is in office is truly representing them, and not the interest of a foreign power. It would also ensure that any who were in an elected office, would have to have the people in their thoughts, calling the shots.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by whatukno

It's no secret that the political right wants to eliminate the EPA so that multinational corporations can polute the air, water, and land that we need to live on.

I say get rid of the EPA and move protections to the individual state. If a state wants to have clean air and water, let the people vote on it. Or are you into the whole "nanny-state" thing?

Uhhh...you do know that air blows and water flows...right?

I guess if I live in a state that decides to allow toxic dumping or in a or in a neighboring state downstream... then yes...I am into the "Nanny-State" thing in that circumstance. I'd rather have someone ensuring my kids aren't drinking cancer juice everytime they go swimming and that the fish I eat isn't loaded with carcinogens.

Let me give you a real world example....the Mississippi river runs right though the middle of farmland USA...from Canada to the gulf of Mexico. All of the fertilizers that are washed off that farmland in the midwest into the river carry downstream and empty into the Gulf of Mexico where the infamous "Red Tide" is created and washes up on Florida's beaches.......algae hopped up on all the fertilizer runoff from Minnesota to Lousiana...

Ask anyone that lives in Florida what it is like at it's peak...

No deaths of humans have been attributed to Florida red tide, but people may experience respiratory irritation (coughing, sneezing, and tearing) when the red tide organism (Karenia brevis) is present along a coast and winds blow its toxic aerosol onshore. Swimming is usually safe, but skin irritation and burning is possible in areas of high concentration of red tide

en.wikipedia.org...

Now we can also talk about the BP oil spill...or any other mobile pollutant in the air or water..

Your idea of states choosing for themselves is dumb.

Water flows...air blows...and letting each state decide how much they can pollute is not an option.

How do you deal with nut jobs who spread disinformation, manipulating and combining certain political beliefs and using emotionally driven arguments?

Be a nut job spreading disinformation, manipulating and combining certain political beliefs, and use emotionally driven arguments of course!



.....Wait doesn't this just facilitate divide and conquer tactics?

I see a lot of people defending their ideology, I see a lot of people pissed because their agenda has been exposed. What this tells me is that a lot of people want the coming theocratic corporate oligarchy. They want slavery to return, they want the coming genocide, they want the coming holy war.

These things are happening right now, these people are playing the population, they are using propaganda to make you hate Latinos, they are using propaganda to make you hate Muslims, they are using propaganda to make you want to give your hard earned money to wall street thieves, they are using propaganda to make you give up your citizenship and your freedom.

These guys are great at this game, they want you to think that they are going for free market capitalism, when in fact they are setting up a corporate oligarchy.

If they had their way, they would strip the US Constitution of the 1st Amendment, ever notice that Muslim politicians aren't accepted?



"Sir, prove to me that you're not working with our enemies."? Really? Do we ask this of ANY ANY ANY other politician? Is this a fair question to ask? Do you see the bigotry and hate that is being generated? How is this an appropriate question? Did Glenn Beck ask this of Sarah Palin? Did he ask this of ANY other politician? And tell me how is this question not propaganda to make Americans MORE Scared of Muslims?

Unfortunately Glenn Beck shows how much he HATES the US Constitution by imposing this religious test on this Congressman.

In Article VI it states quite clearly:

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

But Glenn Beck HATES the US Constitution so much he choose to completely IGNORE this in the US Constitution and imposed this religious test on the Congressman.

But a lot of Conservatives hate the US Constitution, they hate Article I Section 8, they hate many many parts of the Constitution, They pretend to embrace it, but are quick to want to change, remove, add to and mangle the Constitution to suit their own personal agenda.

Originally posted by beezzer

I say get rid of the EPA and move protections to the individual state. If a state wants to have clean air and water, let the people vote on it. Or are you into the whole "nanny-state" thing?

False premise.

Besides that wouldn't work. A state like Texas would become an extreme polluter and that air doesn't stay within the border of Texas. You're naive if you think the people's vote makes much of a difference in anything.

What about the Mississippi ? I can just see Missouri saying it's ok to dump toxic waste and then fisherman in Louisiana have to pay the consequences.

People who want to get rid of the EPA and "leave it up to the states" are not living in reality. There are consequences of pollution.

The Bush administration downplayed the risk of Mercury and laxed the rules on emissions.
www.ucsusa.org...
Now recent tests have shown every single freshwater stream in the US has some harmful unnatural mercury contamination. And 1 in 4 are so polluted, it's not safe to eat the fish. Get rid of the EPA, and within a few generations, they'd all be too dangerous to safely eat. Even with the EPA, we're slowly poisoning our environment. Want to see a country with no pollution controls ? It's called China. And the smog is terrible.

If there was no EPA and zero federal oversight all the natural wildlife would die, and eventually we would too.
Corporations only care about one thing, making money. If it was legal to put mercury in food as a preservative, they'd do it, if it added to the bottom line.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The conservative platform - necessary regulations on environmental pollution are fine.....

Now THAT is a blatant falsehood. A stark mischaracterization of fact. Republicans are anti-environment period.

House Republican amendment would block use of higher ethanol blends in vehicles

Link

Republicans Block 9/11 Health Measure

Link

Clean air and water, environmental protections on GOP chopping block

Link

GOP lawmakers block renewable-energy-credit bill

Link

Your opinion doesn't make it so. Present a SINGLE case where the Right supports a pro environment cause or provide your retraction please. Sorry, no dancing around facts allowed.

Originally posted by whatukno
The basic idea of libertarianism is very nice, but when you really look into it, you find out that libertarians want a corporate oligarchy. The problem with a corporate state is that corporations only care about their own best interests rather than the best interests of the people of the United States. See, if corporations actually cared about this country they wouldn't ship our jobs overseas.

Now some aspects of libertarianism is appealing, I do believe that corporate taxes should be lowered, I believe in more personal responsibility, however I don't think that commerce should be completely deregulated, I don't think that everything in the United States should be privatized either.

Incorrect.

Corporations are created by the State. without the interference of Government, there could be no such thing as a corporate entity, nor could there be any government favoritism of such an entity.

Don't confuse government collusion with corporations for capitalism, they are diametric opposites.

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The conservative platform - necessary regulations on environmental pollution are fine.....

Now THAT is a blatant falsehood. A stark mischaracterization of fact. Republicans are anti-environment period.

Your opinion doesn't make it so. Present a SINGLE case where the Right supports a pro environment cause or provide your retraction please. Sorry, no dancing around facts allowed.

edit on 15-2-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)

This is outright lie.

Government sponsers pollution of the environment. In fact, it's the government that says "yeah sure, it's OK if Corporations dump "x" amount of Mercury into our drinking water, so long as it doesn't exceed "y" amount."

So when you go insane from eating fish laden with toxins, and your kids develop disabilities because of it, there is no re-course for you. Why? Because Government Regulations made it legal for them to do it. Your case would be thrown out in a heartbeat.

Absent regulations, you could easily team up with your neighbors, sue the crap out of a company that pulled something like that. Bankrupt them, causing the company to break up, and the buyer would be force to figure out a cleaner way of doing business or suffer the same fate.

What stops them now?

Nothing.

Originally posted by aravoth


Absent regulations, you could easily team up with your neighbors, sue the crap out of a company that pulled something like that. Bankrupt them, causing the company to break up, and the buyer would be force to figure out a cleaner way of doing business or suffer the same fate.

Illustrates my point

Friend, in this modern age it is hard to get people to answer emails in a timely fashion. Your solution might work in a world that consisted of people who lived of off asset driven wealth (which would give them them the time to do such a thing) - but the simple reality is most neighborhoods are locked into taking care of their survival, one by one. So in this, I think you do not have a VIABLE solution...

Second, the market is so big that even if 9.9 million people 99% of the population in my locale protested by refusing to shop, there would still be 100,000 people left to finance the business through commerce.

Third can you tell me where the pollution in your neighborhood comes from specifically?

Forth can you produce a reasonable measure of proof?

Fifth, do you have enough reserves to engage in years of protracted legal conflict???

I think many societal/industrial ills are spread by this very method - I think companies bank on it and I think they
depend on ideas like the ones you presented above because they are impotent and always at the ready.

Herein is the source of my madness - is it idealism on your behalf or ignorance to the concept of externalities in general?

en.wikipedia.org...

what stops you from being a millionaire? I mean that would be more plausible, statistically speaking in this modern world.

Post TEN stories here of people using your example in the last year.

anyone care to post ten links to newly minted millionaires this last year???

Originally posted by whatukno
...I do believe that corporate taxes should be lowered, I believe in more personal responsibility...

Impossible.

"Many" liberals and Democrats support higher corporate taxation and "many" promote the nanny state. So, being a liberal yourself, you have to also hold the same beliefs. After all, your opening post makes thinly veiled accusations that all conservatives support the same ideals, just because some do.

While the "All for one, and one for all" accusations make for good sound bites and rhetoric, many aren't buying it anymore.

Do I agree with some Republican and conservative ideals? Unequivocally! Does that automatically qualify me as an enemy of the people? No. That's just plain silly, because I am my own man and, as such, will not have identical beliefs to anyone.