Individual Mandate Constitutional

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

A Gopper Paradise!

 

 

Retro, the GOP elite, the gang that run the party and Wall Street must piss themselves laughing at all the supportive noises made by poor conservatives — who actually believe that the Gopper elite really care about them and their values.

Since when did any politician really care about the values of their poor constituants. Do you really think Democrats would be giving their poor constituants handouts if they couldn't vote. At least poor republicans vote on principles rather than bribes. Furthermore, one of the fundamental values of those poor conservatives is personal responsibility. They don't want government help, they just want the freedom to prosper on their own merit. Poor liberals are, relatively speaking, bums.

[cal50]

Since when did any politician really care about the values of their poor constituants. Do you really think Democrats would be giving their poor constituants handouts if they couldn't vote. At least poor republicans vote on principles rather than bribes. Furthermore, one of the fundamental values of those poor conservatives is personal responsibility. They don't want government help, they just want the freedom to prosper on their own merit. Poor liberals are, relatively speaking, bums.

 

A Gopper Paradise!

 

 

Retro, the GOP elite, the gang that run the party and Wall Street must piss themselves laughing at all the supportive noises made by poor conservatives — who actually believe that the Gopper elite really care about them and their values.

 

 

 

Yes, liberals / democrats are far more compassionate people.

 

I think Joe Biden went all out & gave at least 1 1/2% to charity.

http://fwd4.me/15Tv

 

(Romney gave millions to charity & his church)

http://fwd4.me/15Tw

 

 

Some people actually work and do things in life instead of thinking about "who cares for them the most".

If you vote because someone panders to you then your pretty simple minded and it explains a lot.

[retro-man]

 

My faith doesn't lie with man's creation.

 

I'd rather die as free as possible, than live in a cage created by other men claiming to care.

 

I respect that rangerm.

[RangerM]

I respect that rangerm.

And I appreciate that, Retro.

 

It's possible for us to coexist and get along if we each are allowed to live our lives in the society we choose (and can agree to disagree).

 

But, even if I don't share many of the "blue-state" values, I've enjoyed visiting Washingtion State and wouldn't change it. It's very pretty there, and I never miss a chance to go to Frank's Diner (Spokane).

 

And you're certainly welcome to experience sweet tea and vinegar barbeque any time you like; even though you might eat it in a "red-state".

[retro-man]

Thanks RangerM. I may not be red state, but I'll do the red meat! Likewise, let me know if you're ever out here with a spare hour or two.

[napfirst]

And I appreciate that, Retro.

 

It's possible for us to coexist and get along if we each are allowed to live our lives in the society we choose (and can agree to disagree).

 

But, even if I don't share many of the "blue-state" values, I've enjoyed visiting Washingtion State and wouldn't change it. It's very pretty there, and I never miss a chance to go to Frank's Diner (Spokane).

 

And you're certainly welcome to experience sweet tea and vinegar barbeque any time you like; even though you might eat it in a "red-state".

Love to dine at The Pit, there in Raleigh...

[Mark B. Morrow]

Yes, liberals / democrats are far more compassionate people.

 

I think Joe Biden went all out & gave at least 1 1/2% to charity.

http://fwd4.me/15Tv

 

(Romney gave millions to charity & his church)

http://fwd4.me/15Tw

 

 

Some people actually work and do things in life instead of thinking about "who cares for them the most".

If you vote because someone panders to you then your pretty simple minded and it explains a lot.

 

The Romneys gave 14% of their income to charity while paying a 13% Fed tax rate

 

The Obamas gave 15% of their income while paying a 20% Fed tax rate.

[RangerM]

Why does the tax rate matter?

[cal50]

Why does the tax rate matter?

 

Because Romney paid less % ( capitol gain taxes and not income tax %) on his earning and Obama on face value paid a higher % of taxes but a far lesser dollar amount.

 

 

Wall St. Journal:

 

Mitt Romney's tax returns show he pays a relatively low tax rate and gives a relatively high percentage of his income to charity. President Barack Obama pays a far higher tax rate, but gives less.

[Edstock]

I don't know what's more offensive, your constant name-calling or your belief that "poor conservatives" must automatically support the elite as opposed to being able to think for themselves.

 

What's "constant name-calling"? The use of "Gopper"? It's the Republican Party, aka the GOP, so they're Goppers. It's a nice short word, easier to type than "Republican", and has no real pejorative attached to it.

 

BUT I can start to put LOTS of pejorative on it, and then it really will be your so-called "constant name-calling". I do pejorative, really, really well, BTW.

 

"your belief that "poor conservatives" must automatically support the elite" — my "belief"? Do you ever read the gopperspew that the Birthers and Baggers throw around? How they howl for tax cuts for the 1% and decry the ex-Mittcare now Obamacare as "socialist"?

 

The B&B's are firm believers in an America that never existed, but, like Goebbels' Big Lie techniques showed, reality is not necessary for politics.

 

"I don't know what's more offensive," — well as time goes on, I'm sure you'll finally reach a conclusion of some kind or other.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Because Romney paid less % ( capitol gain taxes and not income tax %) on his earning and Obama on face value paid a higher % of taxes but a far lesser dollar amount.

 

 

Wall St. Journal:

 

Mitt Romney's tax returns show he pays a relatively low tax rate and gives a relatively high percentage of his income to charity. President Barack Obama pays a far higher tax rate, but gives less.

 

Last time I checked 15% is higher than 14%. Tha Obamas gave more of their income while paying a higher tax rate.

[napfirst]

Last time I checked 15% is higher than 14%. Tha Obamas gave more of their income while paying a higher tax rate.

And you think this is good?.............really?

[fmccap]

Last time I checked 15% is higher than 14%. Tha Obamas gave more of their income while paying a higher tax rate.

Last time I checked 3 MILLION is higher than $450,000 in federal taxes. As far as charity 2.98 MILLION is higher than 245,000. The Romneys paid many more dollars.

[cal50]

Last time I checked 3 MILLION is higher than $450,000 in federal taxes. As far as charity 2.98 MILLION is higher than 245,000. The Romneys paid many more dollars.

 

 

.......and a big chunk of Obama's was his Nobel prize money he donated.

 

Its amazing if Obama, Oprah or any liberal donates $1 its a front page story of how compassionate they are.

A Romney, Bill Gates or any business type (republican?) gives hundreds of thousands or millions and its never enough.

[fmccap]

Here is an interesting comment I seen.

What do I need with a free education and a guaranteed job if I get free healthcare, housing, and food?

[CurtisH]

What's "constant name-calling"? The use of "Gopper"? It's the Republican Party, aka the GOP, so they're Goppers. It's a nice short word, easier to type than "Republican", and has no real pejorative attached to it.

 

BUT I can start to put LOTS of pejorative on it, and then it really will be your so-called "constant name-calling". I do pejorative, really, really well, BTW.

 

"your belief that "poor conservatives" must automatically support the elite" — my "belief"? Do you ever read the gopperspew that the Birthers and Baggers throw around? How they howl for tax cuts for the 1% and decry the ex-Mittcare now Obamacare as "socialist"?

 

The B&B's are firm believers in an America that never existed, but, like Goebbels' Big Lie techniques showed, reality is not necessary for politics.

 

"I don't know what's more offensive," — well as time goes on, I'm sure you'll finally reach a conclusion of some kind or other.

While defending your use a term like "Goppers", you use a term like "Baggers".

 

I have to agree with RangerM. It's offensive.

Edited July 15, 2012 by CurtisH

[RangerM]

What's "constant name-calling"? The use of "Gopper"? It's the Republican Party, aka the GOP, so they're Goppers. It's a nice short word, easier to type than "Republican", and has no real pejorative attached to it.

 

BUT I can start to put LOTS of pejorative on it, and then it really will be your so-called "constant name-calling". I do pejorative, really, really well, BTW.

A Google search of the term "Gopper" reveals it to be a term with nothing but derogatory intent. It is not generic.

 

You don't have to "start putting lots of pejorative on it" because you already are.

"your belief that "poor conservatives" must automatically support the elite" — my "belief"? Do you ever read the gopperspew that the Birthers and Baggers throw around? How they howl for tax cuts for the 1% and decry the ex-Mittcare now Obamacare as "socialist"?

Nobody howls for tax cuts for the 1%; and not favoring disproportionately distributed tax hikes is not the same thing.

 

Further, the use of "Gopper" is intent on defining those who don't favor those tax hikes on anyone as blind supporters of the [Gopper] elite.

The B&B's are firm believers in an America that never existed, but, like Goebbels' Big Lie techniques showed, reality is not necessary for politics.

 

"I don't know what's more offensive," — well as time goes on, I'm sure you'll finally reach a conclusion of some kind or other.

Gopper(spew), Baggers, and Nazis (as alluded to by your reference to Goebbels).

 

I suppose that's the language one uses in high-minded debate. Not.

[RangerM]

Because Romney paid less % ( capitol gain taxes and not income tax %) on his earning and Obama on face value paid a higher % of taxes but a far lesser dollar amount.

 

Wall St. Journal:

 

Mitt Romney's tax returns show he pays a relatively low tax rate and gives a relatively high percentage of his income to charity. President Barack Obama pays a far higher tax rate, but gives less.

Last time I checked 15% is higher than 14%. Tha Obamas gave more of their income while paying a higher tax rate.

 

Romney and Obama gave roughly the same % amount to charity, and (presumably) abided by the law when filing their taxes.

 

How does paying a higher tax rate (but fewer dollars), relate to charitable giving? Is Government a charity?

Edited July 15, 2012 by RangerM

[RangerM]

Thanks RangerM. I may not be red state, but I'll do the red meat! Likewise, let me know if you're ever out here with a spare hour or two.

You're on.

 

Now if I could ever get to Mark's area again, I could get some more Red Ribbon Cherry Supreme.

[fmccap]

The idea that people can afford to see the doctor and pay for the whole visit by themselves is nonsense. That is why we have the lousy situation where people us the emergency room as a routines visit. And the US system hasn't been the envy of the modern world for years. Would you envy a system that if you didn't have the right job, you could be bankrupted by your medical bills. That you could work hard and still be swallowed up by the system.

 

Why don't we ever go deeper into it than just saying "we need more government involvement"? How about finding the ROOT of the problem and going from there?

 

http://globaleconomi...y-in-price.html

 

Two of the biggest complaints...

The least government interference is in apparel and recreation. The most government interference in the free market is education and health care.

 

Seems to be telling of the root problem, maybe we should just start here and see where it takes us instead of diving in more when it's pretty obvious you can't swim.

Edited July 17, 2012 by fmccap

[xr7g428]

FMCCAP, It has been a pleasure to watch the development of your political beliefs. While there is much that I do not share, I respect your opinions. Please keep reading and most of all keep thinking.

 

When I was in college I wanted to fix everything for every one. I was a liberal. I saw anti establishment be subverted into anti THIS establishment. As I grew in business, I realized that society could only be fixed one person at a time. And that the individual was the only one who could really do the fixing. I became a Libertarian. As I grew older, I realized that some things are better done collectively: defense, interstate highways, electrical infrastructure, and so on. You could say that I started out thinking that the world was black and white, and I tied both, and the older I get the more I have come to appreciate the various shades of gray.

 

The people I worry about the most are those that are captured by an ideology and never grow. I think to do that you have to stop thinking.

[Imawhosure]

Mr Cap, XR said it perfectly. You could do so much, if only that person was a benign dictator, but it never works that way as we have seen throughout history. The only way to change things is to convince people BEFORE they go to the ballot box.

 

I am absolutely sure that throughout our countrys history, there have been times that better people for the Presidency have been passed over, and the person who was not the best won the primary, or even the Presidency. This is why our framers had the House, and Senate as equals...........along with basically saying that 2 of them could over ride 1 of them.

 

We all basically see the Presidency as the pinnacle of power; and it very well may be when talking about 1 person. But the truth is, it is only 1/3rd of the power in this country, and it has to negotiate with at least 1 of the other 2 branches to accomplish anything. Same goes for the other 2. Our framers were not stupid, and they did this on purpose. They knew that if things were going ok, nobody would get total control, and the minority could keep things moving slooooooowly. And if things were going badly? Well then you could vote the solution into all 3 branches and move quickly, it was just that simple.

 

What our framers never envisioned was how technology has made this process less than what it should be. (you would think it should be more, but sadly it is not) Money has allowed candidates to over power messaging, along with some people expecting to get something for nothing from politicians virtually pointing to......out in the open.........candidates buying votes before our very eyes with promises of taking from some, then transfering it to another.

 

I have consistently tried to convince people in the republican party that I am in contact with, that trying to convince citizens that don't even balance their checkbook that the countrys finances are in trouble is absolutely LUDICROUS. If they don't care that they are overdrawn, why would they care that the country is; especially when they have a soothsayer telling them that the end all, be all, is to raise taxes on people making more than them.......then neglecting to point out that it may fund the government for 8 to 30 days, and that's it. The whole ruse is about making these people feel good about themselves, not fixing the country so EVERYONE can prosper.

 

This is why it is imperitive that YOU choose wisely! You must ask yourself who will listen to your point of view, and will work together to mold a coalition to get as much of what both of you want.........Barack and the socialists, or Mitt and the republicans. Which one of these groups will be more inclined to be forced to spend money to keep their constituents happy? Which one is going to access the countrys resources to rid the country of dependence on the Middle East? Which one is going to give billions away to other countrys to supply us, making us dependant still?

 

It is all how you weigh it, and how you do that will dictate how you will play the future, how much input you have in the future, how much the future looks like you want it when you have no input, and most importantly........if the country goes broke before you even have a chance to try.

[fmccap]

It's all a big game.