PDA

View Full Version : The want or don't want conundrum



JDogger
09-20-2012, 08:51 PM
It seems we want the gov. to be involved in certain aspects of our private lives...for example abortion, birth control, healthcare, (medicare, medicaid, VA.), but to keep their noses out of other areas ie., banking, business regulation, environmental concerns, etc.

It seems to me that gov. intrusion into the private sector depends on what and how they're are doing it, and how it effects you and your particular political philosophy.

Some do not want, the gov. to be involved in aspects of our private lives, for example on income or taxes paid, healthcare, banking, the environment etc.

The reality is that the gov. has been allowed,(by us) intrusion into every aspect of our private lives.

Both parties, R and D focus on this.

In the coming election I intend to side with Franco and many other Libertarians and vote for GJ.

I do not believe that he will win, but it is time to start a different direction, which starts with a small step. R's and D's no longer serve us.

In the future, .....well I wish us all a future. JD

JDogger
09-20-2012, 09:01 PM
Sorry, please move to PP JD

Ken Bora
09-20-2012, 09:02 PM
this should be in POTUS man!!!! what the heck?

Ken Bora
09-20-2012, 09:03 PM
its your thread. hit the edit button, click delete and do it over over there

JDogger
09-20-2012, 09:17 PM
its your thread. hit the edit button, click delete and do it over over there
I tried. It only seemed to half work.

I got the flu...gimme a break,,JD

shawninthesticks
09-20-2012, 09:20 PM
Yes it should be under POTUS ,
But yet we have a 13 page college football thread going ,and thats ok?
Maybe we should create a fantasy league in our US government and bet on it and talk about that around the water cooler at work !
We are competing in the wrong sport.

Ken Bora
09-20-2012, 09:21 PM
I'm tellin ya, the OP of any thread can delete the thread. just like I told captinjack the other day. he did it so can you.

JDogger
09-20-2012, 09:23 PM
I'm tellin ya, the OP of any thread can delete the thread. just like I told captinjack the other day. he did it so can you.

Moved now Unca Ken...Happy? JD

Ken Bora
09-20-2012, 09:31 PM
Moved now Unca Ken...Happy? JD

no, my big toe hurts and I'm a little gassy

Dixiedog78
09-20-2012, 09:34 PM
I do not believe Romney is the solution to all our problems but I do know for a fact that if the currect president gets reelected, we as a nation, will face some of the darkest most challenging days that this counrty has ever seen.......JMHO

shawninthesticks
09-20-2012, 09:41 PM
I do not believe Romney is the solution to all our problems but I do know for a fact that if the currect president gets reelected, we as a nation, will face some of the darkest most challenging days that this counrty has ever seen.......JMHO

I'm with you .

charly_t
09-20-2012, 09:42 PM
I do not believe Romney is the solution to all our problems but I do know for a fact that if the currect president gets reelected, we as a nation, will face some of the darkest most challenging days that this counrty has ever seen.......JMHO

Ditto ! We have no options this time as far as I am concerned.

HPL
09-20-2012, 09:49 PM
It seems we want the gov. to be involved in certain aspects of our private lives...for example abortion, birth control, healthcare, (medicare, medicaid, VA.), but to keep their noses out of other areas ie., banking, business regulation, environmental concerns, etc.

It seems to me that gov. intrusion into the private sector depends on what and how they're are doing it, and how it effects you and your particular political philosophy.

Some do not want, the gov. to be involved in aspects of our private lives, for example on income or taxes paid, healthcare, banking, the environment etc.

The reality is that the gov. has been allowed,(by us) intrusion into every aspect of our private lives.

Both parties, R and D focus on this.

In the coming election I intend to side with Franco and many other Libertarians and vote for GJ.

I do not believe that he will win, but it is time to start a different direction, which starts with a small step. R's and D's no longer serve us.

In the future, .....well I wish us all a future. JD

Well, JD, whereas I think you have a point in the general thesis of your post, I believe that your chosen course of action is somewhat misguided. I would posit that the best course of action would be to fight very hard during the preliminary part of the electoral process to either make a third party viable, or to attempt to get a more suitable candidate nominated in one of the major parties. Donate time and money to the cause, etc. If you can't get them on the presidential ticket, work hard to get candidates from that 3rd party elected to the congress or senate. However, if you live in a state that is in play, and you feel that one of the major candidates is better (or for that matter worse) for the country (not the absolute best candidate possible, just better) you should vote for one of the candidates that could actually win (unless of course it is Obama ;-0) ) Sorry, this position may not be worded as elegantly I would have liked. May try to flesh it out a bit later.

HPL

JDogger
09-20-2012, 09:50 PM
I do not believe Romney is the solution to all our problems but I do know for a fact that if the currect president gets reelected, we as a nation, will face some of the darkest most challenging days that this counrty has ever seen.......JMHO

Sorry about the gout flare-up Ken.

Dixiedog78... please elaborate on the "darkest days". I am interested in your opinions and since as I indicated to Ken, I am at home suffering the flu I have some unreservered time to play on PP. Your responces are welcomed, and I like to "play".
The water is fine, come on in. JD

M&K's Retrievers
09-20-2012, 09:57 PM
no, my big toe hurts and I'm a little gassy

50 Mg Indomethacin for the toe. You are on your own for the gas. ;-)

Ken Bora
09-20-2012, 09:57 PM
Sorry about the gout flare-up Ken.



old lawn mower injury, like the feeling of a knuckle that needs to be cracked, but will not? it is most annoying. flu ay? no shot?

JDogger
09-20-2012, 10:20 PM
old lawn mower injury, like the feeling of a knuckle that needs to be cracked, but will not? it is most annoying. flu ay? no shot?
I have an appointment with croaker in a few weeks for the annual. Shot then. He hates when I call him that. JD

Gerry Clinchy
09-20-2012, 10:41 PM
JD, does anyone remember what Ross Perot espoused when he ran as a 3rd party candidate. He was probably the only 3rd party candidate since TR that looked like he had a shot. What lasting legacy has any 3rd party candidate really left?

Even RP has made most of his impact by being a thorn in the side of one of the major parties. I like a lot of what Libertarians stand for. Although I do actually wonder if one ever became POTUS would they be "just another politician" ...

In the end, on Nov. 7 if I woke up to find that the # of votes that went Libertarian were just about the # of votes that were enough to give Obama the "flexibility" he'd have so he could cozy up to Putin, I'd be kicking myself around the block.

charly_t
09-21-2012, 01:08 AM
JD, does anyone remember what Ross Perot espoused when he ran as a 3rd party candidate. He was probably the only 3rd party candidate since TR that looked like he had a shot. What lasting legacy has any 3rd party candidate really left?

Even RP has made most of his impact by being a thorn in the side of one of the major parties. I like a lot of what Libertarians stand for. Although I do actually wonder if one ever became POTUS would they be "just another politician" ...

In the end, on Nov. 7 if I woke up to find that the # of votes that went Libertarian were just about the # of votes that were enough to give Obama the "flexibility" he'd have so he could cozy up to Putin, I'd be kicking myself around the block.

If I remember correctly Ross Perot was telling us that the country needed to be run more like a busines. UB will remember. Hope to see his answer soon. I thought that Ross sounded good and I voted for him.

Franco
09-21-2012, 06:38 AM
1) I don't want the government in any aspect of my life; not healthcare, abortion, birth control or Social Security. The government should be restricted to its original design which is protecting The Constitution, defending our soil and providing the infastructure for commerce. If they did, we would be paying zero income tax and our Free Market economy would be the envy of the world.

2) Obama or Romney, we all lose! Both are owned by special interest.

3) We will have a third Party President in 2016. That's beacuse no matter Obama or Romney, our national Deficit will be upwards of 22 TRILLION by 2015, the dollar won't buy much and that will make the productive among us look for an alternative. Rand Paul is a Libertarian working within the Republican Party and a very strict Constitutionalist. Right now, the two party system is the only way of getting any media attention. Gary Johnson is being shut out of the debates! I woud suggest anyone that is interested to read Rand's new book, "Government Bullies". The Forward of the book is written by his father.

menmon
09-21-2012, 11:31 AM
I do not believe Romney is the solution to all our problems but I do know for a fact that if the currect president gets reelected, we as a nation, will face some of the darkest most challenging days that this counrty has ever seen.......JMHO

Better hunker down then because Romney is not going to win!

road kill
09-21-2012, 11:57 AM
JD, does anyone remember what Ross Perot espoused when he ran as a 3rd party candidate. He was probably the only 3rd party candidate since TR that looked like he had a shot. What lasting legacy has any 3rd party candidate really left?

Even RP has made most of his impact by being a thorn in the side of one of the major parties. I like a lot of what Libertarians stand for. Although I do actually wonder if one ever became POTUS would they be "just another politician" ...

In the end, on Nov. 7 if I woke up to find that the # of votes that went Libertarian were just about the # of votes that were enough to give Obama the "flexibility" he'd have so he could cozy up to Putin, I'd be kicking myself around the block.

I do, I beleive his philosophy was;

"....just pop the hood and tinker a ltlle bit!"

"....this is not about me!!!":D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xT8jS3Y1aQ

Uncle Bill
09-21-2012, 03:45 PM
I do, I beleive his philosophy was;

"....just pop the hood and tinker a ltlle bit!"

"....this is not about me!!!":D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xT8jS3Y1aQ


The little "Handgrenade with a bad haircut" only ran as an antagonist to the elder Bush, which he, if not hated, disliked enough to spend millions on his campaign, not necessarily to win, but to make sure Bush didn't win. Subsequently, we got 4 years of the biggest, if not lier for sure the Prevaricator in Chief. So Perot won...at least in his eyes, because he succeeded in accomplishing what he wanted.

Unlike what the curent crop of 3rd party believers think they will accomplish. They are so angry that NOBODY sees through their prism, they are willing to throw the election to Obama, all the while trying to convince us they are NOT in his deceitful web. What a batch of total FOOLS.

UB

murral stark
09-21-2012, 04:57 PM
Romney's best chances would be if he would just shut up. He doesn't convey his thoughts very clearly. People can and have interpreted what he has been saying as an elitist that doesn't care about anybody but the upper crust of people. I have given him the benefit of the doubt and realize that what he says is not actually what he means. I do believe he means well and has good intentions. Maybe he should have somebody write his speeches and use a teleprompter. LOL

BonMallari
09-21-2012, 05:12 PM
Romney's best chances would be if he would just shut up. He doesn't convey his thoughts very clearly. People can and have interpreted what he has been saying as an elitist that doesn't care about anybody but the upper crust of people. I have given him the benefit of the doubt and realize that what he says is not actually what he means. I do believe he means well and has good intentions. Maybe he should have somebody write his speeches and use a teleprompter. LOL


Pot meet kettle

murral stark
09-21-2012, 05:25 PM
Pot meet kettle

Not really stirring the pot on this one. I actually believe he has good intentions. I just don't think he conveys his message very well with comments about the "47%" and something else about latinos. I am not sure what that was, but again, I think it was misinterpreted. I really don't think he is going to win either. I've been wrong before though.

Uncle Bill
09-21-2012, 05:34 PM
Romney's best chances would be if he would just shut up. He doesn't convey his thoughts very clearly. People can and have interpreted what he has been saying as an elitist that doesn't care about anybody but the upper crust of people. I have given him the benefit of the doubt and realize that what he says is not actually what he means. I do believe he means well and has good intentions. Maybe he should have somebody write his speeches and use a teleprompter. LOL


As 'cheeseheads' go, your as big into class envy as anyone I have heard of. What union do you belong to?

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Ever consider having somebody else write your posts?

From another Wisconsinite, a slightly different interpretation of what Romney had to say.

UB

Paul Ryan: “Under The Obama Economy, Government Dependency Is Up”http://sayanythingblog.com/files/2012/09/paulryan-300x192.png








Written By:
Rob Port (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/author/admin/)
Sep 19, 2012



While admitting that his running mate Mitt Romney was “obviously inarticulate” in talking about the 47% of voters who don’t have an income tax burden, Vice President candidate Paul Ryan points to the larger issue. Under Obama, we have fewer Americans who are self-sufficient and more Americans who are dependent on the government.

Via NBC (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/19/13962907-ryan-romney-comments-obviously-inarticulate-but-point-still-stands?lite):

“He was obviously inarticulate in making this point,” Ryan said in an interview with KRNV. “The point we’re trying to make here is under the Obama economy, government dependency is up and economic stagnation is up, and what we’re trying to achieve is getting people off of government dependency and back to a job that pays well and gets them onto a path of prosperity.” …

Asked if Romney regrets what he said, Ryan responded: “Oh, I think he would have said it differently, that’s for sure, but the point still stands. We have too many people becoming too dependent upon government because of the poor economic policies of the Obama administration.”

I don’t know how you argue with this. Is there anyone out there who will (publicly, anyway) defend higher levels of government dependence as a positive trend? Cutting through all the nonsense about Romney being a rich, out-of-touch plutocrat, under Obama what we have is fewer people working, and more people depending on the government.

That’s Obama’s record, and it needs to change.

murral stark
09-21-2012, 05:59 PM
Bill,
I have told you in private messages and on here about 2 things that you keep repeating. One, I am a transplant from SD to WI. Secondly, I don't belong to a union, I actually work in management. I have stated it before and I will state it again. I was looked down upon growing up by the "more fortunate" kids in my town. My family was not part of the country club crowd, we were just hard working people trying to stay afloat. Never took any govt handouts either. We made due with what we had. I was ridiculed because I wore hand me down clothes and didn't live in a fancy house. I would like to see some of those snooty bastages have to live and grow up the way I did. They would have a different attitude. People talk about entitlement mentality that runs rampant in the Democrat party. what about the rich kids that think they are entitled to the job in the corner office because that's where daddy works, not because they are qualified, but because daddy is the big man on campus. I do not have class envy, I have rich people that think they are better than others because of who their daddy is and how much money daddy makes "Disgust". It appears to me that you were one of those more fortunate kids growing up that looked down their nose at people like me. You continue to look down your nose at people like me. Maybe I am reading you wrong though.

Uncle Bill
09-21-2012, 06:49 PM
Bill,
I have told you in private messages and on here about 2 things that you keep repeating. One, I am a transplant from SD to WI. Secondly, I don't belong to a union, I actually work in management. I have stated it before and I will state it again. I was looked down upon growing up by the "more fortunate" kids in my town. My family was not part of the country club crowd, we were just hard working people trying to stay afloat. Never took any govt handouts either. We made due with what we had. I was ridiculed because I wore hand me down clothes and didn't live in a fancy house. I would like to see some of those snooty bastages have to live and grow up the way I did. They would have a different attitude. People talk about entitlement mentality that runs rampant in the Democrat party. what about the rich kids that think they are entitled to the job in the corner office because that's where daddy works, not because they are qualified, but because daddy is the big man on campus. I do not have class envy, I have rich people that think they are better than others because of who their daddy is and how much money daddy makes disgust. It appears to me that you were one of those more fortunate kids growing up that looked down their nose at people like me. that's just the impression I get. I might be reading you totally wrong.

You 'might' be. Here's only one example I'll share. I went to my first year of college at Jamestown, ND. It cost me 949.00 total, from shoe polish to hair oil, all paid for by cream money made from my share of milking 13 cows every day, mornings before school, and after getting home from school and sports practice, many times as late as 7 PM at night.

I couldn't, however, have had it as bad as you did. Going through life as you are must be pure misery. You have my sympathies.

UB


PS This will be my final post answering you, or commenting on anything you have to say. We both know all we need to about each others views, so no need to continue.

JDogger
09-21-2012, 08:16 PM
You 'might' be. Here's only one example I'll share. I went to my first year of college at Jamestown, ND. It cost me 949.00 total, from shoe polish to hair oil, all paid for by cream money made from my share of milking 13 cows every day, mornings before school, and after getting home from school and sports practice, many times as late as 7 PM at night.

I couldn't, however, have had it as bad as you did. Going through life as you are must be pure misery. You have my sympathies.

UB


PS This will be my final post answering you, or commenting on anything you have to say. We both know all we need to about each others views, so no need to continue.

...and Murral, this is the return to the America that Bill and his ilk want to foist upon us. Walking to school, our shoes re-enforced with cardboard, a potato for dinner (shared). On Sat. we go to town, buy some staples and a penny candy...
Oh yes. We want to return to the America we recognize. :rolleyes:

Well, Bill, I can tell you. I don't recognize the America of my youth either, and it started with the the Messiah Reagan.

The republican party has been responsible for almost every woe we have today. ...and no, I'll not cite chapter and verse.

I've not 100% decided to cast a vote for GJ, but I can assure you that if I did, it would not take a single vote away from the smarmy ticket that the R's present.

I know that nothing I post here will change any minds. You and Mike and those like-minded have set their sails and plotted their course. I wish you happy sailing. As I indicated in Ken's poll, I believe Romney will win. $ counts. Plus you have the SCOTUS on your side.

On a side note Murral, Bill has said that he will ignore you. Don't count on it. He also said in a previous post that he would not make personnal attacks. He seems unable or unwillinng.

Secular progessive, SFN, syncophantic, toady regards, JDoggerrrr.

Please don't light the spelling police as your only responce

murral stark
09-21-2012, 08:38 PM
I don't think he will ignore me. I am too easy of a target for him to call a "FOOL' because I am not a staunch republican such as himself. I too have seen most of the problems of this country created by republicans starting with Reagan. I just really want to know when the money is going to "trickle down" and when are the "job creators" going to create the jobs? I have read on here that it is Obama's fault that the jobs aren't being created. The so called "job creators" aren't doing it. Obama, nor any other president, regardless of party, can make companies hire people. That is up to the "job creators" to do. When they are good and ready, they will create jobs, and it doesn't matter who is in the white house. For anybody that is interested, my company is hiring every day. Pretty good starting wage too. $11 to start going up to $13. The thing that puzzles me is, with all of the jobs that we have open, we can't get anybody to come to work for us. I have Republican and Democrat friends that are unemployed, and I offered to get them a job. They told me no way would they do what I do for a living. They would rather milk out their unemployment and do nothing instead of work in a production job.

menmon
09-22-2012, 08:28 AM
As 'cheeseheads' go, your as big into class envy as anyone I have heard of. What union do you belong to?

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Ever consider having somebody else write your posts?

From another Wisconsinite, a slightly different interpretation of what Romney had to say.

UB

Paul Ryan: “Under The Obama Economy, Government Dependency Is Up”http://sayanythingblog.com/files/2012/09/paulryan-300x192.png








Written By:
Rob Port (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/author/admin/)
Sep 19, 2012



While admitting that his running mate Mitt Romney was “obviously inarticulate” in talking about the 47% of voters who don’t have an income tax burden, Vice President candidate Paul Ryan points to the larger issue. Under Obama, we have fewer Americans who are self-sufficient and more Americans who are dependent on the government.

Via NBC (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/19/13962907-ryan-romney-comments-obviously-inarticulate-but-point-still-stands?lite):

“He was obviously inarticulate in making this point,” Ryan said in an interview with KRNV. “The point we’re trying to make here is under the Obama economy, government dependency is up and economic stagnation is up, and what we’re trying to achieve is getting people off of government dependency and back to a job that pays well and gets them onto a path of prosperity.” …

Asked if Romney regrets what he said, Ryan responded: “Oh, I think he would have said it differently, that’s for sure, but the point still stands. We have too many people becoming too dependent upon government because of the poor economic policies of the Obama administration.”

I don’t know how you argue with this. Is there anyone out there who will (publicly, anyway) defend higher levels of government dependence as a positive trend? Cutting through all the nonsense about Romney being a rich, out-of-touch plutocrat, under Obama what we have is fewer people working, and more people depending on the government.

That’s Obama’s record, and it needs to change.

You act as belonging to a union is a bad thing. Most folks are proud of their brotherhood of workers!

HPL
09-22-2012, 11:03 AM
You act as belonging to a union is a bad thing. Most folks are proud of their brotherhood of workers!

You mean most "union members". I don't think most folks in the US are proud of other people's membership in unions. Personally I know of friendships broken when someone joined a union and, whereas, unions may have had a place at one time, and may even have a purpose now, they are way too powerful and have been demonstrably corrupt, even having had close ties to organized crime.

menmon
09-22-2012, 12:43 PM
You mean most "union members". I don't think most folks in the US are proud of other people's membership in unions. Personally I know of friendships broken when someone joined a union and, whereas, unions may have had a place at one time, and may even have a purpose now, they are way too powerful and have been demonstrably corrupt, even having had close ties to organized crime.

If there was ever a need for unions there is now. Unions are not corrupt and their power has been limited much by government. They do have lots of members money, but that is better than trusting the company with it.

starjack
09-22-2012, 01:02 PM
if there was ever a need for unions there is now. unions are not corrupt and their power has been limited much by government. They do have lots of members money, but that is better than trusting the company with it.ha ha ha ha ha teamster regards

BonMallari
09-22-2012, 01:10 PM
If there was ever a need for unions there is now. Unions are not corrupt and their power has been limited much by government. They do have lots of members money, but that is better than trusting the company with it.

Are you a member of a union ? because you have no idea what you are talking about...I am a member of Culinary #226, which is an affiliate of the infamous SEIU...

menmon
09-22-2012, 01:19 PM
Watch too many movies

menmon
09-22-2012, 01:21 PM
Are you a member of a union ? because you have no idea what you are talking about...I am a member of Culinary #226, which is an affiliate of the infamous SEIU...

My dad was a Business Manager and when he retired was the International VP for the 7 district of the IBEW (electricians). If anyone knows how unions work I think I'm qualified.

charly_t
09-22-2012, 01:26 PM
Are you a member of a union ? because you have no idea what you are talking about...I am a member of Culinary #226, which is an affiliate of the infamous SEIU...

Bon, you're feeding a troll, vbeg.

Pete
09-23-2012, 01:37 PM
Well, JD, whereas I think you have a point in the general thesis of your post, I believe that your chosen course of action is somewhat misguided. I would posit that the best course of action would be to fight very hard during the preliminary part of the electoral process to either make a third party viable, or to attempt to get a more suitable candidate nominated in one of the major parties. Donate time and money to the cause, etc. If you can't get them on the presidential ticket, work hard to get candidates from that 3rd party elected to the congress or senate. However, if you live in a state that is in play, and you feel that one of the major candidates is better (or for that matter worse) for the country (not the absolute best candidate possible, just better) you should vote for one of the candidates that could actually win (unless of course it is Obama ;-0) ) Sorry, this position may not be worded as elegantly I would have liked. May try to flesh it out a bit later.

HPL

That is an impossible thing to do for someone who is principled. Most people sit around and strategize and will find compromise even to the point of weakening. Such as voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Some know that the only way things will change is to clean house and roll heads. What politician does anyone know who is capable of doing that. Not one. This nation is screwed and can only be fixed by people who are principled and are willing to go to war within the ranks to fix it. Unless that happens ,,its the same ole same ole,or worse.
Pete

murral stark
09-23-2012, 05:54 PM
You are preaching to the choir. Get all of them out and start fresh. Ban lobbyists and let the elected officials work for the good of the entire country. Not just the special interest groups that give them the most money. They are being paid by the taxpayers to do a job. Lobbyist money should be considered a conflict of interest. Just my opinion.